Ah, David Brooks seems so charming (if misguided) on PBS that one always hopes that maybe he's actually starting to think cogently and coherently. Then comes another of his inane columns in the NY Times, and we are forced, again, to recognize that he is a shameless hack who spins without hesitation to satisfy...well, it's not clear who he's trying to satisfy.

But the response to yesterday's (9/4) Brooks column about Governor Palin's 'fresh' and 'cheerful' speech suggests that the Emperor's clothes are getting awfully translucent.

The NY Times is a relatively liberal media outpost, and it's fair to say that, oh, two-thirds to three-quarters of those who post responses to Brooks usually disagree with him -- often eloquently and with verve. The other quarter or so (often with equal verve) tries to support his arguments. It's often a revealing thread.

When I checked today, there were some 700 responses to Brooks's column on Palin's speech -- a lot. I couldn't read them all, but after checking the first page, I thought, I'll sample 100.

96, by my count, found Brooks's characterization and logic utterly unpersuasive. They ranged from 'Oh, dear, David...' to 'What were you drinking (or smoking) when...'. Hardly any were abusive, it's worth noting (one was deleted by the Times), and many were almost indulgent -- the attitude one sees towards a bright kid who's gone spectacularly wrong on something, and will surely see how preposterous his writing is.

One agreed that with Brooks that change was an important goal in both campaigns, but doubted McCain's ability to deliver. One supported McCain/Palin in generaly, but said nothing about Brooks's own comments. And one openly agreed with his characterization.

By my count, that's 96 strikes, three foul balls, and one balls. That won't get anyone on base!