Hello Bloggers - I was just talking to somebody today about how I felt Sarah Palin represents bad news for the Republicans if they lose this election, and they pointed me to a piece on the Huffington Post where "conservative" columnist David Brooks of the New York Times is saying pretty much the same thing.
David Brooks is calling Sarah Palin a "fatal cancer to the Republican party." Funny, I was calling her a"broken compass," pointing the party in the wrong direction. Both are good in my opinion.
In an interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, Brooks decried Palin's anti-intellectualism and compared her to President Bush. I was telling my friend the same thing today. If this election goes south for them, I believe the Republicans will need to reject a lot of that "good-ole-boy" anti-intellectualism because it will be obvious that things are too complicated these days to elect simpletons.
Brooks went further to say:
"[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." Read the whole article here.
Brooks is predicting an Obama victory by nine points, and though he harshly calls Obama "a very mediocre senator," he says that he surrounds himself - by what Brooks calls - "the most impressive people in the Democratic party." Between you and me, what is it about Republicans and their love of teams? That's all we ever heard about when Bush ran both times; he's okay, but most important he surrounds himself with a good team. Look how that turned out - oh yea, and his team SUCKED!
Teams are important, but the individual who picks them is more important. I give Barack credit for his team. It's not by chance he runs a professional operation. I've always believed - since running a few companies - that the old Russian proverb "the fish rots from the head down" is very profound. The leader of any organization, or the person who direct all the layers of people hired beneath him, creates the "personality" and professionalism of the whole organization. So, to put it another way, Barack's team is good because Barack is good.
I'm glad to see that conservative columnists like George Will, David Brooks and others are seeing Obama for the good man that he is, and McCain for the not-so-good man that he has become. I hope the trend continues. Regarding Palin, I do hope the Republicans figure out that our country needs smart leadership. We've had enough of those who feel they govern from the gut and do God's work despite all arguments and urging not to.
Wednesday's Political Rant #1 - Michael