I basically agree with VDH’s take on David Brooks’ comments. I am firmly in the cautiously-optimistic-but wait-and-see camp on Palin. But it seems that David, like a few other prominent conservatives I can think of, are so exasperated with George W. Bush — for reasons I’m mostly sympathetic with — that many of their intellectual arguments amount to Not-Bushism. This is the instinctual response that says that any trend in conservatism that sounds like more Bushism (variously defined) must be wrong and rejected violently. Brooks comes the closest to simply admitting he’s driven by Not-Bushism (and his fondness for the hyper-articulate but oftern coreless Biden makes a lot of sense in this light). And, again, I’ve written a lot abot my own problems with Bush. But zigging everytime you see a Bushian zag is not a particularly constructive way to approach politics. I don’t know how Palin would be as vice president, never mind president (and I still don’t buy the idea that if I’m for her for vice president, I must be for her for president). But I don’t think seeing her as an extension of Bush makes much analytical sense. Opposing Palin isn’t penance for having supported Bush. Nor should it serve as a venue for anti-Bushism by proxy.