Why don't some conservative columnists write what they really think about Sarah Palin?

As somebody who gets paid to put his opinions in print every day, I’ve always thought columnists have one overarching duty to their readers and the profession:

Intellectual honesty.

Our goal is to channel our convictions, values and perspectives into compelling arguments, respecting facts and contrary views. Even when that means something you normally champion lands in your cross hairs.

Which is why I have found the story of conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks’ latest controversy so disappointing. Because, even though Brooks dislikes GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin enough that he told an audience in New York City she was a “fatal cancer” who is “not even close” to being ready for the job she’s seeking, he hasn’t yet outlined those observations in the biggest venue available to him: his newspaper column.

Even in his latest column chiding the GOP for turning its strategy against liberal intellectuals into an assault on all intellectuals, Brooks doesn't get around to criticizing Palin until the 14th paragraph of a 16-paragraph column.

"Nobody so relentlessly divides the world between the 'normal Joe Sixpack American' and the coastal elite," he says in his strongest line, after noting Palin is "smart, politically skilled, courageous and likable." That doesn't really compare to the "fatal cancer" line.

And Brooks isn’t the only conservative pundit tamping down disdain for Palin.

Back in September, when Palin was first selected, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan let her true feelings show when she thought the cameras were off after an appearance with GOP strategist Mike Murphy on MSNBC.

“I think they went for this –- excuse me -– political b---s--- about narratives,” she tells Murphy, noting later “It’s over.”

But what did she say after Palin’s debate performance Oct. 2 –- an appearance marked by the candidate’s early promise that she wouldn’t necessarily answer questions she didn’t like and a marked aversion to any response that wasn’t delivered as a finely crafted talking point?

“She killed,” Noonan said on NBC after the debate concluded. “It was her evening. She was the star. She had it at ‘Hey nice to meet you. Can I call you Joe?’”

Is this the same Noonan who wrote so presciently about the primaries and recently pleaded on Meet the Press for candidates not to descend into a mud-slinging hell?

Surprisingly, the American people have shown clearer judgment, with poll numbers indicating that, although people liked her style, opponent Joe Biden gave better answers.

  My question: Why are average voters better at piercing Palin’s hypocrisy than pundits who get paid to do so everyday?

Noonan and Brooks aren’t the sort of Sean Hannity-style, fire-breathing conservatives who line up at McCain rallies, angry and flabbergasted that a Democrat with a foreign-sounding name is slowly overcoming the GOP machine.

But they’re practicing a form of intellectual dishonesty common among this crowd -– which values winning above all, even when championing a candidate like McCain, who can’t necessarily be trusted to govern the way many conservatives would support, anyway.

I'm sure there are some who will call me on similar grounds, saying I've shown too much deference to Obama. But when he started giving the press the cold shoulder in the primaries, I criticized him for continuing a most unwelcome legacy from both the Clinton and Bush administrations. 

That’s why I was heartened to read a recent column by Wick Allison, former publisher of the National Review and editor of D magazine in Dallas; a conservative who says he now supports Obama because so many politicians claiming to be conservative have failed him.

It’s an argument I’ve made to many conservative friends: Liberals shouldn’t be the most upset with the way Bush/Rove-style Republicans have run this country into a ditch. That’s a job for true conservatives.

We have the largest expansion of government in history. The largest budget deficits in history. The most costly war in history.  And a presidential candidate who still wants to hand out tax cuts in the middle of all this red ink.

As Allison wrote: “This kind of conservatism, which is not conservative at all, has produced financial mismanagement, the waste of human lives, the loss of moral authority, and the wreckage of our economy that McCain now threatens to make worse.”

Now that’s intellectual honesty. And I think I’d say that regardless of which candidate Allison was supporting.

Wonder why Brooks and Noonan couldn’t manage something like that?

*

Comments

[beltwaybandit]

As mentioned above, like Republican congressman Mark Foley in 2006, his replacement, Democrat Tim Mahoney has been linked to paying off an ex-staffer to cover up an affair the two had.

Now, comes word that only hours after issuing a Clintonesque statement on the affair....

"Though Democratic U.S. Rep. Tim Mahoney did not directly mention allegations first reported by ABC News that he had been involved with the former aide, he issued a statement apologizing to his family but denying he'd done anything illegal."

...that Mahoney is involved in ANOTHER AFFAIR.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081015/ap_on_el_ho/mahoney_investigation

Much as they hate to admit it, Democrats and Republicans are far more alike than different.

Both stink and neither have the higher moral or ethical ground.

Those arguing otherwise are just partisan hacks...or ignorant.

[David]

Beltwaybandit,

I agree -- both sides take a "win at all cost" mentality, because to the victor goes the spoils. And unfortunately, where politics are concerned, the spoils come from you and I.

The article you provided the link to contains what may very well be the funniest line ever:

"The congressman – who promised to restore honor and morality in a district rocked by revelations of Foley’s inappropriate behavior toward House pages..."

Let me type this slow, so all of us can drink in (and drown in) the irony:

"The congressman promised to restore honor and morality..."

Priceless! I hate to shock the congressman, but you cannot restore what you do not possess.

My guess is that you are right, you won't see the liberal columnists writing about this story.....unless, of course, it fits their agenda.

[beltwaybandit]

The problem with partisan politics is that BOTH sides end up acting pretty much like the other until you can no longer tell them apart.

Strip away the rhetoric and the politcal positioning, and Obama looks remarkably more similar to McCain.

Both are pressing for office and both have large organizations that have proven time and again they will do virtually anything to win. (ask Hillary if you don't believe McCain's group).

Conversely, McCain and his camp have proven a willingness to use all weapons at their disposal to further their case.

I think the most interesting development this Fall has been the trials and tribulations of congressmen from Palm Beach County, Florida.

Turns out there is ANOTHER sex scandal from a congressman down there...this time, a Democrat.

Yes, the same district that gave us Mark Foley two years ago now has provided us with Tim Mahoney, a Democrat who apparently paid $120,000 to a former office worker to "shut her up" from going loud about sexual harassment.

Proving once again there is little fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to personal conduct and integrity.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081013/pl_politico/14534

I wonder if liberal columnists will write about that?

My guess is no...because they also are much more similar to their conservative columnist counterparts than they would like to admit.

[David]

As I noted above, there are certainly more skeletons in the closet.

To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "He's a politician, stupid!"

But the Obama sheeple will defend him to the end, not realizing that light at the end of the tunnel is, in reality, a train.

[America 2Day]

Touche.

Given the degree of anger (Bush Derangement Syndrome) out there, the Dems' should be more than five or six points ahead.

And they would be, if only they had come up with a candidate whose credentials amounted to being more than just the other guy.

Instead, the Dems' picked someone whose idea of "good judgment" boils down to political expediency, meaning that he's just like all of the other politicians who preceded him.

His "good judgment" and "integrity" on public financing? Swear that you support it, until it becomes expedient to alter that position so that you can receive maximum funding for your campaign ads.

His "good judgment" and "integrity" on NAFTA? This from Slate: "For the Canadians, a key point of concern was Obama's sharp criticism of the North American Free Trade Agreement. DeMora wrote Wilson that in the Chicago meeting, Goolsbee "candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign" but reassured Rioux that Obama's NAFTA-bashing "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans." Three weeks later, Canada's CTV News reported that a "senior member" of Obama's campaign had phoned Wilson personally to advise him to "not be worried about what Obama says about NAFTA." The Obama campaign denied that story, which (if you believe DeMora's account) was only slightly off the mark, and declined to elaborate."

His "good judgment" on Rev. Wright: Claim him as a spiritual adviser and close friend for decades, until he B.O. wakes up one day and realizes that Wright is a liability.

And plenty more where this came from ...

[David]

Re: "What i'm looking for is good judgment, strong ideas and enough integrity to avoid abandoning promises unless absolutely necessary."

And here is where the problem lies for a lot of people, myself included. Good judgment isn't proved by associating with Bill Ayers. Good judgment is not proved by sitting in Rev. Wright's church for 20 years, having him baptize your kids, and then 'renouncing' him when the fire gets turned up. Good judgment isn't manipulating (corrupt) Chicago election laws to have your challengers removed.

What Barack Obama seems to be is an opportunist, someone who is willing to use people to get where he needs to be and then discard them if that association is no longer bearing fruit. And that's acceptable in politics. Ever wonder why the word "politician" and "prostitute" have the same number of letters?

This election, for me, isn't about race. It's about electing someone who is capable of doing the job, and does not have so many skeletons in the closet that we question his integrity and ability to do the job. Obama's skeletons are both known (Wright, Ayers, questionable election issues centered around his first election in Chicago) and unknown (God knows what else is in the closet, but because he is a politician, rest assured, there are other things). I'm not a Roger Waters-type cynic, but have come to expect that every politician is ethically and morally challenged (or bankrupt), and rarely am I disappointed.

Can he do the job? Who knows? Certainly, he should be a landslide winner, coming in after the President who will have the lowest approval rating in recorded history. Hell, following Bush, I could probably win spouting some of the neutral rhetoric that Obama does, and I didn't sit for 20 years in a crazy man's church.

Choosing between the two, I could see why you would choose Obama. McCain's VP choice is a disaster, nobody wants another Republican President right now, and the economy is tanking. But due to the media's kid-glove handling of Obama, the people who are unsure about him remain so.

Why?

Because if there is one thing that life has taught us, it's this: There's nothing that goes as well with the word "media" quite like the word "agenda".

[Eric Deggans]

I've written this before, but I spent a lot of time in late 2007 torn between Obama and Clinton.

I decided back then that I felt Obama would be the most likely to follow through on his campaign promises and would be best positioned to cut through the partisanship which has kept Congress from being effective until now.

Since I came to that conclusion, most every move i've seen him make since has only reinforced that perception.

When other Democrats were urging him to get tougher on the GOP and really savage McCain, he held back and kept up his tactic of complimenting McCain first, then explaining why his views were bad. Something McCain has only now started doing in return.

He's handled electoral crises swiftly and well, and his measured approach seems to be paying off, as the public sees that moving too quickly on something like the economic bailout, doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense.

In fact, McCain has been forced to come around to Obama's thinking on many issues: issuing his own detailed health care plan to respond to Obama and admitting that his past stances on deregulating the banking industry might not make sense now.

How long before we see him declare that cutting taxes while implementing a huge government bailout of the financial industry and fighting two wars doesn't make sense either?

Yes, he lacks the experience of McCain and Biden and everyone else he ran against. But given how dysfunctional Congress has been lately, I don't understand why such a premium has been placed on experience there.

What i'm looking for is good judgment, strong ideas and enough integrity to avoid abandoning promises unless absolutely necessary.

Obama fits that bill and McCain -- and Clinton -- don't.

[America 2Day]

re: "I think he has proven by the way he's run his massive, nearly-two year campaign, that he has a cool head under pressure, has new ideas which excite a lot of people and is willing to stick with his own strategies no matter what others try to force him into undertaking."

Sorry, but running a good campaign for president doesn't exactly qualify one to run for president.

Intellectual honesty from a pro-Obama journalist means conceding that Obama may not have been the best, most-qualified candidates that the Democrats could have picked.

Are you brave enough to concede that point?

[Eric Deggans]

i knew you'd be weighing in eventually bandit.

But i only have a few things to say in response.

I try to be as honest as I can in my postings -- particularly trying to say what I feel when I feel it. I think people would prefer I pretend not to see the things I see the way I see them. But I think that is the more hypocritical stance, particularly for opinion columnists.

It would be easy for me to steer clear of subjects and ideas which folks like you would find objectionable or off topic or whatever.

But the Feed is a blog about what I cover as columnist for the Times. And I have always written a lot about race and race issues.

What i think you sometimes fail to understand, Bandit, is that for people of color, race is often an important part of our lives. So when The Feed blog says part of my mission is writing about life -- that's the connection.

Plenty of other black men have run for president who i haven't supported or voted for. I decided in January that Obama was the best candidate running for a great many reasons, which he has confirmed over many months: he has new ideas, he has a new way of accomplishing things, he isn't beholden to a lot of traditional Democratic power brokers, he keep a cool head under pressure.

But because I am black and have championed issues of racial equality in the past, you will always assume I support Obama because he's black. Who, I wonder, is showing more prejudice in that analysis?

No matter. I haven't been perfect, but i've tried hard to say what i mean when I feel it. Indeed, i often think that is a columnists first, best mission. And by that standard, Brooks and Noonan are failing miserably.

Make of that what you will....

[beltwaybandit]

Tighten your seat belt, Eric. I actually agree with your point about the conservative commentators and their true feelings about Palin.

I would also like to say that I laughed very hard when I read your original post, in which you compare yourself to other columnsists who are paid to publish their opinions and that you feel a duty to "intellectual honesty".

In previous exchanges with me you have stated unequivocally that you are not paid to be objective but you are paid to give your opinion basedon facts, and your comments about the economy and the root causes for the current situations demonstrated a massive lack of even basic knowledge about the issues. You even pressed back when challenged about your lack of even funademental understanding about the source of the economic mess.

Intellectual honesty, indeed.

Everyone in this country needs to take a deep breath and accept the fact that Barack Obama is going to be the next President, unless he or his campaign do something majorly stupid (not likely) or there is something out there that could bite Obama (also not likely).

Then, those who are adamant about a black man not becoming President need to focus on being Americans again work with everyone else to find solutions to these big problems we all face.

And those whose primary issue is electing a black man to high office (including you, Eric) need to drop all the purported "intelectual honesty" where little exists and also focus on being an American and working with everyone else to find solutions.

BOTH SIDES on that issue have been highly divisive, willing to say vritually anything in support of their views, and have offered little in the way of workable solutions to address the reallly important issues out there. (Economy, jobs, security, Iraq, etc.).

Finally, it is always important to understand your true standing in the world.

You are paid to write columns in the newspaper commenting on media issues. You also are given a blog by the Times to oversee. It is advertised as follows by the SPTimes:

"The Feed is a blog on TV, media and modern life by Times TV/media critic Eric Deggans. Possibly the most critical guy at the Times, he has served as music, media and TV critic at various times over 10 years."

However, a great deal of your posting deals with your personal political views and feelings about race.

That's perfectly fine.

But you ought to be more careful before you start lecturing anyone about "intellectual honesty" when your own blog does not match the stated mission.

It makes me wonder if you even understand the term you write about?

[David]

That was not a rumor about Kerry -- he really ISN'T a war hero:

http://www.greenberet.net/kerry/

Kerry was hardly electable anyway. Just ask anyone from the state of Massachusetts.

Is this the same government you refer to that 'imagined' WMD in Iraq? Let's not confuse the word 'inept' with 'unethical', which is at the very core of every politician.

Obama as well...

[Eric Deggans]

And again -- the same people who believe government is too inept to help in our daily lives, also believe that a cadre of government employees in Hawaii and illinois have conspired for years to help a candidate who isn't an American citizen get elected to the presidency?

Time to take those tinfoil hats off, guys. The space aliens have planted a doozy of a theory in your brains this time...

[Eric Deggans]

Because some people are having really hard time with the fact that a back man is on the verge of getting elected president.

And, the first weird awful rumor to surface about Kerry -- that he wasn't really a war hero -- unfortunately stuck enough to hurt his campaign seriously. There wasn't a need to say anything else about him.

Remember the weird rumors about John McCain having a baby by a black prostitute when he ran against George W. Bush in South Carolina in 2000? Now, the only difference is that the folks who started those kind of awful rumors now work for McCain.

[David]

But you would actually only need a handful of people -- government employees, at that -- to be complicit.

Of course, you can't believe everything you read. But doesn't it seem strange that there is that many odd stories about Obama out there?

I don't recall this many weird things circulating about Dukakis, Kerry, and Gore combined. Why do you suppose that is?

[Eric Deggans]

After you watch that video, click this link to see the St. Petersburg times' own investigation into Obama's birth certificate.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

We have concluded that there is no credible evidence his birth certificate isn't valid. For it to be fake, everyone from the Cook County Registrar's office (where Obama got his marriage license) to the state of Hawaii (which has verified the validity of the birth certificate) would have to be complicit.

That doesn't seem likely.

[David]

Robert,

Unfortunately, Bill Buckley's offspring is pompous, pretentious, and irrelevant.

But this isn't. Watch it at your own peril -- it might change your mind as to who you vote for:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs

[Robert]

Here's a link of interest, from none other than the son of the late King of the Conservatives, William F. Buckley, Jr. Christopher Buckley identifies himself as a a "small-government conservative who clings tenaciously and old-fashionedly to the idea that one ought to have balanced budgets. On abortion, gay marriage, et al, I’m libertarian."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama

[drinklime]

Eric, you're confusing them again.

[Dave (not that guy above)]

I'm not a Democrat, but I sure as heck am anti-Republican after what they've been pulling for the past several years, and by the disgraceful and pretty shocking McCain campaign.

Obama could have been friends with Charles Manson and I'd still find him far less frightening than the prospect of another four years of this sort of "leadership."

Oh, and look, Sarah Palin has been found guilty of abusing her power. I don't need a female Dick Cheney.

[David]

You hit on part of the problem -- it's not so much that we only have a choice between two candidates, it's that we only have a choice between two parties.

And I agree with you in the sense that the media should not be afraid to point out the (obvious or otherwise) shortcomings in the candidates. As far as Palin goes, she is BARELY qualified to run the state of Alaska. As I mentioned earlier, Alaska really seems to spawn some odd politics, and she fits right in.

But do you think that there are pundits who want to voice a negative opinion about Obama, but are reluctant to do so lest they be ostracized? Occasionally, one breaks through, like Charles Krauthammer from the Washington Post, but it's rare. I do not have issue with someone supporting Obama, but even his supporters need to recognize his shortcomings.

[Eric Deggans]

You're making a lot of assumptions about me and my perspectives.

But know this: Americans have a choice between two candidates. None of the above isn't an option. So the question pundits writing today must answer is who seems best equipped to handle the country's growing challenges?

And it seems obvious that columnists like Noonan and Brooks know the answer to that question when it comes to Sarah Palin. But they can't bring themselves to say it fully.

You may take issue with anyone who supports Obama. But that is a different issue than what I address in my column. My column is about pundits tempering the opinions they really want to express.

[David]

Eric, you're making me laugh. OF COURSE YOU DON'T SEE the serious problems with Obama -- you are a supporter of his!! Exactly what I was talking about -- Obama supporters, much like McCainiacs, cannot see any problems at all with their candidate.

I am not naive enough to assume that you -- as a supporter of Obama and a member of the mainstream media (one in the same) -- would ever confess to any shortcomings.

Imagine any other candidate with a "Reverend" friend like the one Obama has. Imagine any other candidate getting elected the way Obama did in his first election (by employing some dubious "Chicago rules" to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers).

I will be the first to admit that Palin was a sad choice for a VP running mate. There's something seriously dysfunctional about Alaska politics (Ted Stevens, anyone?), and it comes as no surprise that she is hardly squeaky clean.

But it would be really easy for me to point out bad things about both Republicans (does the name Larry Craig ring a bell?) and Democrats (Ted Kennedy's legendary attempts to turn his car into a submarine). And that's the problem -- both parties have a terminal illness. Call it whatever you want, but it is bringing this country down fast.

I get that you are a homer for the Democrats, and I'm fine with that. But don't be surprised that if Obama is elected, he doesn't make things better.

[Eric Deggans]

And now, there's this (gee, I wonder how conservatives would react if this happened to Obama, instead?) :

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PALIN_TROOPERGATE?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-10-10-21-11-54

[Eric Deggans]

Rags, what you say would be true if i were criticizing Brooks and Noonan for not supporting Obama. All i'm criticizing them for is not putting in their columns what they are telling people in less public settings.

That's also why your analogy doesn't work, David. I don't see the serious problems you see when you look at Obama. I think he has proven by the way he's run his massive, nearly-two year campaign, that he has a cool head under pressure, has new ideas which excite a lot of people and is willing to stick with his own strategies no matter what others try to force him into undertaking.

I, quite frankly, am amazed that conservatives keep insisting that Congress is corrupt and government is dysfunctional, then cite as their main criticism of Obama his lack of experience in Congress and government.

Like so many things the McCain campaign has tried to sell the voting public over the last few weeks, this is a concept that just doesn't make sense.

Some of the most experienced people in government have produced our current circumstance, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condolezza Rice and beyond. As Obama himself has said many times, experience doesn't matter if you're making decisions for the wrong reasons.

Quite frankly, I can't imagine that anyone, unless they are Jesus Christ reincarnated, will achieve enough as president to avoid disappointing the American people. But it is crucial that we at least elect someone who doesn't make things worse.

But the bottom line here, is that I'm not secretly expressing grave doubts about Obama at small public gatherings but supporting him in public because I want my side to win. That is something that Brooks and Noonan have done, hence my criticism.

[David]

I agree with RagsTTIger, Eric. If this didn't conform to your beliefs, you would ridicule it.

It's amazing that some columnists don't write what they think about Barack Obama. Here's a candidate who is barely more experienced than Palin, and clearly has more skeletons in the closet, yet very few in the media call him on it.

Why do you suppose that is?

As I have mentioned before in your blog, both candidates have SERIOUS shortcomings. McCain is clearly not the man for the job. Obama has problems with the truth -- and god forbid anyone calls him on it. Obama's backers simply refuse to see his (many) shortcomings.

You are grasping if you think the Democrats are the answer. You are also grasping if you think Republicans are the answer. The two-party system essentially has terminal cancer on both sides.

Hopefully we can find a cure.

[RagsTTIger]

It's only "intellectual honesty" because it conforms to your beliefs.

[RagsTTIger]

It's only "intellectual honesty" because it conforms to your beliefs.