David Brooks gave an implicit endorsement of Obama/Biden in his column today:
In the current Weekly Standard, Steven Hayward argues that the nation’s founders wanted uncertified citizens to hold the highest offices in the land. They did not believe in a separate class of professional executives. They wanted rough and rooted people like Palin.
I would have more sympathy for this view if I hadn’t just lived through the last eight years. For if the Bush administration was anything, it was the anti-establishment attitude put into executive practice.
And the problem with this attitude is that, especially in his first term, it made Bush inept at governance. It turns out that governance, the creation and execution of policy, is hard. It requires acquired skills. Most of all, it requires prudence…
…Surely the response to the current crisis of authority is not to throw away standards of experience and prudence, but to select leaders who have those qualities but not the smug condescension that has so marked the reaction to the Palin nomination in the first place.
To clarify: Obama/Biden did not have a smug and/or condescending reaction to the Palin pick. Their reaction was respectful and their attacks substantive (they defended her from the blogger/National Enquirer attacks on her family). Fundamentally, the left does not reject her for hunting moose and being from a small town. The reject her because she is, as evidenced by her interview with Charlie Gibson, a shockingly unqualified candidate for executive office. Brooks knows this and admits as much today.
To his credit, he joins a distinguished list of conservatives (including David Frum, Ross Douhat, Rod Dreher, Krauthammer, etc.) who love their families and their country enough to refuse the utter insanity of the McCain/Palin ticket. These men are demonstrating that they possess a level of intellectual honesty that is worthy of deep respect.