Sarah Palin = Fatal Cancer

You didn't hear it from me folks.

In early October, long time and well respected right-leaning op-ed columnist and television pundit David Brooks made the following statement during a lunch interview with fellow reporter Jeffery Goldberg. The Huffington Post loved it:

[Sarah Palin] represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party. When I first started in journalism, I worked at the National Review for Bill Buckley. And Buckley famously said he'd rather be ruled by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. But he didn't think those were the only two options. He thought it was important to have people on the conservative side who celebrated ideas, who celebrated learning. And his whole life was based on that, and that was also true for a lot of the other conservatives in the Reagan era. Reagan had an immense faith in the power of ideas. But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I'm afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices. I think President Bush has those prejudices.

Tuesday evening, I had the unique pleasure of hearing Brooks speak to a crowd of less than 150, as we happened to be fellow alumni of both the same summer camp and elementary school (which is funny in itself as we were two Jewish kids from New York and these institutions are both Episcopal). Mr. Brooks was asked to speak at a fund-raising event for the camp.

He was eloquent and charming, complementing Obama for what he called, an intelligence level superior to most of his colleagues -- all of his colleagues -- as well as an ability to connect personally with people, compared to the congress of dinosaurs and robots he had as peers. He offered anecdotes that would cause even the Reddest old ladies to ooh and aah at the manners and class of this young man.

And the other thing that does separate Obama from just a pure intellectual: he has tremendous powers of social perception. And this is why he's a politician, not an academic. A couple of years ago, I was writing columns attacking the Republican congress for spending too much money. And I throw in a few sentences attacking the Democrats to make myself feel better. And one morning I get an email from Obama saying, 'David, if you wanna attack us, fine, but you're only throwing in those sentences to make yourself feel better.' And it was a perfect description of what was going through my mind. And everybody who knows Obama all have these stories to tell about his capacity for social perception.

He was, of course, complimentary of McCain, who he obviously has great love and admiration for, but has grown deeply disappointed with in recent months. He described him as honorable and witty and loving and hyperactive, but was quick to discuss the many failures of his campaign, as well as a distaste for fellow GOP members who were perhaps, taking things a little too far. We have of course observed this attitude in other prominent moderate republicans lately, such as Colin Powell and Christopher Buckley (who's father,William F. Buckley founder of the conservative publication The National Review, Brooks credits with inspiring his own pathway towards the right, back when he was a young liberal from Downtown Manhattan...)

But what I found most admirable was his defence of Joe Biden, who's greatest fault, Brooks fairly pointed out, is his penchant for brutal honesty. I can see why some conservatives might consider this a fault, as Nixon more or less destroyed the ability to trust in the GOP (... and whatever trust Reagan restored was quickly diminished by the Bush Dynasty), and therefore honesty has not been a topic they have really focused on for the past 40 years. But recently a growing distaste for Washington as usual from the common folk, has seen Biden's blunt nature in a positive light. He, like Obama, represents a change, something very different then what we've had. And David Brooks is virtuous enough in his conservative shell to both observe this and document it openly.

His Sarah Palin rhetoric was not nearly as tough as it had been the night before, but there were about eight Episcopalian Reverends in the room, so I think generally the evening was a uniquely civil one. That said, he was not at all reserved about expressing his distaste for the choice, and while we all agree that she's a babe and may not be as dumb as people think she is (GWB style), there are too many other contributing factors that drive his displeasure with the nomination.

Now, here comes the point of the post. Brooks' main argument is that Sarah Palin is not ready to be President of the USA. I disagree with this assessment. I think Palin has about as much readiness as, lets say, former movie actor Ronald Reagan, or former Texas oil man and drunk driver, George W. No, it is not the inexperience that drives men like Brooks and Powell to disavow the choice, it is her pure evil that they despise. And, to put a slight twist on this, it gives me a greater fondness for a party I once completely rejected. Not all Republicans are the same, just as not all Democrats are the same. As I reject the image of a fundamentalist left wing Che Guevera poster, LSD inspired ranting lunatic, so do many of my conservative peers object to the idea that all Republicans are against Gay Marriage and Abortion, or disapprove of public education and social progress. What I don't understand is why they aren't more honest about their reasons?

So here is my question to you David Brooks: Why don't you tell it like it is? You don't like Sarah Palin because you are smart enough to see that she is crazy. You disagree with her fundamentally on many topics and you despise her ignorance and downright intolerance regarding people of other faiths and colors. You don't respect her lack of involvement on the issue regarding violence towards women, nor do you agree with her Global Warming stance. You have observed her failure as a mother and her dishonesty on the campaign, as well as her inherent lack of understanding of economics, labeling a fairly standard tax cut as socialist in nature. And we believe, though you would never admit to it in writing, that you think the current tax brackets have to be re-worked anyway. You believe our infrastructure and education systems are too important to ignore any longer. You don't believe we should teach our children Creationism or Abstinence. You think guns, and aerial wolf hunting, and caribou stew are less crucial right now than a sense of security in our leader's ability to understand the crisis we are in. You are willing to say, perhaps, that sometimes, in fact, America does make mistakes, and instead of pledging allegiance and black-listing unAmerican congressmen, the best policy would be to admit to the problem and try to amend it.

David, why wouldn't you own up to this? I think history will show, its the right move to make.