Here's where every card-carrying pundit who hopes to retain a shred of credibility after November 4 makes a mad dash to the lifeboats.  Don't y'all pull a hammy backpedaling now!

Offt-topic, but this has been bugging me all day:  Palin-phernalia instead of Sarah-phernalia?  Come on, it's a perfect rhyme!  Rhyming trumps alliteration.

Nice of Brooks to worry about Bush's anti-intellectualism *now*.  Some of us picked up on that when Bush sneered at Gore for using "fuzzy math" to point out that his tax cuts would lead to massive deficits.  How'd that work out?

Wow.  I guess Brooks and other conservatives have seen the polls and figure they can speak freely because McCain is toast anyway.  Of course, it's harsh language - but who can disagree?  The GOP can continue to be a party that embraces tax cuts for the rich, anti-intellectualism and fundamentalism for the Evangelical Taliban, and the bitterness of red state resentments.  But it won't be pretty, it ought not to win elections, and it will never be a governing strategy that will work for America.

Geez, first this guy creams in his pants in front of Jim Lehrer after the V. P. debate, then he says about Obama's explanation of Reinhold Neibuhr "... I was dazzled, I felt the tingle up my knee ."  Who's smitten now?

The most amazing thing is that the Palin's anti-intellectualism is exactly - almost to the word - mirrored by the anti-intellectualism of Ahmadinejad.  They also share the same attitude to creationism, Messianism and the Media.  Someone should to a side-by-side ...

"brooks" and "thoughtful discussion" in the same sentence? did you mistype "self-important bloviating"?

In the video it sounded as if an audience member was about to ask why in Hades McCain picked this person to be his running-mate.  I would have liked to hear that answer, after Brooks's kill-shot "cancer" line...

I've mostly stopped reading him.  I kept getting the impression he was watching himself too much, trying to gauge the impact, striking poses.  He's trying too hard, which may be why you can't get the sense of a "center" in his writing and thinking.  I don't expect a columnist to write to a formula -- that would be the opposite extreme (Kristoff and Herbert seem to do this) -- but I do expect evidence of a core philosophy that shapes his thinking.  Krugman's my model for that, but so was Safire in his day.  I see Brooks as perpetually trying to fit someone else's idea of what a columnist should be:  Buckley?  Safire?  Kristol?  The result:  despite the U of C education, it's not clear there's any there there.  The intellectual name-dropping can't conceal the lack of intellectual depth.  What looks like a more or less irenic effort to make links across the aisle may just be uncertainty about where he stands.

Good for Brooks, I'd like to commend him.  Any member of the Republican elite willing to say this stuff out loud and proud has my appreciation, regardless.  He's doing this country a service by calling a spade a spade.  Palin IS a cancer, by any definition, Democrat or Republican.  Anyone willing to do their part in vanquishing this disease deserves heartfelt support and from me, he has it.  

Welcome aboard Brooks, here's your oar, we'll gladly take your help in rowing this thing.

I wish there were such a thing as a terminal cancer for the Republican Party. Unfortunately, the illogic, cognitive dissonance, sophistry, and rank dishonesty of conservative pundits will help keep it alive long after all of us are gone.

David Brooks is himself a prime example - writing one thing in his columns, saying something else in this forum.

It's amazing what some of these right-wing pundits say when they aren't mouthing the daily talking points.  Peggy Noonan did something similar wherein her unguarded comments were the polar opposite of her column.  In addition to plutocrats, lobbyists, fundamentalists, and anti-intellectuals, modern Republicanism includes a set of staffers and thinkers who see the Republican party not as a vehicle for policy but a "Team of Winners."  It's not about any concrete policy goal; it's just about winning.  

well as I've overhead at many a Georgetown cocktail party... as David Brooks goes, so goes his impressionable cousin Merle.

Thank you for that insight, PRnoonan, I think that's it.

By the way, I"ve been noticing that you share the same last name and 1st initial as Peggy Noonan :-)

Please forgive my meandering (thought) prose.

Is the Republican party more in tune with the American ethos?  I think undoubtedly this is true.  However I also believe a great deal of the American ethos is steeped in mythology - most of which does not or at least no longer, rings true to experience.

As such I recall perusing an article by Brooks a few years ago in which he more or less demonstrated Americans are more inclined to think like Republicans in that they inherently believe their wealth will expand (somewhat exponentially) in short order.

Wherein I surmised while such belief may be psychologically valid, particularly amongst Americans - it did not of any factual necessity - occur.  Meaning, while the vast number of Americans believe they will be expansively more wealthy in due time -  and thus, according to Brooks, they naturally favored Republican tax dogma - afterall they would be joining the wealthy (or ranks therein) relatively quickly - in their minds eye.

I surmise such thinking to be largely intuitive amongst Americans, furthermore I deduce Americans are far more often than not susceptible to Republican propaganda which only serves to reinforce the intrinsic American ethos which at present conveniently masquerades as indigenous conservative (re: Republican) dogma.

Whereas the truth of the matter is far and away a different matter altogether.

It is no wonder the GOP more easily prevails in elections whilst the Democratic party must work overtime to eak out any victory.

I do think that the majority of Americans have been taught to think in line with the capitalist ideal.  Going back to the early 19th century, socialism was abhorred by those in power and preached to the regular folk.  Also, it is shocking, actually, to realize that the Indian wars ended in the latter half of the 19th century, not that long ago,  whereby settlers moved west to take the land.  Washington was not able to have much control and "rugged individualism" was the ideal.  The hostility to the federal government or "Washington"  is a core of many peoples' beliefs.  All problems are seen as caused by Washington, not by the corporate culture.  Now we have the awesome power of conservative media which, while it lambasts "liberal bias" has tremendous power as a propaganda tool.  It is imperative to bring back the 'fairness" doctrine or equal time or we will have the virtual dictatorship of the right wing extremists.  I am not against Republicans or capitalism but I am shocked at the propaganda machine ruling our country.  Essentially, the radio hosts are no more knowledgeable or educated than you or I but they can sit there day after day expounding their unsubstantiated views to a public too busy and/or reluctant to educate themselves.  It is scary.