In a recent post, Andrew Sullivan writes this:

[Brooks] writes a column – a sadly misguided view of what’s wrong with conservatism – that he could have written at any time in the last ten years. Why can he not tell us what he thinks of Palin? A wonderful writer he sure is.A profile in courage he isn’t.

This is a stupid and malicious charge. It’s stupid because (a) Brooks has written on Palin before; (b) Brooks expressed his views on Palin’s interview with Charles Gibson on television; and (c) Brooks’s column is published on Friday, and the Palin-Gibson interview was broadcast Thursday evening. And where is it written that David Brooks is obligated to write columns on whatever topic interests Andrew Sullivan?

The charge is malicious because David is the opposite of what Sullivan says. Brooks is an intellectually honest writer, constantly holding up his views and assumptions to scrutiny and unfolding evidence, and in search of the truth of things. There is deep integrity to David’s work. Beyond that, Brooks is one of Washington’s most decent and civil individuals. Unfortunately, none of these things can be said of Andrew Sullivan these days. Even Sullivan’s colleagues at The Atlantic would, I think it’s fair to say, agree with that assessment. He has become an embarrassment to them, and to the magazine with which he is associated.