These guys are pathetic. Makes me want to throw up.

her winks prompted a wiggle in his pants: that's why he's happy. BTW, Lowry felt it too ...

Had to laugh at Brooks today.

Just the other day he was actually making sense - but you get the impression he was throwing a lifeline as he realized McCain was a trainwreck.

Then he pulls today's column out of his hat. What a tool.
BTW - pretty clear he wrote most of it before the debate.

Now I'm no professional journalist, but do NYT columnist get to run their columns without copy editing? If not, when on earth did he write that in time to get it into the newspaper? Producing an item like that (shoddy as it is) in an hour or two, and then having it edited, typeset and sent to the printers seems a little unlikely. In fact, it almost seems like Mr. Brooks may have had a narrative in mind before the debate, and merely fleshed out an already written article with a few debate-specific details. Oh, but that couldn't be.

I was hyped for the debate and consumed all of it with gusto! Little did I know I'd be shitting verve all day.........

Interesting that Brookes would talk about the "hierarchy" of Republican needs as they watched the debate -- the first need being "political survival." I guess Republicans don't put country ahead of party, after all.

Of course they set the bar low, what else can they do?
One of the things that occurred to me as I was watching the debate is that if McCain/Plain repeat its "you are looking backwards, there you go again" nonsense when Obama/Biden are talking about the CURRENT administration (and McCain's documented support of it), then it should turned right back on them at every opportunity. That is, whenever Plain talks about what she's done in Wasilla, or as governor, or when McCain talks anything from his past. A simple, matter of fact restatement of Palin's words from last night would be a wonderful rebuttal. ( "Governor! You stated that you don't approve of talking about the past and looking backward. I am surprised, and frankly, probably most Americans are too, to hear you dredging up history and old stories after you so adamantly shared your distaste for discussing the past. We are looking ahead and telling Americans not only what this current administration and John McCain have been doing that has cost America, but also what about our plans to lead our country into a more prosperous future. But please continue with your version of the past. I think it is interesting that in the debate context you say one thing, that talking about the past is out of bounds, yet in this context you speak about the past with such alacrity. Most Americans don't like that you know, being told one thing in one context, and then being told something different in another context. But please, do continue.")

David Brooks: A sad example of how low one can sink in the desperate search for a rationale for believing what one really, really wants to. This man once had a brain, for God's sake. He once could appreciate Obama; now he's come down to admiring Sarah Palin.

It's disheartening and obvious that a columnist for one of our premiere newspapers doesn't understand, on a fundamental level, that the main reason Palin did well was because THERE WERE NO FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS, as Steve mentioned.

This isn't a minor point. This isn't even a major point. This is _the_ point. It's frustrating to see Brooks step closer to the line of reality, only to regress when a woman winks at him on TV.

Note to Brooks: Life always asks follow up questions, buddy. Come on, man. Step into the light.

Brooks must be on the payroll. What a friggin suck up. Brooks was ignored by these girls when he was in high school so he is trying just like he did back then.

Yes words came from her mouth and sometimes formed sentences -- well there were nouns & verbs they just had nothing to do with each other.

These people -- the Republicans -- are appealing to peoples worst resentments. Palin and McCain are dangerous demagogues of the worst kind. He with his hero story and grumpy grandfather image and her with the cheery smile and wink. They hide behind these stories and Brooks and others just fall for it.

Does anyone think she knows what is meant by an achilles heel?

Bob O'Reilly
Cambridge, MA

I hope Jim Lehrer and Mark Shields realize Brooks brings down their credibility, too.

I want to know just how loud Palin was yelling to make sure that "Can I call you Joe?" got picked up by the ambient mikes; I suspect hers and Biden's weren't on yet, since I didn't hear Biden's answer.

Oh, lord... Brooks is such a troll. Only someone who hadn't seen or read any excerpts from the actual debate could possibly believe his fanciful take. It's like Palin is the "special" candidate, and the Republicans think she deserves a medal for trying. Winking? Give me a break. What, are they going to panic in 2 weeks and shove her on stage sporting cleavage and a miniskirt? How vile. They're reducing women to vapid, winking, lying imbeciles and they call the Democrats sexist?

Last night, on PBS’ post-debate wrap, among other bullshit, Brooks claimed Palin had battled to a draw with Obama.

On the winking, Salon’s Joan Walsh says Palin was winking at her “shoutout� friends in Idaho. I expected her to lift her skirt before the debate was done.

And, Brooks most not have seen Krauthammer, of all people throwing in the towel.

If possible, Brooks is a bigger piece of shit than Lowry. In any case, they take their marching orders from the same people.

It could be, this turn around, the result of his old boss, Kristol, cornering him in the NYT op-ed columnists' washroom, and threatening him.

I really do hate them all.

Brooks is thinking Maslow, I'm thinking Pavlov.

Apparently, the only reason for the "can I call you Joe" was the silly, "say it ain't so" line. Really pathetic.

With a bemused smile and a never-ending flow of words...

Does Brooks know the definition of bemused?
Or is this whole piece reverse-inverse snark?

I thought "Pitchfork Pat" Buchanan was going to cream all over himself on MSNBC -- what a bunch of morons.

David Brooks is a whore. Period.

May I call you Joe? Because I have real zinger that I learned down there at debate camp, and I hope to use it later for the highlight reel?

(Later, during the debate) Say it ain't so, Joe. Wink.

I don't think Brooks is sucking up or whoring at all. He is explaining what (rightfully) worried Republicans saw.

From their point of view Palin delivered exactly what they needed for their own needs.

Mark at 3:57, although I agree completely with your premise, remember that there no longer are typesetting or printers in the equation. It's all bits and bytes, so the writers *and* their products are out in the ozone.

This whole thing about Republicans running against the Washington "Establishment" puzzles me. Who do they think this "Establishment" is anyway? Couldn't be the people who controled the WH for the past 8 years could it? Or maybe the people who ruled Congress with an iron fist from 1995 to 2007?

And they all run for office saying, "...government isn't the solution, government IS the problem." Why would anyone vote for someone to run an organization that they don't believe in? Brings me to mind of the old saying from the 1960s, "If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem." Democrats believe that government can be a positive force in people's lives, so things are more likely to work well under their management. Under the Republicans we just get a load of Brownies.

Does Brooks know the definition of bemused? koreyel

Good observation. He seems to know when he writes bemused by the idiocies of Washington later in the same sentence.

You know the right has simply become pathetic in it's swooning for Palin. Intellectual honesty begets being truthful with yourself regardless of your politics. David Brooks should go back to writing about Patio Man and all his other fake sociology and leave the pages of the NY Times to lesser charlatans.

I would not be surprised if many of these right-wing pundits had access to the Republican-supplied Palin talking points prior to the actual debate, and drafted these sad excuses for commentaries while it was going on.

It amazes me how all these pundits (as well as the corporate media) seem to all repeat the same tired scripted falsehood that she did well in the debate. She was terrible. And the American public watched as both her's and McCain's images were exposed by Biden for what they really are - images. And that MaCain and Palin are so far removed from the realities most Americans face today. Biden pointed out very clearly and frankly why these two should not be elected, and why he and Obama should. And he did so without appearing rude, weak, or mean.

Frankly I don't think it too much of an stretch to say this will be one of the points in history people will look back on as the moment the McCain campaign truly went downhill and eventually got defeated in the election by Obama and Biden.

With the country in the worst shape in decades and with multiple messes at once - the economy (ie, housing, credit, bailouts, and jobs), Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, our place in the world, crisis in our leadership, gas prices - well you get the idea - and the fact that the Republicans are in dissary in their own party and their candidates are a bust - are there signs that some
Republicans are ready to call it quits and let the democrats deal with an inherited mess and then stand back and get ready to swoop when it can't all be fixed in an instant?

I notice Brooks silently corrected Palin's opening greeting to Biden. She said "Can I call you Joe?" not "May I call you Joe?"

I always turn to everymen such as Brooks and Roger Simon to learn just what is going to appeal to Middle America. Okay, that's bull--when I read Brooks, Simon, or the Real Tool, Rich Lowry, I wonder if they can find Middle America on a freakin' map.

For the record, I live in central Illinois. I can see Middle America from here.

Ah c'mon -- yer selling ol' Brooksie short, guy! He's jus' wonnadaguyz from da nayberhood. Alovus guyz went to da Yooniversitee uh Chicagah, got jobs wi' Buckley, moved to da Big Appple 'n' wrote pithy stuff ferda Nashunal Revoo. Den we all moved intada Beltway 'n' appeeered on da teevee 'n' stuff. Jus' reglar guysss. Joe Sixpacks. 'N' whatevah. Allusguyz been connekted to da ol'nayberhood alllalang. Ju' like Brooksie. Good ol' Brooksie. Allusguyz know him. 'N' he knows us, too, betcher battam doller on dat.

What I don't get is why are so many political analysts saying the debate was "all about Palin"? (Check out CNN for more) That's just crazy. A debate isn't about one person, or the vice president, for that matter. It's for the VP hopeful to put their candidate on a shiny platform. I fail to see how a political debate was "all about Palin". The only debate that does concern only Palin is the debate as to whether or not she could be Miss Caribou Barbie.

Bemused smile? I thought she looked like a Hummer salesperson, trying to tell me that the beast got EXCELLENT gas mileage. Sheeyah, peddle that crap elsewhere, smarm-bot.

Note to Brooks: Couric asked follow-up questions. Ifill didn't.

Ding, ding, ding. Perfect, pithy, I love it. I plan to use it repeatedly!

Two things:

1. Mother of God, Brooks is considered a serious journalist? Murrow is spinning in his grave. (I wonder what someone like Sevareid would say.) I won't even _touch_ Rich Lowry.

2. The comments on this and other threads is priceless. I lurk to get some perspective--to learn a lot and laugh a lot. It's nice to know that there are so many smart and witty people out there.

Brooks writes just enough "independent" commentary to avoid the all-caps HACK label (eg KRISTOL).

But he's a hack because that is what he gets paid big money to be. Gotta keep el' Rushbo commenting on your commentary so the times can sell a few more papers.

Why does anyone read editorial pages? It's garbage.

so the party who hates government now also has it in for washington itself?

sarah palin has plans.

she is esther. her bible tells her so.

It's like Palin is the "special" candidate,[...] -- Limbaugh's diabetes, @16:07

"Special" as in "special ed"? Why, yes, I think you (and they) may be right about that.

Brooks pulled this nonsense out of his ass immediately after the debate while appearing with Mark Shields on the PBS coverage. I couldn't believe it after Brooks had previously cast such grave doubts about her qualifications to be VP. Mark Shields frankly didn't make much sense either. The PBS team of historians was much more critical in their analysis of Palin's performance.

You would think that any these columnists would shield themselves from such embarrassment by thoroughly reading and rereading the debate transcript before recording their thoughts.

My favorite snippet of Palin speak was when education became the topic and she said hello to the third graders her brother teaches. I flashed on the protocols of Price is Right. Next time she needs to wear a T-shirt that says "I heart McCain."

This afternoon, I heard Brooks on NPR, saying that yes, Palin did a decent job, but she didn't do anything to change the dynamic of the race, specifically nothing to change the combined impact of the financial crisis and McCain's erratic behavior. She reassured the base, but the movement was toward Obama before and it's still toward Obama.

He really does not appear to have noticed that the difference between the Couric interview and the debate was that Ifill didn't ask follow-up questions. I wanted to reach through the radio and shake him.

Somebody tell David Brooks and Rich Lowry that in order for Sarah Palin to become President when John McCain dies, McCain has to be elected first...

Under the republicans, public TV and radio has really taken a hard turn to the right. Shields is a pathetic counterpoint to Brooks, and agrees with half of what he says. His limp criticism of Palin is overly nuanced to the point of invisibility.

I couldn't believe it after Brooks had previously cast such grave doubts about her qualifications to be VP. Mark Shields frankly didn't make much sense either.

Yes, these two are tired not wired.
Abbot and Costello have fallen into irrelevance.
The death knell sounded for the 13th time the night McCain choose Air Caribou. The transcript of that night ought to be held up as evidence of their deaths. Both of them fall off the bridge to nowhere like a couple of blind goofs...

Here is the transcript: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec08/sbpalin_08-29.html

They make asses of themselves about 6 paragraphs in. The whole thing smells like someone set an outhouse on fire....

I never saw Bush as charming -- he seemed like a jerk. So does she. Imagine having dinner with one of these narcissistic twits.

He really does not appear to have noticed that the difference between the Couric interview and the debate was that Ifill didn't ask follow-up questions. I wanted to reach through the radio and shake him. Posted by: Lis

What I want to know is why NPR and PBS keep using him? He's a partisan hack and not a very clever one at that.

Brooks has been carrying water for Republican candidates for years. His John McCain bucket is sloshing over so he has to balance that by filling up the Palin bucket. His shallow flight of fancy commentary shows how little thought he puts into the seriousness of today's problems. I wish the NYT and PBS would dump him.

Brooks is a ridiculous man. The few times Palin left the T-ball format her handlers negotiated for the "debate", Palin got her details mixed up on the vice presidential "powers" discussion and some of the ground facts about Afghanistan, most of the balance of her dialog was measured in standard GOP talking points, a few Reaganesque idiocies, and the rote maverick babble.

What, did people expect her to drool herself or something? Look, McCain's conservative philosophy is neither complicated, nor hard to explain, nor particularly grounded in fact, logic or history. Sentence structure notwithstanding, Palin is as good a spokesperson as anyone.

Am I delusional or are Brooksie's perigeriatric mewlings eerily familiar of Broder's inanity? Are they on the same meds?

Also, re: larry birnbaum at 6:03 PM:
"I never saw Bush as charming -- he seemed like a jerk. So does she. Imagine having dinner with one of these narcissistic twits."

Spot on, larry. These are exactly, however, the qualities which make her a dream date for a passive submissive emotional midget like Brooks, and modern conservatives in general. 'Oooh, Mistress Sarah, fill me up with your oh-so-confident self.' Psychic cripples and emotional retards, one and all.

"She [Palin] ran not only against Washington, but the whole East Coast, just to be safe." -- Bobo Brooks I guess

When it's convenient Conservatives will say or do anything. When it's useful to bash "San Francisco values" to bash Nancy Pelosi they do it. When it's useful to bash "Massachussetts Liberal Values" they do it.

They have no consistent beliefs except to try and convince the electorate to vote for them, so they will get the power and then run amok.

Remember, Bush ran on two contradictory policies: to get Saddam Hussein if possible and to cut back on using the military internationally.

"Apparently, the only reason for the "can I call you Joe" was the silly, "say it ain't so" line. Really pathetic."
Posted by: Brian on October 3, 2008

There was another possibility. If Biden had said no then they could use it against him later with the audio they 'conveniently' had up high.

But, Joe Biden is a gentleman and got by the stupid Rovian Republican trick.

Really pathetic!

The conservative press and its (ewwwwwwww) star struck pundits are gearing up for a concerted effort to swift boat in unison future President Obama.
This is their last resort; untruths, distortions and base christian and racists hate mongering. They have no substance to offer, they have no economic solutions to offer, no change in foreign policy status to offer, in short they have only have screeching, desperate, and transparent lies to offer and the continuation of the Bush policies.
These GOP pundits have nothing to lose but their dignity, their credibility and their future careers; pretty much what all GOP congressman, Palin and McCain have already lost.
The cowardly pundit reporting is reactionary to the job security that they feel they must continue to ensure with such self defeating pandering.
Cowards aren't vague in their fear, their spoken and written spin reeks with predictability, and a sense of pathetic pathos.
The days of the GOP statesman died with age of lying ushered in by the master of liars, Ronald Reagan. It, like any other fads; has come to its fruition. America is the wiser for it and is not as easily fooled.
Swift away, all you pundits and campaigners; any and all lies you pursue have already been heard and rehashed in this day of the internet. Lies only ring true to the ignorant; we are all beyond these tactics, except for the receptive ears of your constiuency.