Like I said, even with forty years of experience it still amounts to a very small fraction of the population, not enough to characterize most or many. Factually, you can only say some and that amounts to nothing but anecdotal evidence which again is a really fallacious ground to plant an argument on so it's something you really don't even want to bring up if you are trying to form a strong, rational argument.

And the reason I haven't felt the need to produce a list of names of conservatives who are level headed, sensible debaters is because as the statistics illustrate the numbers are not in your favor and so the burden lies upon you to illustrate that "most" or "many" conservatives are not sensible. But heck, since it is pretty easy I'd say David Brooks generally comes across as sensible in his writings. I often find myself at odds with his opinions, and the way he occasionally massages statistics is less than satisfying I none the less never come away feeling like he's yelling at me because I don't share his views and he has been shown to evolve those views based on the arguments of others.

Bruce Bartlett is another conservative writer I enjoy, and I think you'd agree with a lot of his views on how the Republican party has taken a seriously wrong turn in the wake of the days of W, your sentiments actually remind me a lot of what he wrote in Impostor. Seriously, it's a good read, you should check it out! Again, I don't agree with many of his views, especially his summation of liberal thinkers, but he comes across as fully rational so although I don't usually follow him to his conclusions they are none the less well argued. 

Rob Allen mentioned Chris Ladd, but his name bears repeating, in all the time I've spent reading his blog I've never felt that he thought poorly of me as a reader who may not agree with his points. He doesn't brow beat you, he just lays out his positions in a calm and rational manner which I highly respect.

Another writer whose commentary I enjoy is David Frumm, again he has serious conservative views but he always advocates compromise in politics in his writing and that kind of give and take is what we need more than anything else.

One that I often find amusing is Christoper Buckley who went so far as to support Obama simply because he feared what would happen to the country if something happened to McCain after being elected and Palin took control. And Joe Scarborough's observations can be pretty amusing too, especially his writings on conservatism during the Clinton years.

And those are just off the top of my head, it would be pretty easy to name more at a more decent hour on my next day off. They're out their man, and some are even currently in office. That they don't speak out loudly against their more crazy brethren is frustrating but like many perhaps they are making the erroneous decision that if they ignore the fringe it will eventually burn itself out. They're totally wrong of course, these people need to seriously be shut down but not every one is brave enough to try.

I've always thought David Brooks does a decent job as NPR's token Conservative.. much like CNN used to do before Fox hired them all. He does have a tendency to make stupid snarky comments that don't make sense(as you referenced), but I'd say he works well as a counter-point person.

It's official: The GOP (hearts) racism at Mizzou.

From the comments:


I'm going to look around and see what Bobo said about Mizzou.

Credit where credit is due department:

Here's a recent column by Bobo that gets it exactly right: The Republicans' Incompetence Caucus

It's about something that was obvious four years ago, but I still he think he should get credit.

Seven of the Most Offensive David Brooks Quotes Ever.

Yes. This is the David Brooks I remember. An extremist posing as a sensible, thoughtful moderate by occasionally making a super-obvious point to seem sensible and thoughtful, with no shame about indulging in stereotypes, talking points and logical fallacies.

I found a hilarious point-by-point takedown of a David Brooks column, but it was from a few years ago and it was also very rude. It was also a very typical Brooks column, with some very obvious straw-manning, the kind of thing from Brooks that induced much eye-rolling and head-shaking from me in the many many years I read Brooks regularly.

I said I rarely agreed with him, but by the same token I didn't feel that he was being needlessly insulting to anyone who might disagree with him. I think you maybe conflating "sensible" with has "similar opinions to me" and that doesn't have to be the case at all.

Can you please elaborate and/or give links?