Perhaps David Brooks -- Not Sarah Palin -- Should Step Aside

NOTE: I updated this today, Oct. 14, here.

A week ago there was a lot of chatter about whether Sarah Palin should step aside as John McCain's running mate. It's a little late for that, but now I wonder if the conservative who should stand down for the next few weeks is not Palin but New York Times columnist David Brooks. At least Palin tells us what she really feels. Brooks' dishonesty is frightening.

Last Friday for the Times, following the vice-presidential debate, Brooks wrote of Palin,

"She established debating parity with Joe Biden....By the end of the debate, most Republicans were not crouching behind the couch, but standing on it. The race has not been transformed, but few could have expected as vibrant and tactically clever a performance as the one Sarah Palin turned in Thursday night."

Forget, for the moment, this epic lapse of judgment -- every poll showed that viewers actually gave Biden an easy win. Flash forward three days later. Interviewed at a New York City event unveiling the new design for The Atlantic, Brooks suddenly admitted, speaking of Palin, that she was not "not even close" to being ready to be vice president. He also declared her a "fatal cancer" on the same party whose members, he'd declared, were standing on that couch after the debate. Shouldn't he have warned them?

It may or may not surprise you to learn that Brooks has not written a word about why the selection of someone "not even close" to be being qualified for vice president by a 72-year-old cancer survivor might disqualify John McCain from Brooks' consideration for his support.

Perhaps Brooks didn't think anyone was taking notes on Monday -- let alone shooting video of his damaging assessment (thank you, Huff Post's Rachel Sklar). But his blast at Palin had been buzzed about since Monday.

Now, it's true that Brooks in his Friday post-debate column did paint Palin as a bit of a rube who owed her success in the debate not to intellect (he has praised Obama on this count) but for appealing to all the "folks" out there -- and running not only against Washington but the entire East Coast. But nowhere in that column , or anywhere in print, has he shared with readers what appear to be his true feelings: that she is simply not qualified for the office, let alone the one above it.

He hinted at this in a September 16 column, which lamented her lack of "experience," but it closed with a knock on the "smug condescension that has so marked the reaction to the Palin nomination in the first place."

Even worse, what does it betray about his honesty and credibility - and those of other conservative pundits who have mocked Palin but refused to rule out McCain for president because of his monumental lack of wisdom and integrity in picking her (the most important political decision he has ever made)?

Brooks in his Monday talk underlined this when he commented, "The more I follow politicians, the more I think experience matters, the ability to have a template of things in your mind that you can refer to on the spot, because believe me, once in office there's no time to think or make decisions."

On September 25, Brooks wrote in his column that he was disappointed in the McCain campaign so far - but did not mention the Palin pick once. His complaint: McCain "has no central argument." Still he hailed the candidate as a "good judge of character," adding, "He is, above all -- and this is completely impossible to convey in the midst of a campaign -- a serious man prone to serious things."

Andrew Sullivan had it right when he commented that Brooks "does not apparently draw the obvious conclusion from this. The only non-negotiable criterion for the vice-presidency is an ability at a moment's notice to become the president, if the worst happens. Palin fails by that criterion. Fails....

"So McCain's first presidential level decision was not just a poor one. It was a disqualifying one. This was pass/fail. McCain failed. If you do not believe that Palin is qualified for the job McCain selected her for, then there are only two conclusions: either you cannot support McCain or you do not believe the presidency of the United States is a serious job. So which one is it, David? You have four weeks to let us know."

Actually, now, a little less than that.
*
Greg Mitchell is editor of Editor & Publisher. His ninth book, on Iraq and the media, is "So Wrong for So Long."

Comments

[bettermiami]

I don't understand the antipathy expressed by the author toward Brooks.

He is definitely one of the most thoughtful and intellectually honest conservative columnists.

With respect to the specific claim of inconsistency about Palin, I disagree. Why can not Brooks say that she did a good job in the debate (that is an opinion he is certainly entitled to, though I disagree), and still feel she is unqualified to be Vice President. He's written as much in his Times columns.

My question to you is, if you don't think David Brooks is a great conservative columnist, who is better? Or are you just not interested in listening to opinions that don't match yours.

There are a few names for people like that.

[NationalTreasure]

David Brooks is a typical conservative columnist. Mr. Brooks has exhibited the one defining character trait of conservatives and republicans. That trait is gross hypocrisy.

[auramac]

Sarah Palin should be banned from politics as well as the 15-minute list. If she appears on SNL, then that show will have lost its credibility, not exercised "objectivity."

Because, quite simply, Huckabee could've been dangerous, but he could also be funny. Sarah Palin is so dangerous she is not funny. Not funny at all.

Not even Nixon on Laugh-In gave me the same chills and nausea I get from her.

[Puller58]

Brooks is ripe for outing. Word is that he has a "wide stance." (Supports gay marriage. Not just civil unions.) For those who feel that it is wrong to out a closet case, remember that people like Brooks cause problems for everyone, and not just gays. He might be welcomed in the Log Cabin Republicans, but it should finish him as a serious conservative commentator.

[djwfutbol]

David Brooks writes an OP-ED column. His opinion, given in an editorial fashion. He is under no obligation to reveal his inner soul or even to maintain continuity over time. He can say the sky is blue one day and green the next. Whatever he wants.

I like to read his material, though I am usually in complete disagreement. For me the great tragedy of this campaign is that we do not have a competition of ideas to choose from. We have one set of ideas, tersely expressed and held close to the vest (Obama) and a slew of absurd distractions, the inverse of intelligent thought (McCain).

At least Brooks tries to express a reasoned argument, made doubly difficult by the antics of his candidate. I give Brooks a great deal of credit for perseverance.

[Fremon]

David Brooks feigns intellelectualism. He uotes a few passages from books and tries to have rational discussion as to why the Republicans have any rationale for being a successful party for the people of this country. In a sense he is like a Kristol and Brokaw who enjoy pontificating but really have no gravitas to offer except more of the same tired lines and commentary. Looking and sounding "seriously" intelligent has to have more than empty rhetoric. It has to have logic and thought based on reality and facts with serious analysis stemming from those criteria and not finding a way to see how it fits into their belief system.

[corkonian]

It is almost funny to see conservative 'intellectual' columnists try to fit support for Palin into a logical argument.

[dougiec]

I have to agree. This column seems to be more a mirror image of what you might find on Fox "News". Yeah, Brooks is a conservative, but he says what he thinks, not the party line. Considering the party and its tactics, he deserves a lot of respect.

[Brian Ross - Huffpost Blogger]

David Brooks reinforces the idea that you don't have to be uneducated to be ignorant. To make that mental leap of faith requires a slavish devotion to a life with blinders on.

[alpha2]

Brooks is one of the few conservatives who has been able to bring himself to be publicly honest about Palin's shortcomings and you want to call him dishonest?

He criticizes his party's ticket and you go after him for it?

This is the sort of column that gives credence to the impression that HuffPost is essentially hopelessly partisan.

As far as Andrew Sullivan goes, I don't know what to say about him. He lost his mind on Bill Maher and his columns of late give the impression that he has too much time on his hands. Take up pottery or something, Andrew. Anything to get you away from the computer for a bit each day.

[NotMcCain]

Palin's as phony and manipulative as they come. She's stirring up hatred toward Obama over things she knows are false.

David Brooks may be no good as well, but I cut Palin no slack. She's dangerous--and completely unqualified by intellect or temperament or understanding to lead the United States through two wars and an economic crisis.

Don't give her any credit. She doesn't deserve it.

[CeciliaBertrand]

I don't think David ever thought the Presidency of the US was a serious job. His revilement of Obama was obtuse and his worship of McCain was weird -- until recently when he "flipped!" Not sure which McCain gaffe he choked on- but - he changed his tune quickly --- maybe his publisher(s)???? Maybe his guest spots as analyst?

[fiftyseven]

I've wished for some time now that The Times would find someone else to represent the conservative view, if that's what he's there for. Most of the time I can't figure out what he's saying, his writing is so rambling and unfocused; it's like he's high or something. At least Kristol is up front about who he is. Brooks needs to find some other way of making a living, or go into retreat until he figures it out; at least until his spine is fully developed. Disagreement is no fun with an unworthy adversary.

[hhnews]

i too was shocked at his column the next day after hearing his critical cutting assessment on TV. I thought, well maybe he has to confine his personal opinion when the employer is outspoken. But that employer is the New York Times. And his more recent dissing of Sarah as not qualified either as VP or certainly as President. And we call McCain erratic?

[Moka11]

Show me an honest Republican and i'll show you a Democrat who is in denial.

[HeevenSteven]

Brooks doesn't get paid to show good judgment; he gets paid to keep his base happy. He's there for faux balance--to balance truth with conservative platitudes.

[Dap]

Dear Brother HeevenSteven,
That was both profound and eloquently expressed indeed. Agape.

[TrooAmerican]

Nice Article Mitchel

[TXpastafarian]

Out of this campaign, it's the Conservative commentators that are looking the worst. They're trying to be serious commentators while defending McCain and Palin. It's a no-win situation for them. Noonan, Brooks and all the others. Their credibility is down the tubes.