Ouch! Sarah Palin Takes a Swipe at NY Times Critic David Brooks (Video)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, November 23, 2009, 11:03 PM
Ouch. Sarah Palin took a swipe at vocal elitist New York Times critic and so-called conservative, David Brooks. Brooks has attacked Sarah Palin several times over the past year. He calls himself a conservative yet voted for socialist Barack Obama.
Sarah Palin fudged his name… the ultimate insult to an state-run media elitist:
Via The O’Reilly Factor
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Republican Military Hero & First Female to Command Fighter Squadron Will Announce Run For Congress Today
Published February 8, 2012 at 8:42 pm - 31 Comments
ADVERTISEMENT
bg commented:
++
i heart Sarah Palin’s intestinal fortitude!!
==
Jo commented:
Seen Brooks on the Round Table, he is fully a lefty. That’s my impression.
Anyway, Bozo is going LBJ style ( Option #2, middle of the original 3 options) in an already 8 year war. Obama to settle on a middle-ground option that would deploy an eventual 32,000 to 35,000 U.S. forces to the 8-year-old conflict.
harry flashman commented:
Oh sweet Sarah! Brook’s shrink should cut the ‘Cuda in on how much he’s gonna make off little Davy – all because Sarah didn’t really know he was.
Davys’ been raggin’ on her for months and she doesn’t know who he is – she summarily discounts him like a fly on an elephant’s ass – “that Dude.”
I can see his next column, hammering her for not reading “the paper of record” – it has to be crushing for the pompous, effete, and self-important to be slapped in the mouth with their own irrelevance.
I don’t know what Mrs. Palin’s plans are but no matter what she does, she’ll always have this jarhead’s support.
ADVERTISEMENT
chili palmer commented:
Comments made in the ny times aren’t meant for the public eye.
Sally commented:
A well deserved swipe from Sarah. Brooks is on my list of traitors against Americans!!!
Sarah speaks for Americans fighting for our country.
Please tell me why liberals hate America and what we stand for; they prefer to have America on trial in favor of terrorists no matter how much damage they do to us and our troops.
narciso commented:
The O’Reilly interview was a good appetizer, but the Greta interview was possibly among the best
wanumba commented:
Why should she waste brains cells committing his name to memory? He did his job, as pathetic as it was, just there to provide nothing more than a sound-bite to be used to hurt her. Not exactly erudite, just “stuck on stupid.” It’s more a comment on his need to have a camera focused on him than any actual political analysis.
He’d be off my list, instantly, too.
Richwill commented:
Who said Sarah Palin is not clever?
Mark J. Goluskin commented:
Unlike the minions in the Obamawhore media, I am in the middle of reading Mrs. Palin’s book. And what I have read so far reminds me of another person that entered politics by accident. That was one Ronald Wilson Reagan. Unlike these clowns like Brooks, Frum, et al, Mrs. Palin believes what she believes out of conviction. Something these clowns would not know if it bit them in the rear. I will take one Sarah Palin over a team of these elites any day. And I can’t wait for Mrs. Pailin to take on David Frump, er Frum!
maria commented:
Hi Richwill,
thank you for your comment. Yes, Sarah Palin is clever and honest, she is just wonderful.
David Brooks is just a bitter person, nothing to stand for.
chris commented:
This is hilarious. David Brooks is one of the most influential commentators in the United States, and Sarah Palin doesn’t know his name. Enough said. I guess he doesn’t write for any of the hundreds of magazines or newspapers she reads. “All of ‘em”.
And what exactly is an “elitist”? Is it someone with a brain? When did ignorance and lack of eduation become assets in American politics?
Blacque Jacques Shellacque commented:
David Brooks is one of the most influential commentators in the United States, and….
Only weak-minded and squishy morons would consider an idiot like Brooks “influential”.
LimoLibsStink commented:
David Brooks:
Just because I work for the leftists raG The New York Times it is no reason to insult me. I have worked with the best of them, Walter Duranty, Jayson Blair and let’s not forget the great layout guys for the ‘General Betray Us’ ad. I am still chuckling over that one. The Troops suck. The NYT is the greatest smear paper in the world.
Well, my limousine is running and I have a meeting with David Axelrod and Barney Frank. I hope Barney Frank will not notice the new hole I have. My buns are buttered and I have to jet. Good day.
lyle commented:
Chris,
David Brooks is ‘one of the most influential commentators in the United States’? Influential with whom? He’s certainly not an opinion leader among conservatives, who make fun of him when they bother to read him at all.
Perhaps he’s influential among liberals. It seems unlikely but I wouldn’t know.
In any case, I suspect Palin was intentionally disrespecting someone who disrespects her.
Steve commented:
Leftists could learn a lot from Sarah Palin. She doesn’t bother with Brooks because he’s inconsequential. If the left really believed palin was inconsequential, they wouldn’t bother with her.
who’s the smart one now?
Gini commented:
chris
November 24th, 2009 | 2:01 am | #13
Apparently you do not live in either New York city or in the surrounding area for if you did you would be familiar enough with the NY Times to know that the only value it holds is for lining bird cages.
In several instances where I have been present at an event and later read about it in the Times I found that what was reported had no resemblance to reality.
Chris Vehr commented:
It’s hilarious that she refers to him as “that dude…Brooks”, but liberals are fully aware of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc.
Very calculated on Sarah’s part.
The left will underestimate her right into the White House, the same way they were “done in” by that illiterate George W. Bush.
I just hope someone in the future is able to undo the damage that is being inflicted on us by that highly educated Barack Obama.
Betsy Ross commented:
LOL, “Whoever that dude is.”………Love it!
John commented:
Even if you’re still not sold on Palin as the GOP nominee in 2012, one of the fun things to contemplate is the amalgamation of all of the elitist, alleged conservative Republican pundits like Brooks, David Frum, Kathleen Parker and Coddington Van Voorheis VII into an ad-hoc “Republicans for Obama ’12″ committee three years from now if she does get the nomination.
If the president’s current policy efforts and popularity keep trending in the same directions — liberal and downwards — for the next 2 1/2 years, it will be interesting to watch the elitist attack Obama at first, then try to backtrack and justify not backing Palin and re-electing Barack on policy grounds, when their opposition really comes down to a personal hatred of both what Sarah represents and the types of conservatives who support her.
Terry Gain commented:
John
I don’t know why you included Coddington Van Voorheis VII in that group. On the other hand Reginald Morris ad Litem Whyte-Burgundy ought to be.
Sarah saw right through Obama. Brooks was fooled. Even now he doesn’t get Obama. Who’s the joke? Who’s the intellectual?
AuntieMadder commented:
narciso
November 24th, 2009 | 12:05 am | #7
The O’Reilly interview was a good appetizer, but the Greta interview was possibly among the best
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I agree. Watch it if you can, folks.
jomojava commented:
Brooks’ affinity for The Chairman started with the clean, crisp crease in Obamao’s pants.
I’m sure the “dude” will get his panties in a wad over this dis.
J commented:
Brooks is infatuated with obama’s creased leg, and VERY afraid of a nighttime call telling him what he got wrong and how to correct it in order to please obama. I wouldn’t be surprised to find brooks has obama’s number in his cell phone for those times, like when he is on TV, so obama can “correct” him immediately when he gets the message wrong.
ouldbollix commented:
Brooks and his kind in the msm think we have a royalty system in the US and they are the king and queen makers.
In their minds they think Palin is unfit to ever be queen so they must destroy her.
Smarty commented:
Elitist means snob. Someone who might enjoy hearing themself called an “intellectual”.
Sarah is both smart and not a snob. She has real accomplishments, unlike those navel gazing twits that sit around calling each other “intellectual” and basking in their own “eliteness”.
blr2449 commented:
“Anyway, Bozo is going LBJ style ( Option #2, middle of the original 3 options) in an already 8 year war.”
Is that like voting Present?
Brooklyn commented:
Not certain the fudging of the name was intentional. It sort of reminds one of someone who is trying to remember talking points adopted via someone like Rush, but cannot quite pull it off.
Brooks is a fool, no doubt, but again, this is not done in a “Reagan – Like” manner, and doesn’t really impress.
More and more, we see a fashion pushed, and that sort of cult of personality is something the left is a disaster for.
I grow more cynical as time goes by, even as I am a supporter of Mrs. Palin.
I just remember the hype about Fred prior that was baseless, the hype that grew insane which debased our own interests prior to 2006 – the Nation’s best interest as well, etc., and wish I would see more WFB reason in the mix.
We shall see…
ms commented:
In any case, I suspect Palin was intentionally disrespecting someone who disrespects her.
—————————————
She WAS.
Solaratov commented:
chris
November 24th, 2009 | 2:01 am | #13
And now, lil chrissy has to run to read what brooks has to tell him about to believe today. Otherwise, poor lil chrissy won’t know how to behave.
And, chrissy, brooks is *hardly* one of the “most influential commentators” of our time. He is, in fact, a biased, washed-up hack who churns out drivel for those who believe that the new york times confers some sort of intellectual cachet on them. (In reality, of course, it merely marks them as easily led and unable to formulate their own opinions. Or, they need to re-line their bird cage.)
Brooks reminds me of the “lifelong Republicans” who drop in here occassionally to tell us why they just *had* to vote for obama and what we should do to “revitalize” the Republican party (surrender to the leftists).
You’re an idiot, chrissy. Just another salad tosser who needs to be told what to think and how to act.
Go back to dkos.
.
.
.
.The only good communist is a dead communist.
TomG commented:
Solaratov, that was a little harsh re: chris, but I guess probably deserved. The fact is, no NYT opinion columnist is worth much. And the only reason to even use the “much” qualifier is that the jury is still out on Ross Douthat. I hope he rights himself. I’m not encouraged. The cesspool that is the Times is a cruel taskmaster. And Sarah knows who David Brooks is. The problem is that David doesn’t really know anymore.
TomG commented:
And if you don’t really know who you are, you end up doing things like … voting for Barack Obama.
G commented:
“And what exactly is an “elitist”? Is it someone with a brain?” chris #13
Leaves you out, you’re not an elitist, just obot drone.
If you only had a brain. Off to see the wizard of Oz.
Richard Romano commented:
chris
November 24th, 2009 | 2:01 am | #13
This is hilarious. David Brooks is one of the most influential commentators in the United States, and Sarah Palin doesn’t know his name. Enough said. I guess he doesn’t write for any of the hundreds of magazines or newspapers she reads. “All of ‘em”.
What’s hilarious is the focus left-wing Obamabots like yourself place on such rubbish — the kind of rubbish that got Obama elected, much to our own peril.
What have Obama’s smarts thus far provided? He’s a disaster — and his poll numbers demonstrate buyer’s remorse.
She does mention his name, chris, and it’s obvious you missed her clear misappropriation of his name for effect.
chris commented:
“He is, in fact, a biased, washed-up hack…”
I think I have this down now. Anyone who dares to speak the truth on Palin is slammed. Anyone who says she’s wonderful is praised. Got it.
And can you name me one conservative commentator who is not biased? It’s the nature of commentary. Get a brain.
harry flashman commented:
OK, Chris – here’s an astounding article, written by a female former Berkeleyite Liberal (“Robin of Berkeley”) at American Thinker -
“The Wilding of Sarah Palin”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_wilding_of_sarah_palin.html
Read it and then get back to us about “bias.”
You can tell us if she’s “speaking the truth on Palin and display your glittering impartiality.
Clifford commented:
I like the fact that not only did she make him sound inconsequential, she also went on to provide good advice for him to better make up his mind about her. Wonder if he will listen.