In addition to David Brooks and Kathleen Parker, we can add David Frum, David Gergen, Christopher Buckley, David Brock, Arianna Huffington to the list of sell outs.  The thing abut David Brooks and Kathleen Parker is that they are not even good, analytical writers. William Safire was the only reason to ever look at The New York Times.

by Diana Banister and Craig Shirley

The news of Brooks being fired and then arrested came via e-mail. Conservatives across the country cheered in unison that justice had been finally served on David Brooks, The New York Times ersatz conservative and full-time insult-hurler.

Alas, it was Rebekah Brooks of the other tabloid, News of the World, on the other side of the pond to whom rough justice was being ladled out. The American right is still stuck with the window-dressing rightist that no one in the Republican Party considers a Republican and no one in the conservative movement considers a conservative.

Still, his kind — along with fellow Fifth Columnist Kathleen Parker — is not new to Sodom and Gomorrah, ahem, New York and Washington.

Garry Wills, whom Bill Buckley must have regarded as a great mistake, began his life as a writer for National Review and then upon his departure made a career of taking cheap shots at Ronald Reagan and conservatives.

Wills plowed the field for Vichy Republicans like the Parkers and Brookses of the world.

What purpose do these folks serve, other than furthering their own careers by co-operating and cheering for the opposition?

Brooks and Parker never met a Republican they liked, unless maybe it was Lowell Weicker, the irritating left-winger from Connecticut who even provoked the normally pacific Reagan into calling him a “schmuck” and a “pompous, no good fathead.”

[……]

More to the point, Brooks, Parker and the establishment they represent never met a conservative or Tea Party member they liked. Of course, neither genre is likely to be found at a Georgetown or Manhattan cocktail party. The sophisticates who presume to speak for the right simply couldn’t be more wrong.

They are in the liberal establishment to serve as window dressing, for entertainment purposes; but not to be taken seriously by their captors and certainly not by anybody on the right. They can’t stand the idea that there might be a party of the commentariat to which they are not invited.

After all, Mr. Brooks fell in love with Obama after he was impressed by the crease in Obama’s pants. He used last week’s column to trash Republicans for hanging tough on preventing tax increases. In it, he claims to be speaking for a group of people who agree with him. He suggests in parentheses, “You might call us conservatives.” You might, but not with a straight face.

Today’s column by Mr. Brooks continues in a long and boring, uninteresting and anti-intellectual line of his usual vapidness issued from his holier-than-though perch. He trashes conservative leaders for their principles; he trashes conservative talk show hosts for their principles; he trashes conservative candidates for their principles.

[……]

Mrs. Parker’s role began by bashing Sarah Palin. More recently, she’s spent most of her time defending Obama, as befits any good insider. On Sunday, Parker wrote about the president’s prevarications in describing his mother’s so-called problems with health insurance. “It’s likely that the president will be forgiven this exaggeration in the service of a greater truth.” Beg pardon?

No real conservative believes the truth can ever be served with a lie.

[…….]