Cutting The Mike On Critics

312 responses so far

• 1 Cforchange // Mar 5, 2009 at 5:56 am

  The ranting has always been a turn off. The difference this time is that this faction has developed so much confidence that they think they are entitled to demand who and the resume contents for those we elect to office. Because this confidence is out of control, they do not have the ability to realize that the electing majority doesn’t agree with them and their objectives. The page has turned, the electing majority do not want to hear from these folks so when they speak for the GOP – you figure it out.

• 2 dmt3 // Mar 5, 2009 at 5:59 am

  What I cannot stand about any of the wingnuts is the extreme animation and shouting. It is almost as if they are hysterical or having a seizure. Contrast that view with quiet, firm, and confident manner of Obama. Do people take that perception into the polls wih them? You bet they do. After all, we don’t actually have a well informed electorate, so these images are what they are left with when they are pulling the lever. It doesn’t matter how right you are, if you are perceived as a fanatic, people will assume you are one. Mark Levin and the head of the GOP Rush Limbaugh is the image people have of the GOP. They give conservatism a bad name and until they are no longer the image of conservatism, the GOP will lose. Of course I am just an independent because I refuse to live life on the fringe with Rush and Mark.

• 3 bbb // Mar 5, 2009 at 6:08 am

  You are on the way to Andrew Sullivan status in my book. I regret buying your book. I still may read it (I picked it up because it was recommended by a Canadian Conservative friend). We have the same problems discussing Conservatism because American Conservatism and Canadian Conservatism/Torrism is a very different thing. The things you have said about Goldwater and Rush are out of line and strait up wrong. Good luck in Frumistan

• 4 dmt3 // Mar 5, 2009 at 6:51 am

  proudamericans: Just how will you “TRUE CONSERVATIVES” take your party back? No one took your party away from you! That’s just the point! You still have it, and it has become a fringe party. No one wants your party, so you are welcome to it. However, you have become so marginalized that it is likely that you will never regain prominence as a major party. These are desparate times for you indeed. You worship at the feet of your prophets, while others seek solutions. Fanatics (on both sides) fear debate and discussion. That’s why their usual response is shouting and name calling. Are you proud of that post you made?

• 5 Chicagorose79 // Mar 5, 2009 at 7:03 am

  Mr. Frum’s defense and explanation of this incident is weak at best and doesn’t ring true. It’s very obvious to me why there is a problem. Mr Frum is NOT A CONSERVATIVE. It’s as simple as that. Mark made his points very well. Love you Mark!

• 6 pmarengo // Mar 5, 2009 at 7:22 am

  What a but of utter nonsense. David, true conservatives recognize that Obama’s greatest asset is his ability to present himself and converse in a way that makes him look and sound very smart and electable. But when this same man, with no credible track record of leadership, is called out based on the substance of what he is saying in such a persuasive manner by a man who has kept the flame of conservatism alive since Reagan, it should act as a full-throttle clarion call for the nation to get back to its core principles and start engaging in critical analysis. Our country is at risk by a leftist president and congress and our nation’s most cherished conservative voice, perhaps without the same “honed” gifts that Obama is graced with but with a passion for truth and steadfast principles, is derided with patronizing insults by some “new conservative”? How stupid you are to fall into the trap that the democrats and administration want you to. I expected this from luke-warm, wishy-washy RINOs, not from someone who deems himself a voice for some kind of new conservatism. You ever wonder why Republicans lose? It’s because they defy their true party platform and are therefroe not as focused as the democrats in presenting their case to the public. Stop worrying about what it looks like and care more about the message, David.

• 7 WarEagle // Mar 5, 2009 at 7:23 am

  I heard your call on Levin’s show. I know that he is often abrasive, but it comes from passion for our country and anger at the attempt to disassemble it. I don’t understand the belief of you and others that we must compromise our principles in order to win elections. We need to convey our ideas in a clear and concise manner, the way Reagan did. We need to win people to us, not morph into what the left wants us to become. I believe Rush does this better than anyone and I think attempts to silence him will ultimately send the GOP to the basement of history with the Whig party. You attacked Rush and Levin defended his friend.

  Government spending will never create wealth. Punishing achievement keeps everyone from succeeding, from the CEO to the mail room clerk. An ever growing government erodes the intent of the constitution and undermines liberty. Killing babies for convenience is never acceptable. Turning over our sovereignty to foreign government bodies (trade, environment, military, or whatever) eventually leads to tyranny without representation. Government control of healthcare (or anything else) reduces quality and quantity. These are the principles that do not change with time. We should be fighting those trying to destroy those principles, not each other! The left will not stop. I wish you would turn your fire on the enemy rather than those in the trenches next to you. When you are the last one standing you won’t have a snow ball’s chance against the hordes of liberalism.

• 8 dmt3 // Mar 5, 2009 at 7:28 am

  Yeah that’s it, kick him off the conservative team. Let’s see the other team has 16 players and your only have 6 left and everyone’s solution is to get rid of more players. Yep, great strategy! I’m ok, but everyone else is nuts?

• 9 jlloyd // Mar 5, 2009 at 7:36 am

  Look – if you don’t like Mark or Rush or anyone else, the solution is simple – just turn them off. Everyone has the right to their own opinions, as well as the right to express those opinions. Everyone else has the right to agree, disagree, or not even listen. What is the point of this silly name calling (on both sides)? What should we do – take Rush/Mark and others out and shoot them? I am not a listener of Rush, so I can’t really comment on his show. I occassionally listen to Mark Levin. Sometimes he is informative, entertaining, and makes good points, but when he goes crazy and starts the name calling, I just turn him off. These radio personalities are entertainers. They are presenting their own opinions. They don’t speak for me, or you, or anyone else except themselves. They don’t speak for conservatives or republicans, and they are not political leaders. Why is everyone making such a big deal about them?

• 10 jlloyd // Mar 5, 2009 at 7:45 am

  yes – let’s “get rid” of them. Maybe torture them. Put them in a labor camp. We are just wasting our time and effort arguing about them – exactly what the left wants us to do. Maybe we should concentrate instead on getting rid of a 2 trillion dollar deficit, or finding ways to limit what has become a completely out of control government, or finding ways to restore some vitality to the private sectore (wealth producing sector) of the economy. The us vs. them mentality is right out of the Saul Alinsky playbook – create strife, envy, jealousy, anger – divide and conquer. We all need to grow up and find ways to keep the dialogue civil and focused on the real issues at hand.

• 11 choccity2005 // Mar 5, 2009 at 7:45 am

  A senior White House aide has been tasked with helping to guide the Limbaugh strategy.

  Outside, Americans United for Choice, a liberal group, and the Democratic National Committee are driving the message, in close consultation with the White House.

  Democrats can barely suppress their smiles these days, overjoyed at the instant-ad imagery of Limbaugh clad in Johnny Cash-black at CPAC and, more broadly, at what they see as their success in managing to further marginalize a party already on the outs.

  I want to send Rush a bottle of vitamins, said Begala. We need him to stay healthy and loud and proud.

  With President George W. Bush and Vice-Presidentk Cheney out of the White House and Tom DeLay gone from Congress, the left had been suddenly absent an unpopular right-wing figure.

  Few Americans know who the congressional Republican leaders are. Even Sarah Palin is now four time zones away from Washington.

  Enter Limbaugh.

  This the article i found…….on politico,WHO CAN DEFEND LIMBAUGH NOW…HE’s destroying us!!!

• 12 bibs // Mar 5, 2009 at 7:46 am

  dmt3 – you miss the point of the angry yelling because that is the point. Many of these “Real Conservatives” find it much easier and more satisfying to yell/whine/have a temper tantrum about their percived slights, the MSM, etc. than to actually put together a real plan that would entice voters to put them in power. The reason for this as the GOP just discovered, is once in power you actually have to govern competently and that’s a much harder to do than to just have a temper tantrum about not getting your way all the time.

• 13 gerrysh // Mar 5, 2009 at 7:48 am

  Thank you, Mr. Levin, for telling it like it is.

• 14 Dan Crank // Mar 5, 2009 at 7:54 am

  Just admit it Frum you and the rest of the light weights here at NewMajority are afraid of the democrats and the media. Maybe if you complement Rachel Maddow enough your so called “conservatism that can win again” will get some good coverage. Keep up the good work.

• 15 bbb // Mar 5, 2009 at 8:00 am

  This is no different than the Schadenfeude we all enjoyed watching the Democrats freak out in 2002 and 2004. Relax people. Post the youtube of the DLC talking aftermath and election breakdown of 2004.

  Levin is correct Frumistaners. Your guns are pointed the wrong way

• 16 ChristianMiller // Mar 5, 2009 at 8:06 am

  First, it is obvious why Mark would not want to put Frum’s 15 year-old son on the air. And since Frum was ultimately given a half hour of airtime to debate, why include this information? It tells me that Levin has scruples and morals and is not about to engage with a mans’ son who obviously loves his father. Of course, if he wanted, Levin can debate anyone on the planet under the table, so he wasn’t “afraid” of your 15 year-old. It tells me more about David Frum than Mark Levin that you include this information. As to Levin’s loudness and name-calling. I have come to enjoy it, and I have to say it is a symptom of what the wimpy Republicans like Frum have caused. Levin and Rush’s recent tirades are a direct result of years of Republicans not standing up when attacked, when they are lied about and smeared. They have by sheer repetition entered so many nasty memes in the history books that Frum and Company should be ASHAMED of themselves for decades. Everything is the facade, the presentation. Frum thinks we are hated and mocked because of our appearance and the perceptions people have of Republicans, and wants us all to spend years presenting ourselves as reasonable quasi-socialists grovelling for acceptance which will never come.Mark Levin is blowing the lid of that failed strategy and I think it is great that he mocks them. They deserve it. Who says we can’t have “bomb throwers” They certainly do! Why do Republicans have to be held to a different standard? Frum’s high minded tactics are useless against these shameless criminals who need to be called out.

• 17 krove // Mar 5, 2009 at 8:13 am

  These radio shouters could not debate anyone in a reasonable way. That is why they screen all calls to prevent any point of view apart from their own to be heard. I could give examples of the sort of things they say to anyone who slips the net but my post would be deleted.

• 18 pampl // Mar 5, 2009 at 8:15 am

  I think Frum is underestimating the appeal of rage-filled narcissism. Gangster rap made a killing with it, so it makes sense for conservatives to try the same to appeal to the next generation. They just need to set it to a beat you can grind to.

• 19 choccity2005 // Mar 5, 2009 at 8:32 am

  (MUST READ) Let me ask all of you,all conservatives and republicans one question.No….that’s the wrong way to ask this question.I want to ask all AMERICANS this question. DO YOU WANT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO FAIL? you see…that’s the difference between saying do you want barack obama to FAIL and if you want the president of the united states to FAIL.Some conservatives/repubs including rush don’t see barack Obama as thier president.They see him as the liberal or even the blacks president but not thier president. That is why wht rush said has done irreputable damge to our party.B/c to the independent american,the american not plugged into politics……….It is percieved as the ultimate sign of Anti-Americanism by saying you want the president of the united states,your president TO FAIL !!!!!the farther we get from rush the better and by no conservative in the media disagreeing with that statement it seems like the whole party agrees. What do you think will happen if a republican ever wins the presidency again???

• 20 bbb // Mar 5, 2009 at 8:35 am

  Fack me even Jim Cramer has out back. We want him to Fail

  http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinvesting/news/cramer-my-response-white-house

• 21 bbb // Mar 5, 2009 at 8:36 am

  our*

• 22 Chicagorose79 // Mar 5, 2009 at 8:42 am

  For the drones and kool-aid sippers, Yes, B.O. should fail, and all his Liberty-destroying policies. Anyone, president or not, whatever race, who tries to implement policies and changes that damage this Great Nation and what makes it great and keeps it frees NEEDS TO FAIL!You sound like you are willing to sacrifice Freedom for a handout, or maybe free healthcare. That’s SICK. Do you sense the groundswell of a backlash yet…? You will.

• 23 Goodtimes22 // Mar 5, 2009 at 8:43 am

  Frum,
  I guess you missed the memo explaining that conservatives and Republicans are not the same. Let me explain it terms that you may understand. Conservatism is a movement and a way of life. Republicans are is a party. Levin, Hannity, Rush, would be Democrats if that were the current home of conservatism. It’s principles vs. policies. Those 3 men do more to advance the cause of conservatism in 1 hour than you have your whole life. We don’t need a “redefining” every time Republicans lose an election.
  You also seem to lavish praise on Obama, while throwing anyone who may agree with you under the bus. Yes, that seems like a great strategy, make liberal like us by throwing everyone they don’t like overboard. Your final points on Levin’s show seem to be, concede the major points to liberals and just tweak the policy so it’s not so bad. If people listened to you for the last 20 years, the green party would have more seats in the house and senate than Republicans.

  You are punching above your weight class.

• 24 ChristianMiller // Mar 5, 2009 at 8:51 am

  Just listened to the segment. Frum suffers from Stockholm syndrome of identifying with his captors. He bashes Rush Limbaugh but dares not bash any Democrat. Why? Levin is perfectly willing to bash Democrats and Republicans. I know Levin’s audience, and Frum’s ideas are not going to be well received. Frum wants to change the rules in the concentration camp, and Levin wants to resist and ultimately break out. They are trying to kill us, David! Getting them to stop spitting on us and calling us names is not going to help.

• 25 sinz54 // Mar 5, 2009 at 8:53 am

  dmt3: I can remember when it was the other way around: when Jesse Jackson was doing the ranting and the black self-pity routine for the liberals, while William F. Buckley on PBS’ “Firing Line” was being quiet, intellectual, thoughtful. So was David Brudnoy, an intellectual libertarian right-wing talk-show host in Boston, beloved even by doctrinaire liberals who totally disagreed with him. I also remember when the Left did a series on their right-wing opponents. When they got to William F. Buckley, these Leftists admitted that “We all should want to be like William F. Buckley.” By this they meant that Buckley was intelligent, scholarly, and preferred quiet debate to ranting and raving. What changed was that the conservative movement latched on to the “Archie Bunkers” out there–white working-class men with limited education who resented those “pointy-head” intellectual “eggheads.” These men first broke with the Dem Party in 1968, when they supported a third-party candidate, George Wallace. But then Nixon and later Karl Rove figured out how to use these voters to win elections, and so they courted them assiduously. And now, William F. Buckley and David Brudnoy have passed away, and the ranting and sometimes vicious right-wing blogosphere is supplanting the old intellectual conservative journals like National Review, which is making the problem even worse. In contrast, Obama has courted the college-educated, knowing that their percentage of the electorate is increasing, while the percentage of the poorly educated is declining. Conservatives must rediscover how to look, sound, and act like educated, even intellectual, men, if they have any hope of appealing to the college educated.

• 26 sinz54 // Mar 5, 2009 at 8:58 am

  Franco: If we’re to convince the American public that we are mature and responsible, we have got to stop the apocalyptic rhetoric of the sort you used.. We are NOT in any “concentration camp,” this is NOT a “war,” and the Democrats and liberals are NOT “enemies” or “traitors.” They are Americans with a very different point of view from us, that’s all. They won a free and fair election, because the American people decided that they could better steward the nation than we could. And now it’s our job to change that perception and try to win future elections. But let’s stop this apocalyptic rhetoric, OK? You sound just like the Left who kept ranting that under the Bush Administration, we had become a fascist dictatorship like Hitler.

• 27 jlloyd // Mar 5, 2009 at 9:04 am

  One of the reasons why I often turn off Mark Levin on my arduous commute home is that he too often devolves into name calling, but even more than that, he rarely offers any solutions. He is great at pointing out the hypocrisy of the left, and the failures of many “liberal” policies, and in identifying the source of problems. But I find it frustrating that he never completes the cycle and offers proposals and ideas (political or policy) that can really advance conservatism. And here we all are, basically doing the same thing – pointing out other peoples problems, complaining, and so forth – but not really talking about issues and solutions.. Sometimes Levin is entertaining and informative, but when not, I am thankful for MLB on XM.

• 28 sinz54 // Mar 5, 2009 at 9:05 am

  Goodtimes22: I guess this is where Frum and I disagree with you. It’s NOT just that the GOP lost an election. It’s the long term demographic and social trends that are tilting against the GOP–of which Obama’s election victory is just one symptom–that must force the GOP to change. In a nation in which more and more young Americans are going to college, and in which Hispanics and unmarried women are the fastest-growing voting blocs, the GOP can no longer depend solely on the Older Uneducated White Male Christian Heterosexual vote (what I call the “Archie Bunker” vote) to win elections. It cannot continue to wallow in sexual Puritanism, anti-intellectualism, nativism, and attempts at shaming single moms. It’s driving away growing voting blocs in favor of retaining a shrinking voting bloc. And that’s a prescription for long-term defeat.

• 29 Richard Romano // Mar 5, 2009 at 9:07 am

  “Has Levin ever convinced any listener of anything that listener did not already believe?”

  Levin has 5 million listeners; his influence exceeds that of Mr. Frum by multiple millions. So, the question we have to ask is this: will Frum, with little influence, be more helpful to the conservative cause than someone like Levin or Limbaugh, who command millions of listeners?

  What seems to be lost on Frum is that his bickering and caricaturing of Rush serves as an ideological wheelchair for the left — they’ll gladly use this as a way to cement the wedge in the public’s mind that conservatives are exactly like the caricature they’ve made them out to be.

  Read Jay Nordlinger’s piece today: he spells out in plain language the myopism that plagues Frum’s thesis:

• 30 ChristianMiller // Mar 5, 2009 at 9:11 am

  It is incomprehensible to me that any Republican still believes they can win over so-called moderates in this environment after seeing what the media did to their former hero John McCain. They are able to script the narrative any way they wish. Go ahead be embarrassed, Sinz54 to your liberal friends about us uneducated morons. At least when Levin calls someone a name he says it outright, while you and Frum hide behind effete erudition when you insult people. Your need to be validated by corrupt leftists to feel better about yourselves and political associates, says it all.

• 31 joebozak // Mar 5, 2009 at 9:15 am

  Re: Rantings of talk show radio hosts. There’s an old lawyer saying and it goes like this: “When the facts are against you, pound them with the law. When the law is against you, pound them with the facts. When both the facts and the law are against you, pound the table.”

• 32 krove // Mar 5, 2009 at 9:18 am

  Wow there is so much de nile here that i think the river in Egypt is now totally dry. If you hitch your ideas to a radio shouter with an 11% approval rating among young people and college graduates you are in for a very lean time going forward. As Sinz rightly said the GOP’s demographic support is literally dieing day bay day. If your support base is old guy’s (in the main) you will eventually go the way of the Dodo bird.

• 33 Chicagorose79 // Mar 5, 2009 at 9:23 am

  sinz54: Just like elections have consequences, right and wrong have consequences as well. When you grow up you will understand this. That being said, conservatives do not need to be told when they will be allowed to “rant, yell, or otherwise take to task” the other side. Mr. Frum is NOT A CONSERVATIVE.

• 34 Spoonman // Mar 5, 2009 at 9:37 am

  Here’s the big fallacy of all of this “New conservatism” kid gloves talk: We nominated your dream candidate in John McCain. We tried things your way for this last election cycle. How many times did McCain accept Obama’s premises during the campaign? He couldn’t wait to agree on some basic level to increase taxes because of global warming, create some form universal health care, and nationalize private industry. Guess what? We tried things your way and you lost. This form of “conservatism” is the precise reason why Obama is sitting in office today, radically changing the very foundations of our country. The geniuses like Frum suggest instead of changing back to our principled Conservative roots we must try more of the same exact thing that put us into this position in the first place. Now thanks to people like Frum we have to fight this battle for the country on two fronts: Socialists pretending to be on our side and the full-blown psycho socialists in the democrat party. Reagan had to deal with the same kind of imitators on his side back in the 80s before he became the greatest President in recent history. The pseudo-conservatives that stood in Reagans way ended up irrelevant and in the dustbin of history. The same will happen to those who are willing to act like liberal socialists and compromise their core principles in order to attract votes.

• 35 sinz54 // Mar 5, 2009 at 9:40 am

  Voice of reason: The problem is not Limbaugh; the real problem is Limbaugh’s demographics. Limbaugh reaches an audience of primarily Older White Male Married Christians, numbering around 23 million people. But in an increasingly diverse society, Older White Male Married Christians are gradually becoming a minority. Limbaugh does not reach blacks, Hispanics, single women, or the young (all fast-growing voting blocs), which public opinion polls show are overwhelmingly negative on Limbaugh. Limbaugh symbolizes a conservative movement and a Republican Party that are increasingly concentrated in the Older White Male Married Christians Of The Red States. And that cohort can no longer win elections by itself. 2008 was a watershed in that trend; Obama won by putting together a winning coalition of the young, the blacks, the Hispanics, soccer moms, the unions and the college educated suburbanites. Limbaugh has little or nothing to say to those groups, except maybe opposition to them (which is even worse). I don’t care about Limbaugh’s 23 million fans. They’ll always vote GOP, just like the blacks will always vote Dem. I am still concerned with how we reach all those millions of Americans who don’t listen to Limbaugh or who may even dislike Limbaugh. We cannot win an election, or restore the Reagan conservative dominance, with Limbaugh’s 23 million fans alone.

• 36 Spoonman // Mar 5, 2009 at 9:50 am

  sinz54: This is the exact reason why we need a true Conservative political leader that will articulate our core principles to a greater majority of the American public. Right now people like Rush and Levin are all that we have. Once we have better leadership in congress then they can start fielding candidates that reflect true Conservatism. Frum and his ilk are definitely not candidates for this position and should be fought against like the liberals we face today.

• 37 ChristianMiller // Mar 5, 2009 at 9:54 am

  Sinz53, I am not using apocalyptic rhetoric lightly. Apparently you don’t see what I see coming and I can understand that because you all are acting as if we just elected JFK . And many have been de-sensitized to corrupt Democrats but are highly embarrassed when one of our own is seen in a negative light by leftists. Certainly we need to police ourselves, but the disconnect when we have a highly corrupt Democratic Party and no one is saying anything but being ashamed of Rush and talk radio, my God!. We are just supposed to engage their ideas and counter with ours while the whole country slips into an abyss. Besides this is not a PR game. The PR game has been WON by the left long ago and they make the rules now. Imagine that you are behind the curve and us neanderthals with no educashons are ahead of the curve – I know it is hard…You guys want to promote Republicans in the rigged game, go right ahead. You want them to have to renounce Limbaugh, fine renounce him. Then they will target the next one to make y’all jump. You are pathetic losers. You really think you can make policy arguments with leftists who control the media? I mean, we had Bush who was trying to advance lots of good policy (and some bad policy) just completely shut out. Social Security reform. DOA because the Dems want the control.NCLB demonized even while Ted Kennedys’ name was attached. You want to have a reasoned debate with these cretins to prove to the media-addled drones out there that Republicans aren’t all pigs like Limbaugh, have at it,

• 38 chipallen // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:01 am

  David – It’s amazing that there are so many “experts” like yourself who decide how and how we should “rebuild our party”. The reality is that we have spent years “moving to the center”, trying to be nice, distancing ourselves from our values and core beliefs.

  Rush Limbaugh and a host of other conservative spokesmen are drawing a line in the sand. My sense is that you and people like you would be rushing in to tell Ronald Regan that looking someone in the eye and saying if you believe what you are saying, tear down this wall would be way too harsh and would alienate them to the point that they would not cooperate. I am very thankful that smart guys like yourself where not around when a group of people got together and took a standone that started with:

  When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

  How ugly was that? Oh my gosh, they will never get anywhere by saying this is what we believe and we are willing to die defending it. Thank God you and those like you weren’t around to straighten them out before they started a war or something.

• 39 joebozak // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:06 am

  Franco: With all due respect, you have your Social Secuirty Reform facts wrong. The reason SS Reform was DOA was because no Republicans would back it. It didn’t even come up to the floor for a vote!! And Republicans controlled both houses of Congess as well as the Executive Branch. This was the FIRST initiative rolled out of the White House after the 2004 election when the GOP held all the cards. And yet you want to assert that it was the fault of (a) the media (tired of that old trope, b/t/w); and/or (b) the Democratic Party. I mean, COME ON! Please, I will read what you have to say, and you do provide an interesting perspective on the issues. But please get your facts straight prior to posting.

• 40 sinz54 // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:07 am

  Spoonman: You’re WRONG. We did NOT get a chance to do things our way, because we were forced to make concessions to YOUR side. OUR idea was to give illegal Hispanic aliens a path to citizenship. But McCain was forced to run with a GOP base that considered illegal aliens “invaders” of a lesser culture, and wanted them all deported by force. They shot down the Bush-McCain immigration bill, and lost the Hispanic vote right then and there. McCain’s idea was to reach out to women by taking Tom Ridge as his running mate. But it was YOUR side who instantly pushed back against that because Tom Ridge is pro-choice. So McCain was forced to try to win over the female vote with a pro-life candidate–a very tough challenge. Sarah Palin was the best he could come up with. But Sarah Palin, as you know, was never David Frum’s favorite. She was, and is, the favorite of the conservative base–of YOUR side, not MINE. It was not OUR idea to have the Republican candidate go into the campaign with a base that hated his guts; we wanted a unified enthusiastic party. That was YOUR side, who hated McCain, because they were still smarting over McCain-Feingold. They said publicly that the ONLY reason they were campaigning for the ticket was because of Sarah Palin, NOT because of McCain. So be it. Then blame Sarah Palin, NOT McCain, for the ticket’s downfall.

• 41 Realist // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:08 am

  All this chatter about Rush Limbaugh is laughable. The more we try to defend this guy, the more attention he gets, which is all he cares about. Limbaugh is loving this and he is not going to let go no matter what. What’s funny is that he actually believes he is recruiting voters to the Republican party. If he didn’t feel this way, he wouldn’t come across as such a clownish characature of Howard Beale from the movie “Network”. Buffoonish populism is the kind of thing we attacked Michael Moore for, and the fact that we are rallying around an even more incendiary comedian shows us as fools. So go ahead and call me out for personal attacks on Rush, but don’t forget that personal attacks are how Rush earns a living.

• 42 joebozak // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:12 am

  Franco: Following up on my previous post. If you start with incorrect or bad facts, you end up with bad results. “Garbage in, garbage out,” as they say. Case in point, the SS reform package. By buying into the fact that the GOP was blameless in its failure you are then unable to engage in critical analysis of the GOP and or the feasability of SS reform in and of itself. What you are left with is platitudes and bumperstickers, rather than reasoned analysis, good faith debate, and engeagement on the issues. This is why the Limbaugh faction of the GOP is having difficulties connecting and expanding beyond its borders.

• 43 krove // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:16 am

  sinz, I really think David Frum should use you to write articles for this blog. You have a really common sense way of seeing the political world that cuts through all the BS and ideology but with a right of center slant that avoids dogma. Please do some longer articles fleshing out your ideas and the way you see things and present them for consideration. I for one would love reading them.

• 44 Cforchange // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:18 am

  There has been no move to a cooperative middle by all you folks that enjoy the harsh right. I think this site has made it clear that it’s purpose is to develop a broader consensus, a different message that would attrack new and more voters who wouldn’t dream of listening to a good rant that all you folks enjoy. You just have to get over the fact that just because I don’t like your brand of Republican that doesn’t make me any less of one myself. That’s call inclusion. If you’re looking to own the show – I’m not willing to give you that chance again. You’ve lost a darn important election for the GOP.

• 45 C Archer // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:18 am

  David- The Republican Party and Conservatism are not one and the same. Conservatism is this country’s hope now. The Republican party had their shot and we have the results today. Limbaugh espouses Conservative ideals with a degree of lucidity that is sorely lacking in most of Conservatism. Those conservative ideals are what will win the day. They must be the foundation of rebuilding this country after Obama gets through with it. Your analysis of Obama’s style and manner betray that you too are taken in by him. HIS IDEAS SHOULD BE THE PRIMARY FOCUS NOT HIS STYLE!!! I fear David that once caught up in the Obama momentum, as an old coach used to say ” You have not seen the ball since kickoff”.

  Your personal depiction of Limbaugh (as you say sympathetic) is rightly construed as well over the top. And as a point in fact , has our current President not also had drug use and sale in his history.

• 46 jjv // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:19 am

  I can’t believe I missed it! Levin is a great writer on court issues but he does nothing but shout and name call on the air. In fact, compare Levin to el Rushbo. Levin sounds nuts. I loved his book “Men in Black” and yet can’t listen to his show for more than a half hour. On the other hand, i think you should leave this topic for now.

• 47 gaiwan12 // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:24 am

  Hey David, I listened with interest to that entire interview and you revealed yourself to be Democrat-Lite. I was a new listener once to Levin, and despite his quirks, he speaks the truth and stands on principle.

  You sir, are another petty compromiser looking for a pretty candidate to endorse. It’s pretty clear to me, no matter how you cut it, that you just want someone the media and your moderate buds can swoon over, someone who’s willing to act “moderate” to be popular.

  Just remember, you can’t out-democrat a democrat. If you don’t want to be a conservative, do the Republicans a favor and become a democrat. Stop pretending to be a conservative and that those of us who actually stand on eternal principles are stupid losers living in the past.

  You are progressive and have been properly named and called out.

• 48 boxermk // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:32 am

  Mr Frum,

  I keep my political beliefs secret. My friends would be horrified if they found out that I regularly listen to Limbaugh and Levin (if they even know who they are). They’d immediately call me a fascist, and have nothing to do with me again. Actually this has happened to me on numerous occasions, so now I keep my mouth shut. I’m a twenty-four year oldy guy living in New York City (I say that because these facts are important to people like you), and I felt the need to write you after hearing Levin’s show last night.
  Young people want to believe IN something. They want to feel that they believe in something beautiful. They want a battle. They want something that gives them meaning. We want leaders. We want someone who seems to be taking on the status quo. I LIKE seeing men who are not afraid to shout, who are not afraid to debate and lay it all out there, in basic principles of what and why they believe. I hate it that the only leaders I have are talk radio show hosts, but these talk radio hosts are not to blame – the GOP itself is at fault for that.
  I wouldn’t be a conservative if it wasn’t for talk radio. People my age don’t need a politically correct people like you who just wants to be liked. None of my friend give a crap about which economic system creates more wealth, they don’t care to have a real discussion about Health Care, they don’t care to debate the facts on Global Warming – they just pretend to. As Mark Levin said (and which you were incapable of debating) – people don’t care as much about policies as they do about philosophies and principles.
  Levin has a duty to his audience to entertain. He is NOT a hater and a shouter. If a young twenty something turned on the radio, maybe he would be repulsed, if he was a politically correct tight-ass. Or maybe he would laugh and find Levin funny, way funnier than John Stewart, maybe he would feel like he’s inhaling fresh air after being smothered with the stench of “moderation” and “diversity” his whole life. l think you should get a sense of humor. You don’t get that Limbaugh is LAUGHING at the media who think Limbaugh is “the most dangerous man of the media.” He is making fun of THEM and YOU, and you don’t even get it. I fell in love with Limbaugh when I turned on the show, and I heard him call Global Warming a hoax, and his hilarious parody of Al Gore singing about a “Burning Ball of Fire.” I like the name calling, it’s in good fun! It’s a relief after hearing all my liberal friends denouncing my heroes as fascists. I laugh when Levin calls peoples names, because he’s actually pretty clever and spot-on. Do we have liberals who are wringing their hands over the mean-spiritedness of The Daily Show? I think Levin is a hundred times funnier than anything on Comedy Central. And I don’t think you get that Limbaugh and Levin are the only people out there making a case for Conservatism that is actually effective. That’s pretty pathetic for Conservatism, it’s really pathetic. But they are not to blame for that fact. They are so popular because of the huge vacuum that is this movement, and you seem to want to be another boring person who wants to be seen as cool by the young people. Well, if you didn’t vote for Obama, then you will never be considered cool right now, so the next best thing is to be real. And the best thing about Levin is that he keeps it real.
  Sincerely,
  Michael

• 49 Chekote // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:33 am

  David. I heard the Levin show live and the reason he had to turn the mike down on you what because you were filibustering. The audience cannot hear two people talking over each other. I enjoy the Levin show very much. He was the only talk show host who read the Alinsky Rules for Radicals and showed how Obama was his disciple. Levin was one of the first to identify Obama as a Marxist when the DC illiterati were writing lovingly about Obama’s elegance. It seems to me, that Joe the Plumber, Hannity, Levin and Limbaugh had the correct read on Obama. While Brooks, Buckley, Noonan were oblivious to the potential harm to our country (as we know it) Obama represented.

• 50 Realist // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:35 am

  C Archer said: “Limbaugh espouses Conservative ideals with a degree of lucidity that is sorely lacking in most of Conservatism.” If “lucidity” means mocking the president by calling him “Obambi” and “Obama Osama”, then you can kiss goodbye independent voters. Remember, independents were solidly behind bush in 2004. I can’t see how Rush’s “lucidity” is going to sway them to our side in the future.

• 51 sinz54 // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:36 am

  gaiwan12: Whatever label you choose to put on Frum and me is irrelevant. We both want the Republican Party to at least make room for OUR views. We do NOT want the GOP to continue to be the party of aging “Archie Bunkers”–older white guys who go to the tavern to rant about “Hispanic invaders”.

• 52 Goodtimes22 // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:36 am

  Sinz54: You can do exactly what you want to do. I would argue that you have. The reason Republicans lost both houses was that they were acting like Democrat lite. They got in and decided that they could leave principle and just make Democrat policies more responsible. Did you notice Democrats running on responsible spending and tax cuts? Is small government a liberal principle? If you don’t like the social issues of conservatives, then vote libertarian. Should we win elections at any cost? What if we just ran on the same platform of Obama. I’m whatever you want me to be. I live in Illinois and I can tell you that this states Republicans run the way you want and get stomped. Move away from the principles of conservatism and lose 30 million voters. Wasn’t the loss of RHINO McCain in the last election proof enough?

• 53 sinz54 // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:42 am

  boxermk sez: “I fell in love with Limbaugh when I turned on the show, and I heard him call Global Warming a hoax.” Do you agree with him? Do you think that Global Warming is a hoax? Because the world’s chief climatologists would be laughing (or crying) at that kind of misinformation. That’s the kind of stuff I’m talking about. Limbaugh is pouring anti-science, anti-intellectual, FALSE data into the ears of his listeners. And it’s having a disturbing effect.

• 54 Chekote // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:42 am

  Levin did not take Nat’s call because he is a gentleman. As a matter of fact, Levin told David that he should be very proud of his son and complimented his family. For David to twist this into something negative about Levin shows that he has completely lost his mind. David take some time off. Calm down and regroup.

• 55 jamiedj // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:44 am

  Seems like you have now been inundated with the the “hit” squad David! The same squad who have the Republican congress member’s on speed dial and attack, attack, attack when someone steps out of line, just ask Rep Gingry!

  May I say, I am a republican, disenchanted yes, but still a republican and a big fan of Mark Levin as an entertainer and often for his viewpoint, but not always. I thoroughly enjoyed the debate last night and thought how pleasant it was to hear Mark actually engage somebody he disagreed with rather than attack, although sometimes that gives me the biggest laugh, no one can do put downs quite like Mark!

  The substance of the issue must however be addressed and I too see a great problem with where the party is heading and I applaud David Frum for having the nerve to say it, maybe some of the prose was unnecessary but the issue must be dealt with. Just because the Limbaugh/Hannity/Levin fans can shout the loudest and spend half their day calling this congressman or that Senator doesn’t mean they represent the Majority, the silent Majority remain, for the most part, silent! I also find it somewhat amusing that the problem seems to be that Frum made personal attacks in his article, when the hosts in question spend 9 hours a day doing nothing else of any Democrat or “moderate republican”, that of course is fair game in their eyes, but Rush, oh no, criticize Rush and you really must brace for impact.

• 56 Chekote // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:44 am

  “Do you agree with him? Do you think that Global Warming is a hoax?” Yes. I don’t believe that they have made a strong case that it is man made. As a matter of fact, the new terminology is climate change and not global warming. Why the change in terminology? The term “warming” did not fit the actual data.

• 57 jamiedj // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:45 am

  follow from previous post

  It is a very valid point that although the country is basically a center right country, that does not mean that the majority buy in to the right wing conservative view of the world lock, stock and barrel. Just like myself, there will be things they agree with and things they don’t, and that should be just fine, not a valid reason to verbally destroy good people and bombard them from all sides. When the left use such tactics through sites like Media matters or Huffington post the outrage is clear, when the right do it, it’s fair game and just standing up for our principles, the double standard is sometimes mind-boggling. When the left disgracefully attacked General Petraeus last year the outrage was palpable amongst conservatives, but the very same people absolutely lap up anything that spews from the lips of Anne Coulter etc which is usually anything but respectful. You cannot have it both ways. To the average American it is distasteful on BOTH sides, there are not enough of us to win an election in this country, we need independents and moderate democrats to succeed, and if any of you think that this is the way to attract them then you are simply deluded. Yes, you can shout and holler and attack, attack, attack, but we will be doing that from a state of permanent opposition and none of the policies we aspire to have a chance of being introduced.

  Some of our leaders understand this, I am always struck at the very different (in tone anyway) Newt Gingrich that appears on ABC’s This week, than the Newt that appears on Hannity’s radio show, he is playing to two different audiences and I understand that, but in the world of 24 hour news and youtube etc, the rhetoric will always come back to haunt you. How do you think the average American sees the spectacle of the chairman of the RNC having to “apologise” to Rush for “having misspoke”, it makes Steel look ridiculous and Rush all powerful, you may say that’s fine until the next time Rush makes some incendiary comment and that is then linked to all republican’s and a spokesman is asked to condemn it on some cable show and is afraid to do so for fear of their switchboards burning up yet again. The same with Gingry, the fact that he not only telephoned into Rush’s show, but Sean’s and Mark’s as well for good measure and quite frankly grovelled was pathetic, and why, because he had had thousands of calls and e-mails threatening primaries etc, it is an absurd situation that we are allowing Talk radio hosts to occupy this sort of pedestal and it will come back to haunt us if it continues.

  Whatever you think of James Carville, he is an expert political operative and the fact that he is so happy with the current furore should tell us all something. Yes, we can all be happy yelling and screaming, and calling and e-mailing at the first sign of dissent, and amongst each other of course we all agree, but we are in danger of completely forgetting that there are people who do not share our opinion in this country and we are unlikely to win them over this way. That in essence was Mr Frum’s point and I am happy to applaud him for at least having the nerve to say so.

• 58 Realist // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:52 am

  boxermk said: “People my age don’t need a politically correct people like you who just wants to be liked. None of my friend give a crap about which economic system creates more wealth, etc….” Well boxermk, if none of your friends give a crap about serious issues, they why should you be surprised that they would vote for someone they like? You just torpedoed your own argument. One of the clearest messages to come out of 2008 was that people are fed up with political orthodoxies that tell them it is their way or the highway. Obama promised to look at both sides of an issue, listen to arguments over each one, and then make the decision based on what he feels is the best way to move forward. Whether he actually lives up to this promise remains to be seen. Rabble-rousing talk radio might make you feel better, but as the voice of conservatives, they don’t seem to be offering much in the way of alternatives that can be argued reasonably. And as you said, ” my friends don’t care to have a real discussion about Health Care, they don’t care to debate the facts on Global Warming. Well, I don’t see much of that coming from our “lucid” leaders.

• 59 dmt3 // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:53 am

  Chekote: Man has an impact on this planet. How could we not? What we build, what we grow, what we cut down. It impacts the planet. Some of what we do may have a beneficial impact in other cases not a negative impact. Do you really believe that man is a not a factor? If you do, that would be another primary example of binary thinking from the fringe. As for me, I recognize man has an impact, I hope it’s a beneficial one. I suspect that it is not. Scientists are often wrong and they don’t have all the answers, but there is enough data that shows changes are happening.

• 60 johnnycat // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:55 am

  David, you’re original blog post on Limbaugh was only superficially a strategic comment on Obama’s effectiveness at attacking him. Since it has come out that it was actually a planned attack to hold him up as the leader of the Republican Party and he has simply been denying it, you come off less as the rational arbiter of political passions than you think you do. I certainly hope that the people you deride (Limbaugh and now Levin fans) will see that by calling Rush the “Walking stereotype of self-indulgence” you actually opened a line of attack on him that this enemies had not contemplated and dare not tread: And it is a line of attack that is being used prominently now by the left, as the headlines at HuffPo attest. Now you want to smear Mark Levin. David, if you listen to his show, he generally gives no one who calls him -whether they be liberal or conservative- any time to debate him. That is his schtick. He has bills to pay and he is not NPR after all (I personally would like to develop a conservative NPR-maybe you could help to do that too) . Bu t if you listen to Levin, you know that he has done some really good work on communicating Obama’s plans to his listeners and formulating a coherent, op[position to this New New Deal to a very large radio listening public. It takes talent to do that.

• 61 billindallas // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:55 am

  Levin did decline to take the son’s call, and explained why politely to Mr. Frumm. To hear Mr. Frumm’s take on this he seems so calm and collected. I’m not that familiar with his works – but what whacked the beehive is his accusation that the masses were cheering Mr. Limbaugh on at the meeting over the weekend. I don’t know if the author reported on the red meat tossed to the masses as the Daily Koz convention last summer by the Democrat candidates. Perhaps he did.
  For the record, the whole Rush Is the Face of the Republican Party is merely a diversion from the fact the stock market is tanking daily – and has since the election in November. Rush and Shaun Hannity have their valid points – although both are too wound up for me to listen to. Mr. Levin’s broadcast is something I look forward to daily.

• 62 pampl // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:57 am

  Democracy and compromise are bedrock principles of America. If you don’t think there’s any value in arguments and elections between conservatives and liberals, and that it’s just a battle of good versus evil, then you aren’t really an American. You’re a jihadi.

• 63 krove // Mar 5, 2009 at 11:04 am

  This may have been a center right country at one time. It no longer is. I would say center left. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 by a fair margin,. Scraped by in 2004 and Obama obliterated McCain in 2008. The electoral map shows you where the country is and it’s blue/purple mainly with a red rump of states in the south. The 26% Republican polling tells you more. Many here are in total denial over this and the demographic tsunami that is heaping up to wash over the GOP in future elections. Keep on keeping on to oblivion, clutching your social issues close to your chest all the way down.

• 64 Chekote // Mar 5, 2009 at 11:05 am

  dmt3. Of course changes in the climate are happening! It is a living planet. Do you know of any living thing, being that does not go through changes? I don’t. Man has an impact, however, the extent of it has not been scientifically proven. I remember in the 70s and 80s, the rage was the “nuclear winter”. The fear then was global freezing. We shouldn’t pollute. We should conserve our environment. But species became extinct before we even appeared on the planet. It is part of a living planet.

• 65 johnnycat // Mar 5, 2009 at 11:10 am

  These are the words of your article that offend:

  “With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And were cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rushs every rancorous word well be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.”

  As I pointed out in my below comments, what you say here has opened up a line of attack that the White House wasn’t going. They wanted to paint Rush as the leader because they wanted people like you, along with their Moveon minions to pile on and discredit his reputation more. I hope (and I am saying this in my most honey-soaked voice) you understand why seeing a so-called conservative rush in to attack where the left was expected to go, calls into question your loyalties and your overall agenda. On a strategic level, it appears you are someone willing to dance on the grave of the conservatism Limbaugh represents, instead of, as you claim, to be someone whom represents a more intellectual arbiter of conservativism’s important principles. If that’s the case, this dancing on the grave appears to be a little self-indulgent to me. It serves your agenda.

• 66 sw // Mar 5, 2009 at 11:15 am

  I’m with sinz54. I can’t stand Levin — he’s worse than Limbaugh, who is at least funny. Levin is irritating, grating, ignorant, uninformed, and a jerk. He’s only one baby step in front of Michael “Savage” (how insecure do you have to be to pick that as your professional name? Answer: plenty). While I heartily disagreed with Frum on Sarah Palin, whom I championed, I am as tired as he is of the correctly diagnosed narcissism on talk radio. Face it, Limbaugh is a narcissist as well: it’s all about him, isn’t it. Our national infatuation with ourselves led to today’s economic debacle. Can’t we see that yet?
  From started newmajority.com to present a different kind of Republicanism from that of, for example, townhall.com or National Review. If you are a social conservative, moderate-hater, and kneejerk partisan, you can go to those sites. Personally, I don’t care for haters of any persuasion — no, wait. I do hate stupidity.

• 67 dmt3 // Mar 5, 2009 at 11:16 am

  boxermk: I never keep my political beliefs, nor my values or princples a secret. But, even when I disagree, I listen to the position, make my rebutal and then move on to something else. I don’ t know much about Levin, but from my limited exposure to Limbaugh, listening does not seem to be quality he possesses. Even so, the conservative talk radio hosts give an impression of the GOP and conservatism that is not accurate. Limbaugh is the face of the GOP and conservativism. The opportunity cost is that the GOP cannot attract those who would support conservative princples. The result is marginalization. The consequence is lost elections. Cause and effect.

• 68 jqmilktoast // Mar 5, 2009 at 11:19 am

  “And now he’ll write a column attacking me for having him on here but not letting him filibuster.” – Mark Levin 4 Mar 2009

  Now, here it is, as certain as the rising sun. Democrat lite is what put the GOP into the predicament it is now currently in, yet you continue to insist that the GOP must embrace the clueless middle. That which you propose is not the conservatism that catapulted Reagan to two huge victories and which got the GOP the House in 1994.

  Don’t bother with radio, you obviously cannot grasp the protocol required for a successful exchange in that medium. Levin didn’t lower you because he was losing the point, he lowered you because your pompous bloviating prevented him from offering his counterpoint to you – a classic lib tactic, by the way.

• 69 boxermk // Mar 5, 2009 at 11:22 am

  Again, sorry for the repeat posts – I didn’t realize it posted every time I refreshed.

  dmt3 – I see literally no cause and effect in what you said. The GOP is a pathetic party with a lack of effective leaders. Limbaugh and Levin are popular talk radio hosts. If it wasn’t for talk radio, the GOP would be even LESS popular. It is up for the party to speak for themselves. You are implying that Limbaugh is defining the GOP, do you not see the implicit insult to the GOP? DO you hear even one liberal complaining about Chris Mathews defining the Democrats?

• 70 Chekote // Mar 5, 2009 at 11:22 am

  “Mr Frum, I keep my political beliefs secret. My friends would be horrified if they found out that I regularly listen to Limbaugh and Levin (if they even know who they are)” That’s because people on the Left are so tolerant and open minded. ?sarcasm off.

• 71 sw // Mar 5, 2009 at 11:23 am

  Follow-up: I just sent the following to KABC-FM:
  Levin must go. He is an embarrassment. His tirade yesterday against David Frum broke records for tastelessness, ignorance, ugliness, and general ick-itude. This is Los Angeles. We are not morons here. Kindly terminate the contract of this pathetic fool, before he does us Republicans any more harm. I will not patronize your advertisers because of him, and I am not the only one who feels this way.
  Thank you.

• 72 Chekote // Mar 5, 2009 at 11:26 am

  All those blaming Limbaugh or other talk show hosts for the loss are missing the reality. The GOP lost because it demoralized its base by saying they were for limited government and fiscal responsibility and did the opposite once in office. They turned off the indies with their hypocrisy and the over-emphasis on social issues. Abortion in particular. Most women resent the pontificating by men about this issue.

• 73 jqmilktoast // Mar 5, 2009 at 11:26 am

  SW -

  Calling Levin ignorant and uninformed clearly betrays the fact that while you may have heard his show, you do not listen, at least not for comprehension.

  I doubt even Frum himself would call Levin ignorant and uninformed, though he may. Johnnycat does well pointing out Frum’s obvious own self-aggrandizement while poo-poohing Levin as “yelling at the passing cars”.

• 74 Chekote // Mar 5, 2009 at 11:28 am

  “I just sent the following to KABC-FM: Levin must go.” Why don’t you just turn off the radio instead of trying to dictate what everybody can choose to listen. You are an authoritarian. Don’t like Levin. Don’t listen. Actually, all this controversy will drive up the audiences for Levin and Limbaugh. They will be able to reach more people. That’s a good thing.

• 75 sw // Mar 5, 2009 at 11:37 am

  Chekote doesn’t like me, but he or she nailed it in the previous post: women were turned off by the pontificating on abortion.
  As for not listening to Levin, L.A. radio listeners are in a quandary. They fired Larry Elder — who was always gracious in dissent — and other than Hugh Hewitt, who is mostly outstanding, we have nothing during drive time. There are two insane bigots on the left side of the dial. There is Savage on the right (I note that no one is rushing to defend that cancer of the airwaves). And now there is Levin yapping and yowling. We red-state people in this blue-state town need more brain food. Hey David Frum, why don’t you try radio? Seriously.

• 76 dmt3 // Mar 5, 2009 at 11:41 am

  Chekote: The base turns people off. The “indies” (I are one) have to really really like candidate to vote them in spite of the base. I did not become a McCain supporter until I heard Limbaugh trash talking about him. I decided if he wasn’t good enough for Rush then he is good enough me. The base lives in a fantay world. They believe someone needs to come by and energize them otherwise they will be tepid in the support. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!

• 77 boxermk // Mar 5, 2009 at 11:42 am

  Realist,
  You completely misunderstood my point. The friends who I was talking about were ALL Obama voters. They pretend to care about Health Care and Global Warming, but they don’t care. I am informed on those issues, they are not informed.
  My point is you could talk about health care night and day, you won’t change their mind. You have to inspire them. Levin talks about Liberty vs. Tyranny. Rush talks about the greatness of America all the time. Obama talks about Hope and Change. That’s what I was talking about. But Obama has no substance.
  And what David Frum doesn’t get is that he can come up with some cool policies on Health Care or the Environment, but not ONE of my liberal friends will care. Not one “youn person” will be inspired by his policy suggestions.
  But if there will ever be a leader who can inspire them about standing up to tyranny, like Levin inspires me, then that might change some minds. Levin entertains me. That’s the point of a radio show. If you, or Frum do not like it, then don’t listen. Blaming limbaugh for the defeat of the GOP this past election, and not McCain and the Republican party seems idiotic. I think David Frum and people like you just like to feel smarter and more sophisticated than everyone else. If I saw David Frum doing something effective to stop the growth of Big Government, I would be a big fan. But I just see him looking down on his nose on people who have the temerity to be effective.

• 78 Chekote // Mar 5, 2009 at 11:47 am

  dmt3. What do you mean about the base? Also, the base represented 46% of the vote last time around. How are you going to win if you throw 46% of the people out of the party? You can’t. If the GOP wants to win, it needs to go back to its roots of limited government, fiscal discipline and individual freedom. A more libertarian approach to social issues would win many young people. Ron Paul did very well among the young.

• 79 sw // Mar 5, 2009 at 11:48 am

  Go dmt and bloodstar! This is why I like reason.com and the intellectualactivist.com (Robt Tracinski’s site). If the libertarian movement can outgrow the cringe factory that was Ron Paul — if the “base” can open its hearts and minds just a teensy little crack — if those of us who hate govt spending, interference in our personal lives, kick-me foreign policy (as practiced by the One), and PCism in general can just bring ourselves together philosophically, then the leaders will emerge. Real leaders, not cheerleaders.

• 80 pampl // Mar 5, 2009 at 11:51 am

  fgh: I hadn’t thought of it that way but you’re right. It was pretty chivalrous of Levin to keep Frum’s son out of it even though it left him open to slams about being scared to argue with a kid.

• 81 boxermk // Mar 5, 2009 at 11:56 am

  dmt, if you voted for McCain BECAUSE of Rush LImbaugh, then I have no respect for you.

  I voted for McCain because of my own principles and beliefs. I listen to Rush for information and entertainment. You claim that Talk Radio listeners are sheep who do what Rush tells them to do, but it is you who did something based on what Rush said on the radio.

  Why should we care about people who don’t have any principles but vote based on whether or not they like a talk radio show host?

• 82 AZ33 // Mar 5, 2009 at 12:00 pm

  After listening to your exchange with Mark Levin, as well as, his tirade against you. I stand with Mark. You can denigrate Rush while gushing over Obama. Mark Levin is something you will never be…principled. His words about you were no worse that your veiled attacks on Rush.

  Why don’t you just join the Democrat (yeah I wrote Democrat) Party and cut the charade. That way the IQs on both side will increase. You sure aren’t doing our party any favors. Maybe you can get a date with the “physically honed” dreamy hunk. Then you can really have an Obasam.

• 83 dmt3 // Mar 5, 2009 at 12:04 pm

  No Rush’s invectives only confirmed my predisposition. Notice, that I said that I did not become a “supporter” as in “I like you and will give you money and vote for you”. Which is different from “I like you and may vote for you but I’m not giving you money.”

  I vote my principles. My principles are different than Limbaughs (and the base, let’s remember Limbaugh speaks for the base).

• 84 Chicagorose79 // Mar 5, 2009 at 12:07 pm

  Well, Thank Goodness, it is possible to download Mark’s program anytime. Gotta get back to Mark. Maybe I’ll check back on you guys at a later time. This is putting me to sleep (except for boxermk – Keep it up kiddo!)

• 85 dmt3 // Mar 5, 2009 at 12:10 pm

  Of course all this talk about Levin, Limbaugh, etc. begs the question. The base is aging and shrinking. It cannot seem to attract new members. Therefore it will continue to lose and shrink further. So, perhaps the base can come up with solutions for their problem. So far they come up with the innovative stragtegy to criticize everyone especially Democrats and more especially Obama. Yeah, that’s gonna work.

• 86 boxermk // Mar 5, 2009 at 12:14 pm

  I just don’t get your point, dmt3. Rush Limbaugh is a talk radio host. We live in a free country with thousands of radio shows, tv shows, blogs, and newspapers.

  I have issues with the base as well. I’m pro-choice. But I have a basic principle of believing in limited government. My point is WAKE UP! Wake up David Frum and all of you. If really are against this giant leap to the left, then start standing up to Obama, start standing FOR something. No one cares about your criticism of Levin’s or Limbaugh’s broadcast styles. Blaming them for the pathetic state of the Republican parties is simply a case of incoherent thinking. The liberals control the media, thank GOD we have the little we do, but it’s not enough. If you want to see a talk radio host who appealse to the young crowd, GOOD. Go out there and find someone and start promoting him. The Left hates Limbaugh because Limbaugh is effective. If he wasn’t effective in spreading his cause, they wouldn’t care.

  One of the commenters who criticizes Levin here asks why Frum doesn’t have his own show. After listening to him last night. I think the reasons are obvious.

• 87 dmt3 // Mar 5, 2009 at 12:19 pm

  boxermk: Again begging the question, since you are part of the base, what’s your solution? The base is aging and shrinking. Whatever you have been doing has not worked. What do you want to do now?

• 88 littleschue // Mar 5, 2009 at 12:21 pm

  Mr Frum can dish it out, but he can’t take it. My other posts magically disappeared. How does it feel when someone attacks your personal appearance?
  Why should conservatism adapt to today’s youth? Should organized religion also adapt to the decline in morality? Maybe Jesus, upon his return, should inject some hip-hop into Christianity. After all, who among us is able to abide by the ten commandments? Doing away with “thou shalt not kill” would make that pro choice agenda much more palatable. If “victory” means selling out the values I hold sacred, then I would rather suffer defeat.

• 89 boxermk // Mar 5, 2009 at 12:27 pm

  dmt3, you literally did not read my post. I am pro-choice and I could care less about Gay-Marriage. So in what way am I part of that low-class rural “base” you seem to have such an obvious disdain for?

  You know what I do for the cause of standing up big government? I don’t go out there and insult and attack the few people who actually are effective in standing up for limited government, even if I don’t agree with everything he says. I keep my eye on the larger issues, which is educating people on why we shouldn’t give up our individual rights.

• 90 johnnycat // Mar 5, 2009 at 12:35 pm

  sw is no Republican and no conservative. We all must watch out these days for Soros-funded faux Republicans or those duped by them. There are many callers to c-span these days callin on “the Republican line” who then go on to berate all Republicans since William McKinley. sw wrote the following (pretending to be enlightened but showing ignorance):

  “isn’t it. Our national infatuation with ourselves led to today’s economic debacle. Can’t we see that yet? From started newmajority.com to present a different kind of Republicanism from that of, for example, townhall.com or National Review. If you are a social conservative, moderate-hater, and kneejerk partisan, you can go to those sites. Personally, I don’t care for haters of any persuasion — no, wait. I do hate stupidity.”

  I mean, does sw even read NRO or Townhall? My impressions of those sites and why I like them is that they have such a diversity of opinion. I mean NRO has daily posts by Victor David Hanson – aclassical grekk scholar foir heaven’s sake! What is posted on those sites is conservative, but so diverse, intellectual and complex, no one who actually reads them could characterize them so simplistically as sw has. That is, if you can actually get through the reams of info that is located on those sites. And on the realm of policy and daily news…these sites are indispensable, given that the main stream media is so obviously biased and has chosen sides. As a conservative and someone who truly cares about the country, I am so grateful for sites like NRO and townhall because they are so diverse and add to my education. sw is a bigot who thinks they are displaying their intelligence and rationality by making blanket statements that are contrary to reality. I imagine that sw is much like Frum himself, who recognizes the soundness of the conservative economic argument and the tyranny of leftist political correctness, but because they desperately wish to prove their intelligence to liberals are willing to throw other conservatives under the bus. But, to throw intellectual and essential websites like NRO and townhall.com under the bus is throwing the baby out with the bath water and carrying more water for the left than is necessary. Which is why people like sw should be dismissed and should look for employment with Soros…if they have not already.

• 91 RyaPdc // Mar 5, 2009 at 12:40 pm

  Mr. Frum:
  Mr. Levin was right; by him calling out your name, I have stumbled across your website for moderates. After all, his show is the fastest growing show on talk radioI give credit to the producers at Levin’s studio for not letting your son on the air. I wouldn’t imply in your blog that that was a cowardly act on his part. Perhaps Mr. Levins mistake was lumping you together with the other two guys whose names he also called. Maybe he should have expressed his grievances towards you all separately. What I don’t understand is, if all he does is angrily shout monologues and whatnot into the microphone, why do you, your wife, and teenage son listen to him? If you disagree with his means of voicing conservative principles, why do you listen? To get an idea, to report on something or a story he broke? For his legal expertise? Is it possible that you, Mr. Frum, are what Mr. Levin calls a “back-bencher?” Mr. Levin does get passionate on the radio, especially during his ingenious monologues. Is that the reason you listen? And what do you mean by saying conservatism needs new ideas? That is a fairly general statement. Do you mean we need new tactics of conveying to the American people that, when addressing substantive issues, TRUE conservatism trumps liberalism on all fronts? Or do you mean we need to change what it means to be a conservative? That seems to be what you implied on Mr. Levins radio show. I understand why he was targeting you for attacking Rush. Is your problem with Rush the fact that he calls it how it is and people like you cannot stand his politically incorrectness? By attacking Rush, you are giving into the whole White House strategy of alienating people within our own party whose voices are powerful. The White House picked a powerful target, isolated that target, and roused popular support against that target, a strategy taken right out of the Saul Alisnky playbook for community rabblerousing. They are trying to pin conservatives against each other to split us up. Dont fall trap to their agenda.

• 92 fact based // Mar 5, 2009 at 12:44 pm

  I gave your son a hard time on his Israel comments because I felt he was shooting from the hip without having done his homework, I will know give him mighty kudos for standing up for his dad against the blowhards of talk radio. Sean’s “good friend” Mark Levin is another of the endless parade of Rush wannabes in a rush to the gutter in order to build ratings. Checked out Hannity’s new “colmes free” zone, A recent member of his “panel” to discuss current issues was Joe Piscopo who must have taken a break from performing at dinner theatre in who knows where ?, The show is funnier than Jon Stewart.

  So there it is the american people looking for leadership and the repub congress races to kowtow to this crowd…pathetic !

• 93 kakypat // Mar 5, 2009 at 12:48 pm

  David…there’s an old saying…when you are in a hole, quit digging! I heard the exchange between you and Mark yesterday, and listened to it again last night. The reason the mic was cut is that you were filibustering, and that is the only reason. Re: your son…Mark explained why he wouldn’t debate him and I applaud his decision. Your wife was way off base, and so were you when you mentioned it on the air. One more thing…when you start hurling insults at someone, don’t be surprised if they boomerang back at you. And, please stop your incessant whining! You are sounding like a petulent child, and I’m losing respect for you by the minute.

• 94 johnnycat // Mar 5, 2009 at 12:51 pm

  Hey fact based: don’t the Democrats kow-tow to the Daily Kos crowd? Did you ever see the flotsam and jetsom on display at their meetings? Oh, you probably have…you’re obviously one of them.

  But again, what you said is not an argument and certainly not fact-based. So let’s keep insulting everyone and call only those we actually hate, haters.

• 95 dmt3 // Mar 5, 2009 at 12:52 pm

  boxermk: Ok, so you are not part of the base, whoever the base is. So let me restate it. The GOP is in the minority and has failed to attract supporters, which continues the erosion of the GOP as a major party. Whatever has been done so far has not worked. People are hearing the message, but they aren’t buying it. What solutions are you offering?

• 96 oldlib // Mar 5, 2009 at 12:52 pm

  My first post.
  There seems to be a lot distraction here. The fact is that Limbaugh gave a great speech at CPAC. Why would any right minded Conservative criticize him for it?

• 97 boxermk // Mar 5, 2009 at 12:54 pm

  Okay, so again I don’t see what insulting these talk show hosts accomplishes. We get it, you are smarter, more sophisticated, and better than the rest of us simple minded plebes. Do you guys have anything to offer other than proving you are smarter than Levin and his listeners? Because so far, I think I am more intelligent than I thought I was before I heard David Frum last night and decided to post on his website today.

  I am a youngy guy living in NYC. The only reason I take the unpopular position I do for my crowd is because I think big government is dangerous. There are NO leaders out there for me. None. I do not look to Levin for leadership, but for entertainment. I am very well informed and do my own research. What do you people do to inspire? I don’t get it.

• 98 gerrysh // Mar 5, 2009 at 12:56 pm

  Emett Tyrrell: Another timorous conservative is David Frum, who always is identified as one of the ex-writers for former President George W. Bush who assisted in creating the phrase “axis of evil.” How many writers are needed to create a three-word phrase? Frum is going along with the Democrats’ misleading claim that Rush wants the president to fail. Perhaps Frum believes that social democracy is an improvement on free markets.

• 99 FilmLadd // Mar 5, 2009 at 1:00 pm

  Mr. Frum, you’re a faux conservative that spends far too much time on the outer veneer of “beltway tactics” rather than “principles.”

  I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before you get a t.v. pundit job on ABC with George Stephanopolous. George Will is getting long in the tooth, and they need a new token conservative who is pathetic at articulating a love for freedom, and great at noodling away on irrelevancies.

• 100 boxermk // Mar 5, 2009 at 1:02 pm

  dmt3, why are you asking me that question over and over again without responding to any of my points?

  I do what I can, but my point is what is Frum doing? His policy analysis might be brilliant. But he is inspiring no one. None of my liberal friends will change their mind after hearing David Frum.

  And my point was that Levin was absolutely correct last night. People are inspired not by policies, but by philosophy and principles. Standing up to tyranny is inspiring, that is the theme of Levin’s show, which I think is effective for what it does. Obama voters were inspired by the hope and change and all of that. Rush Limbaigh inspires his audience in his own way. What is Frum doing other than attacking and insulting Radio Show hosts, and erroneously blaming them for the defeat of the republicans.

  The republican stand for nothing, they have no leaders, they have no principles, they’re kind of like people who call themselves indies and vote based on personality. That’s why they are such losers politically. They inspire no one. Obama does. It’s not about policy, It’s about big ideas that people can believe in.

• 101 FilmLadd // Mar 5, 2009 at 1:04 pm

  Mr Frum said in an earlier column: “I do not fear Barack Obama. I even rather like him. I certainly feel I have much more in common with him than I do with John McCain.” I suppose he is referring to his love of collectivism that he shares with Obama?

• 102 johnnycat // Mar 5, 2009 at 1:16 pm

  Does anyone realize that Frum was a speechwriter for Bush? That he wrote a book called “The Right Man.”

  This sort of goes a long way to prove that Bush’s moderate domestic agenda, meant to appease the left, doesn’t work for conservatives. That it was Bush’s attempts at centrism that did him in? That his unwillingness to express and defend conservative ideas was part of the reason we are left staring into the abyss today?

  And why are we actually listening to anyone on this site? They are so filled with Obama worship and are so dedicated to lubing us up to accept the reality of the welfare state, we should dismiss them-all of them!

• 103 joebozak // Mar 5, 2009 at 1:20 pm

  Re: Leader of the Republican Party. Great points mede by Ed Rollins today: “The battle to be the “de facto leader” of this party is akin to the question of who wants to steer the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. Who represents the party or its values is not relevant when only 26 percent of voters have a positive impression of the party at all and only 7 percent very positive, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey.

  The Democratic Party is the reverse, with 49 percent positive. When 60 percent of the country approves of the job President Obama is doing, every Republican leader is going backward.

  Republicans are not relevant. We just lost two back-to-back elections (2006 and 2008), and obviously, what we are selling, the voters aren’t buying. In the midst of the most severe economic crisis in my lifetime, we have a president who is taking the country on a dramatic sea change. This is what he said he would do and he is doing it. And where are Republicans? Right now we don’t have the alternative ideas, a message or, more important, the messenger.

  For the foreseeable future, the Republican Party is in the position of being the minority party. Until it nominates a candidate who can attract new voters and expand the base vote of the party, it will stay there. We are a party that needs ideas, new leaders and an inroad into young people and their thinking. That doesn’t mean we have to abandon our old ideas or quit fighting the president’s policies when we don’t believe in them. But we have a lot of work to do.

  Politics is a game of addition. We need to get serious and quit the silly debate about who’s the more important voice. The country only has two real political parties. We have tons of problems and obviously more than one way to solve them. It’s up to Republicans to become a vital party again. That means everybody’s got a job to do.

• 104 joebozak // Mar 5, 2009 at 1:28 pm

  Obama Preferred Over Regan In Fox News Poll —

  Are we still a center-right nation? And can the GOP revive itself through a return to the spirit of Ronald Reagan, as Rush Limbaugh has said?

  Check out this question from the new Fox News poll: “What do you think the nation’s economy needs more of right now — the economic policies of Ronald Reagan or the economic policies of Barack Obama?”

  The answer: Obama 49%, Reagan 40%.

• 105 johnnycat // Mar 5, 2009 at 1:29 pm

  Right Joe Bozak. And we fundamentally disagree with Frum’s center-leftism. I don’t think you can say it was conservatism that lost the past election and that is the argument we are having. What would you have us do? Just accept some of the insulting and intellectual dishonesty being foisted on Republicans by this site and the manistream media?

• 106 boxermk // Mar 5, 2009 at 1:34 pm

  My point as a young guy who doesn’t buy into everything the republicans are selling, and who is surrounded by Obama worshippers, is this: listen, because I’m done after this:

  Mr. Frum is for appealing to young voters. I suspect he’s for appealing to Hispanics, and Blacks, and Women, and Gays. I’m for all of that too. That is what David Frum stands for right now.

  Levin, like or hate him and his style, is for liberty, free markets, capitalism.

  And I’m telling you that I just know that it will be people like Levin who can change minds and expand the base for the Republican party, expand it among every age and race, not Frum.

  Defending liberty on ideological grounds, on moral and economic grounds, that’s what appeals to smart, young independent thinkers like me.

• 107 joebozak // Mar 5, 2009 at 1:34 pm

  I agree with Frum on one point: The need to undergo a re-think and expand the base of the party. I do not agree with belittling Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin. They’re pundits. There’s many of them and some better than others (George Will is my preference), but all points of view need to be considered as part of the re-think. I would like to a move away from the social issues, but it’ll be hard to get off of the christian-con crack. Withdrawl pains will be severe, but this too shall pass.

• 108 Dutch // Mar 5, 2009 at 1:43 pm

  While I wish when the public at large heard conservative their first thought wasn’t always talk radio, I think you are missing the importance Rush, Levin, etc. bring to the movement. They mobilize a base – a base that has been taken for granted for too long. We are sick of being told what we need to be more open to (gay marriage, climate change, ‘reproductive’ rights, etc.) in order to attract more voters to our party. What we need is more people talking like Rush and Levin (in substance and core conservative beliefs). I agree that they can be a strong cup of coffee – I have conservative friends that find them too harsh. But I also have a wife (whom is a minority which is something you might obsess over) who after hearing Limbaugh / Levin told me how they echo her values. Ditto for my father in law who legally immigrated here. To toss this medium aside as some sort of freakish far-right fringe is to miss the point. Levin and Rush are popular not because they say what they say, or say it how they say it….they are popular BECAUSE THEY ECHO HOW EACH OF US FEEL AND HOW WE WERE RAISED.

  In your defense, I think you are trying to help elevate elected GOP officials – and that is very important. It is a shame when most Americans know Rush, but most don’t know Mitch McConnell. But what elected officials need to understand, is that a large portion of this country CRAVES conservative leadership, and conservative thoughts and principal’s. In short, Rush and others are filling in for Reagan until a real conservative GOP leader rises to reflect how millions of us feel. In the meantime, we will continue to clean house in our party and build a true long lasting conservative movement that reaches out to a HUGE portion of this country.

  p.s. I also suggest you grow a pair Mr. Frum. You are bordering on a squimish demeanor that we need to leave to the liberals.

• 109 johnnycat // Mar 5, 2009 at 1:45 pm

  Bravo boxermk. To Joe Bozak: I understand the unease that many Republicans have with the Christian Right. It is hard to talk about them at metro parties where everyone is laughing at them. But one of the fundamental pillars of modern conservatism is moral/Christian worldview of Russell Kirk. He insisted that w/o a defense of the moral order, people would lose their humanity and demand that the state intervene in more parts of our life. He saw freedom intricately linked to personal morality. This was also the view of writers like c.s. lewis and even Carl Jung. It is fundamental to conservatism. Why do ou think it is necessary to jettison this vital pillar of the movement? Do you thin it is wrong on principal, or do you think it is not good as a political strategy? I await your reply and I will respond with reason.

• 110 Rhampton // Mar 5, 2009 at 1:45 pm

  MARK LEVIN: “David Frum, somebody I criticized, and have criticized in the past, not just for his substance but for his behavior … When you start personally attacking people, you lower yourself … I thought your columns was shouting some pretty nasty things … What I took offense at was your offensive writing against a friend of mine … You don’t get to make these judgements and your personal assaults on people, which is what precipitated this, will not be tolerated.” — Q. Does Rush Limbaugh personally attack others and calls them names? A. Yes — Q. Does Rush Limbaugh say some nasty things? A. Yes — Q. Does Rush Limbaugh say we are a thin-skinned nation that easily takes offense? A. Yes — Q. Does Rush Limbaugh judge others? A. Yes — Q. Does Rush Limbaugh object when his views are not tolerated? A. Yes — Q. Is Mark Levin being a hypocrite? A. Yes

• 111 krove // Mar 5, 2009 at 1:46 pm

  If those are the numbers in a Fox news poll then you can add 10% to the Obama numbers and take 10% off the Regan numbers if it was a normal poll taken by an actual independent polling organization.

• 112 Rhampton // Mar 5, 2009 at 1:50 pm

  johnnycat, Jesus never forced anyone to live by his moral order, even though he preached and warned that it was necessary for salvation. This is the fundamental truth that modern Social Conservatives have lost. They believe that by acting like Caesar, they can do the work of Jesus — and they couldn’t be further from the truth.

• 113 jbbinc // Mar 5, 2009 at 1:50 pm

  Mr. Frum, you should be careful about digging holes and continuing to dig. Sometimes the hole can become large enough that an entire career can be buried inside.

  After hearing you on Mr. Levin’s show it would appear taht there is truly a fundamental difference between you and Mr. Limbaugh. You appear first and foremost interested in saving the Republican Party. Mr. Limbaugh appears more interested in saving the country.

• 114 johnnycat // Mar 5, 2009 at 1:57 pm

  Rhamton: who is acting like ceasar? Examples if you have them. How does Christain conservatism manifest itself in political life that is so damaging? Is the belief in the culture of life and defending the unborn really resemble an authoritarian manifestation? As for opposition toy marriage, I think that this is not the place for that argument…but one cannot argue it is a political loser given the votes against it in the past election. And, I certainly don’t think you can argue opposition to it resembles some fascist manifestation. In my mind, attacks on churches look more authoritarian to me.

• 115 Rhampton // Mar 5, 2009 at 2:00 pm

  When you want to force others to live by your morals, via the law, you are acting like Caesar. It’s why Conservatives protest when liberals want to ban smoking or hunting or eating fast food because it offends their morals.

• 116 bibs // Mar 5, 2009 at 2:00 pm

  I’d love someone to define what a “real conservative” leader means. That’s what most of you idiots called GW Bush in 2000 and so I assume it means bumbling, free-spending, incompetent liar.

• 117 littleschue // Mar 5, 2009 at 2:03 pm

  I don’t care if Mr Frum worked in the Bush administration.k Morris worked under Clinton and he makes more sense right now than the aforementioned. I don’t subscribe to a kinder, gentler conservative, or Christian for that matter. Maybe the message can be fine-tuned for a specific demographic, but we don’t have to water down our values to reclaim victory. Have we learned nothing from the past election? Two words – John McCain.

• 118 Dan Crank // Mar 5, 2009 at 2:05 pm

  David people identify with Rush and Mark because they remind them of real people. They are not scared of the opposition. Something tells me that you will be looking for conservatism that can win again long after conservatives have taken over again. Keep up the good work!

• 119 johnnycat // Mar 5, 2009 at 2:07 pm

  Rhampton: In general, conservatives believe in individual freedom But just like the tradition of natural law, there are outer limits to that freedom. I draw the line at choice that insists on the right to murder. Notice that smoking, hunting, eating…those things you say liberals want to ban…have nothing to do with what is recognized as traditional morality or those things accepted throughout history to be reprehensible acts. They are arbitrary and not based on anything other than the recondite belief by those who think they have a political will to limit the freedom of others. But, why am I on a “conservative” site arguing this stuff. You’re not a conservative are you? Come on fess up.

• 120 littleschue // Mar 5, 2009 at 2:11 pm

  Hold it, Bibs. Before you label us idiots, let’s take a look at who the real “bumbling, free-spending, incompetent liar” really is. Mr “no lobbyists in my administration” has racked up more debt since his coronation than anyone in history. And he has the audacity to call that stimulus.

• 121 joebozak // Mar 5, 2009 at 2:12 pm

  johnnycat: I think its wrong on principle and on politics. I think that the conservative temperment should lead us to seperate religious beliefs from politics as much as is humanely possible. It is unknowable in this life which religious doctrines are “right” and which are “wrong.” It therefore provides an imperfect compass in which to make public policy decisions. This is why the founding fathers took care to place the Establishment Clause in Article I of the Constitution. They had seen Europe laid waste by centuries of religious war and their ancestors came to this country to practice their beliefs unimpeded by a state-sanctioned religion. A true conservative recognizes man’s imperfection and inability to create a religious utopia. That’s what is at the core of the Christian-con agenda, the utopian idea that we can create a religious state under God’s laws. That’s not a true conservative idea. Not under Burke or Oakeshott.

• 122 johnnycat // Mar 5, 2009 at 2:14 pm

  To bibs and all: I reiterate what I have said earlier but what the moderators of this site are deleting: If this site is about a “conservatism that can win again” why are we debating liberals who are just calling us all idiots. And why is it that their insults are not getting deleted, but my pointing this out is?

• 123 dmt3 // Mar 5, 2009 at 2:14 pm

  Dutch: Yes you are right that people crave conservative thought, principles and leadership. The key point of this entire comment chain though is that the people only hear a single rigid brand of principles and woe be to any who disagree with that brand. The point is that the people who might listen can’t hear Mitch McConnell because the talk radio hosts are so damn loud that no one else can be heard! What the country really needs is conversation but it takes more than one to have a conversation and it doesn’t happen when the mike is always keyed. People need to listen to each other. People need to be able to talk without fear of being called names and having scorn heaped upon them. Until then, vast majority of the people have tuned out.

• 124 boxermk // Mar 5, 2009 at 2:16 pm

  bibs, that is so easy: a real conservative leader is someone who stands up for real conservative principles like free markets, liberty, private property, and capitalism. And then someone who governs accordingly. Since none of that applies to George Bush, I do not and never did consider him a conservative leader at all. He was always a “compassionate” conservative who tried to appeal to the David Frums of the universe, which was why he failed to appeal to anyone.

  And I actually agree with joebozak, the whole making Abortion illegal and standing for limited government is a serious contradiction in my mind and does some harm. Nevertheless, I guess I’m smart enough to know where the real danger is, which is the Leftist Democrats and the Republicans who think we need to emulate them, which is the worst political strategy I can think of.

• 125 joebozak // Mar 5, 2009 at 2:17 pm

  Johnnycat: Let’s say that you supported the democritization effort by the Bush Admin in the Middle East (as most self-identified conservatives did). This is just another example of the utopianism that exists amongst the so-called conservative movement. A true conservative of doubt would never believe that human beings could grow a democracy like a Chia-Pet! A true conservative, reading Burke, understands that human beings are imperfect and that social engineering on a massive scale like it was some sort of Sim-City game does not work. It is no different than trying to create a religious utopia for all right thinking christian peoples here in the United States.

• 126 joebozak // Mar 5, 2009 at 2:19 pm

  Conservatism in contemporary America, the right is now in an almost parodic state of ideology. There isn’t just a rigid set of beliefs, indifferent to any time or place (e.g. tax cuts are right in a boom and a recession, in surplus and debt); it is supported by a full-fledged organization or “movement”; this “movement” generates journals and magazines and blogs designed fundamentally to buttress the cause; and the most salient distinction discussed in these circles is between those who are for the cause and those against it (with particular scorn for any dissidents). There is, for good measure, always an enemies list, to maintain morale: the dreaded libruls! New leaders emerge because small groups of the ideological intelligentsia select them on the grounds of their conformance with the ideology – Palin and Jindal spring to mind. Or previously rational figures have to convert to full obedience to the tenets of the new faith if they are to become proper “conservatives” – McCain, Romney, two otherwise capable figures turned into hollow shells by the need to kowtow to fanatics. The final phase of this ghastly cycle is the Limbaugh-Coulter phase, in which nothing is left of the conservative cat, except a preening narcissism-as-entertainment grin.

  It is precisely this ideological calcification of a set of pragmatic policies for a specific time and place – Britain and America in the late 1970s – that has killed conservatism as a coherent governing philosophy. When a primary race is dedicated to reviving the image and memory of a president elected almost thirty years ago, and when a general election campaign gets reduced to crude, identity-based appeals to a single demographic, you know classical conservatism is indeed dead.

• 127 dmt3 // Mar 5, 2009 at 2:22 pm

  Um..Hear hear!

• 128 dmt3 // Mar 5, 2009 at 2:26 pm

  joebozak: I always like the way Andy Sullivan writes.

• 129 johnnycat // Mar 5, 2009 at 2:28 pm

  joebozak: well I disagree that if you are talking about pure strategy that an appeal to morality to inform some direction on social policy is always wrong. No christian conservative proposes a theocracy or a christian utopia. That is a misreading of the movement. You say it is unknowable, through morality, what decisions in social policy are right or wrong. I have two responses to this: First, even if this is so, would you have those informed by morality eliminated from the democratic process? Second, certainly, if morality is not a good guide to social policy, then nothing is. You can’t t claim that there is a framework that is superior? If you can, then why do think that’s correct? And would it still enable you to eliminate religious-,minded people from the public square? I have found that faith-based thought is just as rational a basis to decide the right direction in some areas of public policy as reading 20 books on the issue.

• 130 Cforchange // Mar 5, 2009 at 2:38 pm

  Joebozak 2012, you’ve nailed it.

• 131 boxermk // Mar 5, 2009 at 2:45 pm

  My original reason for posting is because I’m sick of people who think they are smarter than everyone else but who have very little to offer needlessly insulting people like Limbaugh and Coulter. I myself am pro-choice, not against gay-marriage, and I disagree with both of those figures on many issues.

  But I think Coulter is a great satirisit and Limbaugh is a great talker. That’s IT! And if you don’t like them, then don’t listen to them. Nobody is forced to listen to anyone in this country. Guess what, if David Frum, exactly as he is today, was given Limbaugh’s audience, or Coulter sucess in selling books, HE would be the archenemy of every liberal and Obama supporter, he would be the one demonized by all these tolerant liberal folks. Don’t you get that?

  Not one person is forced to listen to Limbaugh or Coulter. They have an audience. They share exactly ZERO blame for the state of the Republican Party. Zero.

  You want Frum to go after the PC-crowd? FINE! Let him go out and call Rush Limbaugh a fascist, denounce George Bush as Satan, call Ann Coulter a Nazi-supporter, and suddenly you’ll be very very cool, and you will have accomplished absolutely nothing.

  My friends think Ann Coulter is the devil incarnate. It’s one of the main reasons I enjoy her existence. I think the point of Frum and his ilk, is that if you are a conservative, and actually have a sense of humor, and actually say something politically incorrect and offensive, then you are bad, bad, VERY BAD!

  If you have nothing intelligent to say other than blaming coulter and limbaugh for what McCain and Republicans are today, than at least say something amusing. But no, it’s always, I don’t like the tone, I don’t like the style.

  Mark Levin would call you a bunch of yentas, which is what you are.

• 132 johnnycat // Mar 5, 2009 at 2:45 pm

  to joebozak:at any time and at any place in history, if you are to obtain political power you must organize. This will include the public face of such movement as much as it will include the subtler underpinnings. Broad, mass-based movements will always contain the good with the bad, the intellectual and the bombastic. It will have a center, a left and a right. There will be those who are hated and those who can draw the crowds. It will possess ideas, individuals and strategies that appeal to many and are despised by many- both within and outside the movement. But those who recognize ultimately the rationality and power of the ideas within the movement, wisely accept this, becasue they know that these ideas, when applied correctly will make the country or whatever poltical entity they are fighting to obtain, a better place. Those that are true to the cause generally take the good with the bad and find it imprudent and self-destructive to bash what they may or may not feel is the most forlorn part of that movement. It is not the the sign of the true believer and the mindless follower to assess the best a movement and accept the fact that it contains multitudes. And anyone who is truly a conservative should be able to recognize that within those multitudes, the efforts by individuals and entities within it, will be imperfect and not always to one’s liking. Accepting that is the definition of honor and loyalty and once was the definition of a man that was true. And anyway, everything that you just said about conservatism could be said about the left in kind.

• 133 krove // Mar 5, 2009 at 2:51 pm

  johnnycat, all that sounds fine until the rubber hits the road. Then you get a series of scandals by “family values” moral “Christians” who tell the electorate how they wish them to behave and then they themselves fall far lower morally that the general citizen. That sort of hypocrisy has been evident time after time and causes your average voter to repulse against the social conservatives. There should be NO religion in politics at all. It does not belong there. Christian principles will be borne out in the character of true believers and will filter naturally into the governing process ( by their fruits shall you know them). To enforce religious dogma via legislation is plain wrong and against the founding principles of this country.

• 134 boxermk // Mar 5, 2009 at 2:53 pm

  Joebozak – your description of conservatives is exactly what all my Obama- loving friends think of conservatives, and what I know has NO basis in reality. That is how MSNBC portrays Republicans – and it’s a huge lie.

• 135 Eastslope // Mar 5, 2009 at 2:56 pm

  Rush and Mark are saying on a national level the things that we as Americans would like to say to Washington and all the other socialist in this country. LEAVE MY COUNTRY ALONE!!! David, you seem to be an inteligent individual with the same fears that we all have about the direction we are headed. To be honest I’d never heard of you until this rift with Mark, so THANK HIM!!! Now that you are on the national scene, direct your energies toward the socialists and let’s get this country going in the RIGHT direction.

• 136 johnnycat // Mar 5, 2009 at 2:57 pm

  To joe bozak: if you look clearly, you’ll also understand that while Burke proposed limitations to human beings he is also the author of the quote that says evil will prevail if good men do nothing. Meaning, yes, we have limitations, but power must be used, albeit prudently, if that power will prevent further evil. Personally i have my reservations about the war in Iraq but I do not underestimate the threat of terror and the political crisis it still represents in the world. As far as utopianism, well, I think US foreign policy has some of this in it-especially when the left is in charge- and I do agree that a more conservative foreign policy would be based in reality. This means we should fight all efforts an international integration, as a real conservative would see a lot of problems with globalization and things like the global cental bank and any infringement on national sovereignty.

  Also, I remind you that it is Frum himself who wrote a book on winning the war on terror…a goal I assume you think utopian?

• 137 johnnycat // Mar 5, 2009 at 3:04 pm

  to krove: in the last century, what types of government has posed the most threat human liberty and actually killed more people: theocracratic governments or socialist governments?

  Can you even name a theocratic government that has come to power or has won substantial numbers of supporters in the last century? If not, forgive me if I think that atheistsic, state-worshipping ideologies are much more of a threat than the straw-man threat liberals create in their minds (in order to eliminate christians from the public square altogether.).

• 138 johnnycat // Mar 5, 2009 at 3:07 pm

  krove: and why exactly do you refer to Karl Rove as your identity? Surely you are not a fan of the man? If it is an attempt to publicly mock and is a little personal joke…why are you on a conservative site? I will keep saying this in hopes that people will understand Frum an his ilk are trying to destroy conservatism and not “make it win again.”

• 139 krove // Mar 5, 2009 at 3:16 pm

  johnnycat, you are obviously a supporter of free speech, or not.

• 140 johnnycat // Mar 5, 2009 at 3:22 pm

  what does that mean? I am just trying to find out the nature of this debate. I mean if you are not really a conservative, why am I wasting my time? You have to admit that there are many people calling in on “the Republican line” that trash all Republican since William McKinley and have no intention of creating a conservatism that can “win again.” I will admit, that is something I am all for and why I am here.

• 141 joebozak // Mar 5, 2009 at 3:24 pm

  dmt3: You’re right. Those are A.S.’s words and I should’ve quoted them but was a little lazy at the time of posting. I stand behind those sentiments, however.

• 142 johnnycat // Mar 5, 2009 at 3:27 pm

  hey Joe: all my words are my own. Isn’t that something Limbaugh said in the CPAc speech that Frum has called rancorous: conservatives don’t need teleprompters…or something like that.

  Maybe there was some truth in what Rush said…just maybe it was all “rancor” and shouting.

• 143 joebozak // Mar 5, 2009 at 3:31 pm

  johnnycat: I don’t think that winning the war on terror is utoptian at all. But then again, I think that you can no more have a war on terror than you a can have war on espionage or sabotage. A war on tactics? How about a war against a identifiable country or army? I’ll go along with that. I’d also go along with a law-enforcement (international or domestic) approach against international terrorist organizations.

• 144 joebozak // Mar 5, 2009 at 3:34 pm

  Johnny: Normally I identify any quotes (as earlier to day with Ed Rollins quote) and was in bad form for not lazily not doing so earlier. My apologies for failing to do that on that post at 2:19pm.

• 145 johnnycat // Mar 5, 2009 at 3:45 pm

  bozak: but if you believe that nation-building is utopian, i wonder why you are on the site of the person who wrote a book promoting just that and continues to.

• 146 Rhampton // Mar 5, 2009 at 3:53 pm

  johnnycat, I’m as conservative as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison … as for moral traditions, the Jewish religion teaches that the fetus is not a person until the 40th day after conception. It just so happens that medical science has learned that electrical activity begins in the brain of the fetus in the 6th week — just after 40 days. In the time of the Founding Fathers, Common law “did not formally recognize the existence of life, or even the existence of a fetus, until the pre-born child’s movements were made manifestly apparent” — the Quickening — and that is well after 6 weeks. Since all good conservatives respect the Constitution as the ultimate authority in governance, all good conservatives agree that the government is forbidden from establishing or supporting a religion(s). Thus Bible (Torah, Koran. etc) based arguments are moot. Hence the need for Liberty and the protection of Pluralism and Secularism — the common the ground for all of us to express our individual religious rights with equal freedom.

• 147 joebozak // Mar 5, 2009 at 3:58 pm

  Johnny: In re: Why am I on this site if I do not agree with Frum. Precisely the point that many are trying to make on this post! You do not have to be in lockstep in order to find common ground. Ergo, the “New Majority.” I’ll tell you why I’m on this site: I genuinely am interested in modern conservative thought. Especially during this time of upheaval when the question of “what is conservatism?” is being discussed. A little about myself: I’m a registered Democrat who is willing to vote for a Republican but is unwilling to abide a calcified and reflexive “government is the problem” stance. Ironically, because of the Bush Administration’s mostly reprehensible policies I began to ask myself–what is conservatism? The more I read about it, it origins, their relation to the founders and the Constitution, and how its been misused and bastardized by many of the current crop of Republican leaders, the more I became interested in seeing if the true tenets of conservatism could be part of a consensus or governing philosophy.

• 148 johnnycat // Mar 5, 2009 at 3:59 pm

  Rhamton: You siad, “Thus Bible (Torah, Koran. etc) based arguments are moot.”

  The Constitution does not say that. It merely prevents the establishment of a state religion in the federal government. It does not say that all arguments based on a biblical morality are illegitimate for social policy. That is not a good conservative’s reading of the constitution. If you want to know more, read anything by Professor Lino Graglia- a good conservative.

• 149 chaosDrew // Mar 5, 2009 at 3:59 pm

  boxermk- you complain about how MSNBC portraits conservatives but you seem to completely ignore the very reason people dislike Rush or Levin or Fox News- because of the way they portrait liberals and moderates. You want to argue they are great defenders of the conservative faith- and this may be true- but trying to win converts amidst cries of “red-diaper doper babies” or “feminazis” or “communists” or “traitors” or “America-haters” etc is futile.

• 150 ChristianMiller // Mar 5, 2009 at 4:03 pm

  boxermk- I enjoyed reading all your posts and agree with you. If you scroll down I have several posts here expressing essentially the same sentiments as you. The people here who are of Frum’s viewpoints are fully in agreement with the left’s caricature of the right-wingers and they are embarrassed. You are right to not express your views to your friends. It is a waste of time. I have the same kind of friends and they are older and even more brainwashed. Sometimes I debate but only on principles; never party or programs. But you and I and many others, defy the narrow categories many of these supposedly smart people have constructed. There are conservatives of principle like us who know what it is intellectually. They are kinda like the Dems when it comes to ideology, they just want power. And when they got it they sold out for near term and selfish gains. Frum and his fellow travelers are doing politics from the outside in, and we are of the view that we must go inside out. I.E core principles rather than poll-driven posturing. It is ironic that these policies, in our view, are the ones that got us into this mess. Republicans had a perfectly good majority and a President and they blew it by being moderate and by trying to please Democrats and by being fat and happy in power with waning principles. Then they doubled down and inflicted McCain on us. Besides their plan for power is fundamentally flawed because these people are nowhere without conservatives and the left will continually torment them by making them distance themselves from us redneck cretins, but the left will never respect them. They are the Fredos of the Corleone family and we are the Michaels.

• 151 Root // Mar 5, 2009 at 4:03 pm

  Why is it that talk radio produces this type of conservative voice that Mark Levin so perfectly illustrates? I call it “wet diaper conservatism,” because something else always seems to bothering them. Years ago in NYC there was Bob Grant who always calling callers “skunks.” Rush is generally more civil in tone, but he can be pretty ugly in substance (as Mr. Steele noted). David is right to point out the problem. Rush clearly thinks he is the new Buckley, but there is a basic conflict with his commercial aspirations (not to mention his anti-intellectualism). Why shouldn’t we talk about this? It’s pretty hard to consider Rush’s tender feelings. He certainly doesn’t spare others, to say the least. He calls Barney Frank “the Banking Queen” and plays the theme “My Boy Lollipop.” Is there really no problem with this as the face of Conservatism?

• 152 johnnycat // Mar 5, 2009 at 4:05 pm

  joebozak: so Joe, you obviously don’t agree with much I say and I am more adept at the history of conservatism and conservative legal theory than you will probably give me credit for. and you disagree with Frum…who I actually agree with in many matters. You are a registered Democrat. you think Bush’s policies were reprehensible. But you are looking for a conservative governing philosophy? There are Blue Dog Democrats. Perhaps that is a better place for you.

• 153 joebozak // Mar 5, 2009 at 4:05 pm

  Johnny: Following up on my previous post: So I am indeed here in good faith to listen, to engage in dialogue and debate, and to see if we can rebuild consensus. I’m not happy with the Democratic Party–its reflexive nanny-statism; it’s historical over-reliance on large government programs to achieve (mostly) noble ends; and its constant need to appeal to interest-group politics. One of the reasons I voted for Obama is that he seemed to “get it.” We’ll see. Mixed results so far. But I certainly cannot vote for candidates or a party that is uncritical of itself and calcified in a rigid and unyielding orthodoxy–the opposite of conservatism which will always take a “wait and see” approach to new facts on the ground.

• 154 Rhampton // Mar 5, 2009 at 4:07 pm

  johnnycat, if you want to know what the Constitution really means in regards to religious freedom and pluralism, then get if straight from the horses mouth (the primary author) JAMES MADISON: Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man’s house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man’s conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact. That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism. — Property, 1792

• 155 joebozak // Mar 5, 2009 at 4:10 pm

  Johnny: You think too little of me! I certainly am willing to give you credit for your knowledge of conservative theory, history, and philosophy. I’m relatively new to the fold and to rule out any opinion would be foolish and counterproductive. Its one of the reasons I like this site so much–the fact that you and I can engage each other without me being banned from the site. I’ve tuned into the commentary on RedState for two years and its like an echo chamber! I’ve always wanted to have a open dialogue with conservatives, but there’s never been an open forum for it. This site is truly unique in that regard.

• 156 Rhampton // Mar 5, 2009 at 4:17 pm

  arc3sat — If it doesn’t bother you when Rush and Levin engage in personal attacks, name calling, mockery, etc, then why are you so easily offended when Frum does it? I suspect you actually enjoy listening to such attacks when you share a dislike of the target.

• 157 johnnycat // Mar 5, 2009 at 4:23 pm

  Rhampton: Well, isn’t that statement by Madison exactly the usurpation of property and individual autonomy that the Obama administation is threatening? This is why Limabaugh et. al. are raising their voices. Bozak has said he wants to be a conservative because he doesn’t like nanny-statism and he voted for Obama. well… hello! You have nanny-state policies on steroids under Obama. Limbaugh et. al. see the nanny state threat (we call it what it is: socialism) because they have been conservatives, like me, for a long time and read all this stuff years ago. Anyway, we were talking about the establishment clause, the first amendment…what does that quote by Madison have anything to do with the establishment clause. Bozak: I need to leave to listen to Hannity (Iike a lemming) but let me leave you with something I agree with Frum on:

  “conservative ideas continue to be relevant and will soon re-emerge more relevant than ever. The current U.S. administration and congressional majority seem determined to forget every economic lesson learned in the years since 1966. They are rapidly expanding social spending in the name of stimulus. They are redirecting investment from high-productivity to low-productivity uses in pursuit of green jobs. They are toying with buy American protectionism while repudiating hire American enforcement of immigration laws. They are so eager to restore the dominant liberalism of the 1930s that they cannot see that they are repeating their own errors of the 1970s.”

  Conservatives recognize this and fear the ramifications of Obama’s policies. That’s why we are rallying behind the radio guys who are pointing this out, however physically imperfect and over-indulgent Frum and his supporters think they are.

• 158 johnnycat // Mar 5, 2009 at 4:35 pm

  For conservative Democrats who voted for Obama I think this is a much better site for you:

  http://www.house.gov/melancon/BlueDogs/

• 159 joebozak // Mar 5, 2009 at 4:35 pm

  Johnny: let me be clear. I don’t believe that all goernment programs are evil or wrong. Government DOES have an important role to play, but it needs to be smart. For instance, I think that we need to have a government-based healthcare system that you can chose to enroll in. A private option can exist side-by-side. This is a competition issue. Our companies cannot compete because they are, in effect, acting as the government subsidizing the healthcare costs of its employees. I think that we need to reduce the size of the federal government’s involvement in primary and secondary education (other than funding). More local control. I know that these items may be incompatible in your mind, but they’re not for me. I believe in pragmatism. Getting things done.

• 160 joebozak // Mar 5, 2009 at 4:37 pm

  Johnny: What items of the platform are you willing to compromise on in order to achieve a governing consensus?

• 161 Rhampton // Mar 5, 2009 at 4:46 pm

  johnnycat, The Establishment clause prevents the government from supporting religion so as not to interfere with the “Right of Conscience.” Yet social conservatives do exactly what liberals do. Why? Because they mistakenly believe the Bible tells them to act like Caesar. We don’t need Liberals or Social Conservatives to be our Nanny, and Jesus certainly doesn’t want you to assume that role either.

• 162 johnnycat // Mar 5, 2009 at 4:49 pm

  bozak: let’s answer your question this way: The conservatives have their coalition and the left has theirs. I don’t believe in allowing people who are on the other side of the aisle to define your movement and then let them tell you how to reform your movement based on that definition. This discussion started with you saying conservatism should dump the social conservatives…I am not willing to do that and I do not believe that is a good thing to do. So, Bozak, it seems we have come full circle and you have not convinced me to dump an important part of my movement and then you ask me where I should compromise. What is the source of this arrogance? So my conclusion is that I will dump the social conservatives and I am assuming that is not acceptable to you so where has all this gotten us? really? try the Blue Dog site.

• 163 johnnycat // Mar 5, 2009 at 4:54 pm

  Rhamton: I though I asked you to tell me where in the world is the theocratic threat you so fear? According to RJ Rummel who wrote the book, “Death By Government” socialist and communists were responsible for close to 170 million deaths in the 20th century. Why should I fear imaginary theocracy from good-natured Christains concerned about the life of a child more than I should fear socialism?

  Isn’t the answer to that in the MoveOn script?

• 164 boxermk // Mar 5, 2009 at 4:55 pm

  ChaosDrew- what is it with this site and the complete lack of humor? Rush Limbaugh’s job isn’t to please your utterly predictable politically correct sensibilities. No one in this country is forced to listen to him.And if you want me to feel sorry about how Liberals are portrayed in the media, you chose the wrong person.
  I’m routinely called fascist, racist, and everything else if I even attempt to say that I don’t agree with Obama’s policies. You and I live in a completely different universe.
  It is very difficult to speak about the evil of collectivism today. It is SO easy to be a “liberal” and an Obama supporter, at least where I live. Left Wing thought dominates NBC, CBS, ABC, MTV, Newsweek, Time, NYT, WPost, etc. And I don’t even watch Fox, but I know for a fact that they do not demonize liberals. Stop acting like a victim when you are not. Quite the opposite.Rush doesn’t pretend to be a News Organization (only to the extent that he mocks people who think he is), he expresses his opinions and entertains people in the vacuum that is created by this massive onslaught of left-wing propaganda.
  We just went through eight years where bush was portrayed as a combination of Hitler/Stalin, so I’m not going to apologize for Rush Limbaugh very accurately joking about Feminazis. Do you have any comments as to how Sarah Palin was portrayed? I’m surrounded by Obama-drones. I know how vicious and hateful the Left truly is.
  And in case you haven’t noticed, Barak Obama is very much a Marxist. He is massively growing the government (and Bush was bad enough!) and restructuring this society. I don’t really understand why David Frum is concerned with building a new conservative majority of people who don’t really give a crap about this fact, who can only talk about how this or that comment was offensive, or the tone was wrong, or the style isn’t as “elegant” as Obama, if our basic Free Market system is being destroyed, utterly wrecked right NOW! In front of our eyes. And that more than offends me. So actually, I appreciate the people out there with a voice and a mic who are railing against this disastrous development for all individuals, regardless, or race, gender, or class.
  I dislike the implications of a massive central government. To me it is horrific, and it has ZERO to do with age, race, group, or sex. Because to a faceless bureaucrat, you’re nothing but a number.

• 165 joebozak // Mar 5, 2009 at 4:58 pm

  Johnny: I’m not trying to convince you. I think that is where we may be talking past each other. I’m just searching for common ground. Yes, its true, I think that the social conservative movement is a killer for the modern day GOP. Why? Because they seem to be prone to litmus tests and exclusion of those who don’t agree with them 100% of the time. In other words, they’re difficult to find common ground with. For example, I support banning late term abortions (except in instances of mother’s health or rape/incest). I’m also interested in reducing the number of abortions through all the tools available: abstinence education, non-abstinence sex education, and contraceptives. In my opinion, there’s some common ground there.

• 166 KMC // Mar 5, 2009 at 5:04 pm

  I agree with Levin you wouldn’t stop your ranting long enough for him to counter your point. What you said had some merit but filibustering did not help your argument.
  Rather than shout over you he turned you down to address the point. If you would have stopped filibustering long enough for him to respond he wouldn’t have had to “turn the volume down on a critic.”

• 167 ChristianMiller // Mar 5, 2009 at 5:04 pm

  joebozak- You are against late term abortion, yet you voted for Obama. OK… You want fewer abortions but you voted for Obama, ok. You are here looking for a consensus and you are not really happy with the Democratic Party but you voted for Obama over McCain because Obama “gets it” (with mixed results so far, “we’ll see”, you say) That is truly funny. You make my argument well. Hey you phony intellectuals jerking of in your skulls with wonkery, convert this guy over to your club. Convince this dweeb to vote for a Republican. Use all your intellectual powers, all your debating skills and persuasive methods to get him to realize it is in his interest to vote for any Republican candidate. This guy is like a teasingh who will never put out but loves all the attention. I think the only thing keeping this guy from voting for a Republican is how the word Republican is spelled. If it doesn’t start with a “D” then he’s not buying.

• 168 joebozak // Mar 5, 2009 at 5:05 pm

  Johnny: As I said before, I’m willing to vote for a Republican. I imagine that I would be someone that the GOP would be interested in targeting for a vote. Why expel me to the “Blue Dog” website? See what I mean by common ground? I can vote Republican, but I need to see that they’re serious about governing. I’ve asked this question here before: How can a party that professes “government is the problem” be serious about governing and getting things done?

• 169 KMC // Mar 5, 2009 at 5:07 pm

  By the way, while I may agree with Limbaugh on many policies, I don’t always agree with his style of delivery. Therefore don’t write me off as some raving fan offended that you insulted him. Nor am I a regular follower of Levin. Your debate was the first time I had listened to him and he was right you woouldn’t let him get a word in edgewise.

• 170 johnnycat // Mar 5, 2009 at 5:11 pm

  bozak: ok my last post-again, then why are trying to move the conservative coalition to the left. Why waste your time. I believe in the culture of life and that morality are the best guides for a person on the issue of sexual morality. It really isn’t that hard. Your “education” proposals, despite being Obama talking points, just sound like a crytpic way of insisting that government be an instrumental part of that person’s decison-making. We disagree and the conservative movement-I believe- should never abandon a principal as fundamental as this. I don’t see compromise here because I believe your approach is statist at heart. And, there is a political movement and a political party that reflects these values. Why hang out on conservative sites…unless your real goal is other than what you profess it to be.

  Bye

• 171 joebozak // Mar 5, 2009 at 5:13 pm

  Franco: I’m interested in dialogue here and maybe even the creation of a new political party. I’m open to hearing your thoughts. On the Obama “gets it” issue: I believed that he shared my interest in rebuilding consensus in the U.S. Getting past the 40 years of interest-group based politics (on the Democratic side) and the politics of resentment (on the GOP side). So far, mixed results. (We’ll see). McCain’s candidacy promised more of the same.

• 172 boxermk // Mar 5, 2009 at 5:13 pm

  franco – you just made me laugh.

• 173 joebozak // Mar 5, 2009 at 5:30 pm

  Franco/Johnny: My last comment as well: THis site s called “New Majority”, not “Republicans R Us.” as such, I’m here (not to tease–very funny) to see if a “New Majority” can indeed be had and what place, if any, my evolving political philosophy has in it. I’ll continue to post questions,comments, and quotes on this site and I look forward to engaging with you on the issues in an agreeable fashion. Until next time.

• 174 Rhampton // Mar 5, 2009 at 5:30 pm

  johnnycat, you asked “what does that quote by Madison have anything to do with the establishment clause?” And I gave you my response. As for your second about “an imaginary theocracy from good-natured Christains,” this is what THOMAS JEFFERSON said: “Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.”

• 175 eastvillager // Mar 5, 2009 at 5:35 pm

  yo frum–

  keep it classy and don’t wallow in the mud. i’m ay professional and i really want to vote republican, and it’s your type of conservatism i could vote for. unfortunately, republicans of levin’s and rush’s type have a deep hatred of blacks, women, spanish, and yes, gays. i hope you win this battle.

• 176 Alan // Mar 5, 2009 at 5:59 pm

  I was a registered Republican for 25 years up until last December when I updated my driver license. It’s people like Levin and Rush that not only drove me out of the Party but caused me to no longer identify as conservative. Levin is nothing but a control freak who doesn’t debate. His idea of debate is to get more loud and guttural. Which is basically a reflection of all the Right has to offer our country.

• 177 boxermk // Mar 5, 2009 at 6:00 pm

  ChaosDrew -

  I stated facts, and you are responding to things I never said. I do not think I’m a victim, I described exactly what happens in real life. And I never said conservatives are never allowed on TV, so stop lying about what I said. You are the one with the hate. You didn’t just simply say you didn’t like Levin’s tone, you complained about how awful liberals feel when they hear him. So great, now you have a Big Government with a bunch of totalitarian-leaning liberals who want to shut Talk Radio down because of how offensive it is to them.

  Stop pretending to be a victim, and maybe actually respond to something I said.

• 178 Yuri // Mar 5, 2009 at 6:02 pm

  Congratulations David on the increased traffic to your website! Have you sent Rush a thank you note yet?
  Seriously, this is getting a little out of hand. I guess newmajority.com is becoming all Rush, all the time.
  Whatever works I guess. Take a look at the articles on the front page that do not mention Rush. Not a whole lot of comments. Compare them to the ones that do. Time to move on.

• 179 katsman241 // Mar 5, 2009 at 6:08 pm

  I will have to say that David Frum is doing more harm then good. Please lets compromise on what makes us who we are and why we are different. Please tell me why we need to change out ideals? Are the Democrats making changes to their values? From what I have been seeing over the years they have not.

  David, I have to say you are wrong. You did make a comment on Rush’s “personal bulk”, I read that as you are calling him fat. You also failed to state Obama’s past drug use.

  @EastVillager.
  Have you ever listened to Rush or Liven outside of what is stated on The daily show? I also remember that is was the Democrats that where saying that Obama was not “authentic.”

• 180 pampl // Mar 5, 2009 at 6:23 pm

  It’s not really possible for Frum to do much harm or good directly in terms of approval ratings, he’s a wonk who speaks to people who pay attention to politics and not the populace at large. Whether his criticism is useful or not remains to be seen, but it does at least start the process of internal criticism that parties have to go through when they deviate from the polity too far.

• 181 boxermk // Mar 5, 2009 at 6:31 pm

  One last thing I just realized,

  What about the tone of the new president, and his administration? Why is nobody talking about the very creepy fact that they are deliberately targeting a member of the free press who happens to disagree with them?

  Is that not disturbing? If ANY Republican (and I know there have been some) in office went after some Liberal talking-head and tried to demonize him from the position of government power, and, as reported in Politico, actively colluded with members of the media to demonize this person, I would be creeped out – because that is a serious totalitarian impulse which I find REPULSIVE!

  I find that far more offensive than ANYTHING Limbaugh, Levin, Olbermann or Mathews ever said or ever will.

  ChaosDrew, what do you think of that? Do you like the government shutting down and demonizing dissenters? Cause all I’m saying, is I don’t. And I like people who stand up to that, even if I do disagree with them.

• 182 palomino70 // Mar 5, 2009 at 6:48 pm

  There seems to be a lingering fixation on Obama’s drug use, both as symbol of his depravity and as a way to draw an equivalency between Obama and Limbaugh, thus mitigating Limbaugh’s imperfection. A few facts are helpful here: first, Obama’s recreational drug use seems quite similar to that of the previous two presidents–it was, right or wrong, part of a rite of passage that anyone who went through HS or college in the 70’s or 80’s knows quite well: pot and coke, along with alcohol and casual sex, were part of the culture. Second, and more important, Limbaugh’s actions occurred in middle age, involved the purchase of huge quantities of illegal substances, and required a month of rehab in order to correct. To continue ignoring these facts in pursuit of fantasies of “Obama did it, too” is to perpetuate a partisan misrepresentation.

• 183 palomino70 // Mar 5, 2009 at 7:03 pm

  Yo boxermk, the previous administration DID go on the attack against liberal media outlets. They typically focused on the NYT rather than a single individual because the left doesn’t really have a Limbaugh. The GOP has really asked for this, however–its elected leaders, at least right now, are either lightweights (McConnell, Boehner) or not ready for prime time (Jindal, Palin) or else easily cowed into obsequiousness (Steele). If other GOP figures are going to abdicate their opportunity to lead, then why shouldn’t the Obama administration go after the one person in the party that no one has the guts to disagree with?

• 184 pampl // Mar 5, 2009 at 7:13 pm

  I actually also find it a little creepy to mention Rush by name. OTOH, it’s not like they’re suppressing him- the opposite, really. I would have thought it was a cheap shot to use Rush as a stand-in for the GOP as a whole but apparently a lot of Republicans have no problem with that.

  I guess ultimately I don’t really see how it could have a deleterious effect on speech. Talk radio hosts aren’t going to be afraid to criticize Obama because he might respond and get them time in the national spotlight.

• 185 Rhampton // Mar 5, 2009 at 7:43 pm

  Franco, the Dems went out and won the middle. In the 2008 election they moved to the center and recruited conservative Democrats to run in the Red states. Got it? Similarly, the GOP should move to the center and recruit moderate Republicans to run in the Blue states. Or you can stick your head in the sand and pretend the Blue states don’t exist and/or don’t matter. Good luck with that.

• 186 Go Dog Go! // Mar 5, 2009 at 8:38 pm

  If the rage-filled narcissist tirades are winning in this forum, how are we to rebuild civil discourse in the debate of ideas in the broader political forums? Name-calling and pejorative insults (between ourselves or against the Dems) do not a comeback make.

• 187 drapps // Mar 5, 2009 at 8:57 pm

  What Frum is to Levin = what Public Policy is to Philosophy. Wording this concept as such is much different than phrasing it: Frum vs. Levin = Public Policy vs. Philosophy. Theres no need to create tension in the movement? I appreciate Frums effort to build ideas. That being said, the Levins and Hannitys are helpful when they inspire in people the rejection of big-government and the promotion of individual liberties. I just watched Bobby Jindal on Hannity. What makes Jindal unique is his intellectual and common sense approach to public policy, while simultaneously promoting the pillars of the conservatism. I enjoy reading Frum and listening to Beck. I like reading Brooks and watching Hannity. Is this wrong, or detrimental to conservatism? Absolutely not. Lately, I really enjoy listening to Bobby Jindal because he is a one-stop-shop for pragmatic policy solutions and the advocacy of conservative philosophy.

  **On another note: Props to Frums son for standing up for his father!

• 188 Rhampton // Mar 5, 2009 at 8:58 pm

  Franco, Reagan’s GOP had many more moderate Republicans then today. But if you want to be ideologically pure, and if it suits you having a Democratic super-majority, then by all means continue what you are doing.

• 189 boxermk // Mar 5, 2009 at 9:06 pm

  I’m over this, but I guess I just have to respond. When the NYT leaked classified documents, NOTHING happened to it! So Palomino – you just proved the opposite of your point.

  There is nothing of worth in what people here are saying. Frum just repeated the same nothing over and over last night in one endless run-on sentence, which is why Levin had to lower the volume. All the people here do is gratuitously insult conservative talk radio, or offer meaningless bromides like, “we must all come together and be civil, and debate the ideas, and not listen to those fat jerks on the radio who are a bunch of white racist idiots, and all their stupid listeners.”

  Again, no one cares about your criticism of their broadcasting style. You are offering no ideas of any appeal that would ever change the mind of any of my Obama-loving friends.

  I came here for a genuine purpose. The website is advertised as building a conservative majority that can win – but it’s actually a bunch of meaningless nothings who think they are smarter than everybody butt will inspire nobody. Get over your jealousy for the few conservatives who are successful. If you don’t like their style, go out and get your own audience. If you actually care about conservative principles, maybe you could write self-righteous meaningless articles about Barak Obama, rather than attack talk radio which, deny it or not, is under attack – especially through the Diversity of Ownership regulations they want to push.

• 190 TheodorAdorno // Mar 5, 2009 at 9:16 pm

  Speaking as (I suspect) one of the youngest, and perhaps the most left of the people on this comment thread, people like Limbaugh, Hannity and Franco repulse me by decrying schoolyard tactics like name-calling and straw-man arguments used by the left, and proving their points by name-calling and straw man arguments instead of reason. They just come off as indignant, angry white people. It’s the 21st century, and that’s an awfully George Wallace sounding shtick. Modern American conservatism isn’t attractive to younger voters because it’s so reactionary yet has no real sense of history, or, it appears, propriety. And about half the comments here go to prove the point…

• 191 boxermk // Mar 5, 2009 at 9:19 pm

  Yeah, and denouncing conservatives as racist George Wallace types is very typical of a leftist/Frumists, and is a lie, a hateful, destructive vicious smear, and has no basis in reality. If I wanted to be constantly called a racist because I don’t believe in big government, I’d visit the Daily Kos. At least they have fun there.
  Good Night

• 192 TheodorAdorno // Mar 5, 2009 at 9:24 pm

  I’m not saying you’re all racist; I’m suggesting that trying to sound less like New South demagogues couldn’t hurt. And since when is David Frum a leftist? That’s truly laughable.

• 193 boxermk // Mar 5, 2009 at 9:34 pm

  I don’t even know what a New South demagogues. I’m a 24 year-old homosexual living in NYC. All my friends are Obama supporters. I listen to talk radio because it’s entertaining and a relief from the wave of Leftist BS I hear all day, everyday.

  I heard Frum yesterday on the Levin show, he seemed to say absolutely nothing. Levin is not a racist, he is not southern, he is not a hater. Actually, it’s all of you, Frum and the like, who are out there with insults and name calling. I made my case earlier today, you can read my comments. And I don’t think Frum is a leftist, that was a joke. Please, PLEASE, all you Frum acolytes – get a sense of humor. Please. Maybe Rush Limbaugh will be more palatable once you learn how to laugh.

• 194 CL999 // Mar 5, 2009 at 9:48 pm

  No, Levin was not afraid to debate a child, he was too gentlemanly to do so. He’s always steered clear of that sort of behavior.

  You on the other hand, choose to misunderstand that and mischaracterize Levin.

  I don’t think you add much to the Conservative movement, Mr. Frum, because your main goal appears to be to divide conservatives into worthy educated people and hicks.

  I’ve heard Levin convince many callers and I’ve heard him wallop callers who show up online just to bash conservatives, call names or spout anti-semitism. I’ve heard Rush do the same. When I first listened to Levin I was taken aback by his approach, but now I respect and admire him. Same for Limbaugh and Hannity.

  I’ll take either of them over you any day. NR will be much better for your not being there

• 195 nolan084 // Mar 5, 2009 at 9:50 pm

  The David Frums want to turn the GOP into the British Tories.

• 196 CL999 // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:08 pm

  When Levin is confronted by a teen wishing to debate, he always requests the child’s parent or teacher. That is a hallmark of an adult. You could learn from him and should.

  I think of you as an Iowa Hawk “Coddington VanVoorheis” republican and no conservative at all.

  You should be ashamed of yourself for the personal attacks on Limbaugh who is the first to mention his personal failings.

• 197 ScottCalBears // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:14 pm

  What I find amazing David is that you say “I had not gratuitously insulted or abused Rush”. Now maybe you and I have different definitions of “gratuitously, but to my understanding of the word that is PRECISELY what you did.

  If the insults were not unwarranted, what were they? How is his girth or his lack thereof relevant to his viewpoint on the proper role of government? Or his marital history?

  Mr. Limbaugh has been intellectually consistent for the entire time he has been a national figure, that is far more than I can say for most national GOP leaders and most insiders in the Beltway and the Ivy (not ivory) Towers. Why not move to Omaha or Laramie and let Nat experience the real America?

• 198 Bulldoglover100 // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:36 pm

  ScottCalBears….it’s called “The Truth Hurts” and David did NOT drop to spin or twisting the facts. He reported the facts and if that bothers someone? Perhaps they need to deal in the reality that truly is Rush Limbaugh. He could ONLY be considered a conservative if one ignores his 3 horribly failed marriages, his verbal abuse of women and is wealth that is made through rileing up people only to ensure he makes more money. Add in his drug abuse and and like Christopher Buckley said today? “I know William F. Buckley and Rush Limbaugh is NO William F. Buckley”. Truer words were never said.

• 199 Bulldoglover100 // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:41 pm

  Gosh…has anyone on this forum that insists on supporting an obese liar who has said time and time again that he is an entertainer who riles people to boost his ratings stopped for one minute and thought about what your supporting?….IF Obama fails, this country fails. That means the banks fail, there is no grocery store to buy food, the trucking system in this country fails so nothing gets delivered. No mail, no school system. Nothing. Easy to run your mouths but the reality is so much harsher than any of us can imagine……You might be willing to let your families go hungry, your families get sick and have no drug store to go to in order to buy medicine and no money regardless but as for me? I will fight everyday to ensure the uneducated people who side with a slimeball like Limbaugh? fail.

• 200 Chekote // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:53 pm

  boxermk. Have you noticed that most people who talk negatively about Rush never listen to his show?

• 201 Go Dog Go! // Mar 5, 2009 at 11:05 pm

  boxermk – Couple thoughts: 1) Sarcasm doesn’t translate in print. 2) The comparison to George Wallace is relevant to this discussion because of the racial politics being played by Rush and others. “Barack The Magic Negro” is massively offensive and serves to prove (in perception if not fact) that Republicans are out of step with the general population. If young voters or women or Obama Republicans are to come back, distance from these old-school fire-breathing conservatives (Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity) must be of the highest priority in the reconstruction of the party’s image.

• 202 Alan // Mar 5, 2009 at 11:47 pm

  Chekote, I spoke negative of Rush. I was a listener and fan of his since before for first Gulf War. I even used to defend him on FreeRepublic.com ten years ago. If you listen to Rush long enough, you begin to realize you’ve heard it all before. The names of the Dems change but his schtick remains the same. He’s still fighting the Democrats of the ’80s. His schtick is not only stale but it doesn’t address the actual problems of today. Sorry but crying for tax cuts and the release of the entrepreneurial spirit while screaming socialism isn’t a solution. It’s just boiler plate bromides.

• 203 InspectorHound // Mar 6, 2009 at 12:01 am

  Dear David:
  Linked over here via Andrew Sullivan. I had a much angrier response written, but I’m going to try to be civil.
  It’s surprising to me that someone so deep in the conservative moment–and someone so powerful–a former speechwriter to George W. Bush–could be unaware of Levin’s, and Limbaugh’s, and O’Reilly’s, and Hannity’s, and Malkin’s, and Savage’s use of anger, and how skillfully they’ve poisoned the political discourse. If you think back, I suspect you’ll be able
  What’s particularly alarming to me is how much anger there seems to be on your side of things, and what that anger leads to. I’m including links to descriptions of Jim Adkisson’s 2008 murders of two members of the Unitarian church. Adkisson has been clearly identified as a reader of O’Reilly, Hannity, and Bernard Goldberg–in a four-page manifesto, he expressed a desire to kill all of the 101 people in Goldberg’s book “101 people who are screwing up America.” There’s also a link to basic information on Chad Castagana, Michelle Malkin’s self-described “number-one fan,” who sent fake anthrax to Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart, Sen. Chuck Schumer, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_Castagana/wiki/2008_Knoxville_Unitarian_Universalist_church_shooting

  And then, of course, there’s Bill Gwatney.
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/13/arkansas-democratic-party_n_118720.html

  I know you and your friends like to say a lot of nasty things about liberals, but we don’t do things like this. We don’t shoot and murder and threaten with death people we disagree with.

  You could have done a lot of good if you’d figured out that the leaders of your side have deliberately cultivated this rage six, or even five years ago, but now your side has managed to marginalize itself. Part of me wants to say: “This is your bed. You made it. Now lie in it.” But we all benefit from a country with civil discourse. Whatever you can do to clean up your side of the aisle will be appreciated.

• 204 InspectorHound // Mar 6, 2009 at 12:03 am

  Links botched:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_Castagana

  and

  http://en.wikipedia.org/2008_Knoxville_Unitarian_Universalist_church_shooting

• 205 DestinyBender // Mar 6, 2009 at 12:19 am

  Mark Levin speaks for me as well. We tried things your way by nominating McCain and look how well that worked out. The radical liberal net roots took control of the Democrat party and they WON! If sniviling little putzim like you would direct your criticisms toward Dems instead of our Conservative Leaders (i.e. Rush) we’d be alot better off.

• 206 DanielTUSA // Mar 6, 2009 at 12:21 am

  David, John McCain was exactly the kind of candidate the you seem to think is ideal. More liberal than conservative and more than willing to tell the hard right to pound sand. In case you didn’t notice, he lost. He was the darling of the media as long as he had a thumb in the eye of conservative’s. It seems that you are taking the same approach. When you feel that tingle up your leg when Obama talks it’s time for you to register as a Democrat. And if we are going to judge a person’s ideas by how he looks, well, um that pretty much leaves you out pardner.

• 207 ModerateGal // Mar 6, 2009 at 2:27 am

  Mr. Frum, I had high hopes when I first saw that you were creating this web site, but at this point, I am much less hopeful. The comments section seems to be nearly taken over by hard-core rightwingers who don’t learn from the mistakes of the past and who seem that they might be more at home at a site like RedState or FreeRepublic. What they are doing on this site makes no sense to me at all. I am having less and less hope for the future of the Republican party.

• 208 ericna // Mar 6, 2009 at 3:04 am

  One of the things that has shocked me is how vitriolic conservatives can be to one another when they disagree. Somehow dissent is taken as treason. For a liberal, NRO is a great morale booster. Dinesh D’Souza was chewed out for not thinking that Islam is inherently evil. Podhoretz went ballistic on Bill Buckley when the latter suggested that the Iraq war was not as well conceived and executed as it could have been. Kathrin Lopez was lambasted when she was misinterpreted to be against Sarah Palin. I fear that many thoughtful conservatives will take themselves out of the movement in disgust over this state of affairs.

• 209 ChristianMiller // Mar 6, 2009 at 5:17 am

  I see some of my posts were deleted. I guess that is Frum’s way of “turning down the mike” Oh well, debating people here has been a learning experience for me anyway and kinda fun. I discovered there are many here who are Democrats who have a need to see Republicans come into alignment with their world views under the banner of consensus. That is fully understandable. I’m sure many of us would be drawn to a site that claimed the Democratic Party was on the wrong track and needed to be more tolerant of other opinions too, but it wouldn’t change our minds. The crux of the matter is that the Republican party will always be conservative and/or labeled conservative and bigoted and whatever the Democrats in the media deem effective. No matter what you guys do to try to change the perceptions of the media addicted drones; new policies, more moderate stances and tones and such, they will always demonize you and smear you with whatever weapon is at hand. You guys have the Battered Wife Syndrome and don’t know it. Moderation is by it’s nature uninspiring. It is absurd that in the current political climate when leftists are running wild looting our treasury and compiling new ways to control Americans, there are still Republicans who are worried about how THEY are seen by the largely uninformed and ill-informed populace. I’ve learned that the wimpification of men has finally taken hold. Now it is a sin to fight, to stand up. We now all have to get along, and the only way these leftists will accept is that you go along with them. If you fight them you are bad boys and they will shun you and ridicule you and tell all their friends how backward you are. So, by accepting their rules, you will lose every time. If they are not screaming at you and angry at something you said or did, then you are losing the game slowly and surely, but hey, you’re all so smart and civilized.

• 210 ottovbvs // Mar 6, 2009 at 6:03 am

  Franco
  …I don’t know what you’re complaining about David has deleted some of my posts and I basically agree with him….He’s totally correct though in his reflections on Levin and the mindset of the Republican “base” . Basically conservatism and the GOP has been hijacked by talk radio and publishing and those that practise these professions. Levin, Savage, Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, Ingraham, Hannity, O’Reilly, all of them are feeding off a conservative demographic that does not reflect the country at large. It’s maybe 20% of the electorate which is 26 million people so a large number in absolute terms that generates ample cashflow for these folks and their employers like TV and radio stations but electorally insignificant. The problem is the enrichment of these individuals is wrecking the GOP. I’m sure there will be an outcry against this conclusion but the evidence is overwhelming. As I’ve observed here several times David wasting his time in the short term….the base of the party aren’t willing to listen to his warnings.

• 211 Cforchange // Mar 6, 2009 at 6:11 am

  Did anyone see Rudy on this topic??? Rudy so graciously called Rush his friend. Too bad it wasn’t a 2 way street, you know Rush stepping out and fully supporting Rudy’s efforts as a presidential candidate – we may have had a different result!!! But then Rudy wasn’t their brand of conservative so mum was the word. Here’s a perfect example of what is wrong with the old Rushbo army and how they directed a failing campaign. I blame little on McCain, this was a CPAC & Company directed election! It is plain not smart to have this mindset direct the future – they’ve admitted that winning only on their terms is the goal. This is documented throughout this lengthy discussion and in the elsewhere spewed rhetoric. Rush you should thank Rudy for his class and your misguided judgement because Rudy was our best electable candidate. Next you need to figure out why the girls like Rudy but not you. You need to be quiet to figure this out.

• 212 ottovbvs // Mar 6, 2009 at 6:24 am

  InspectorHound:
  Dear David: Linked over here via Andrew Sullivan. I had a much angrier response written, but I’m going to try to be civil. It’s surprising to me that someone so deep in the conservative moment–and someone so powerful–a former speechwriter to George W. Bush–could be unaware of Levin’s, and Limbaugh’s, and O’Reilly’s, and Hannity’s, and Malkin’s, and Savage’s use of anger, and how skillfully they’ve poisoned the political discourse.”

  ……I have to agree with this comment, David and a lot for whom the light bulb has finally come on were enablers of this process. They used these people when it was convenient and now they’ve taken over. I hesitate to use the analogy because I’m well aware that the first person to mention Hitler has lost the argument but it really is such a good analogy if you consider how the conservative nationalists like Hugenburg and Papen tried to use Hitler as their “drummer” in the twenties and early thirties and ultimately he grabbed the steering wheel. Not that I’m suggesting for a moment that all these radio talkers are you know who but it’s exactly the same process. From being useful auxiliaries aimed at arousing a segment of the party they have become the face and substantive leadership of the party. If anyone doubts it look at the antics of the party leaders in terms of managing their relationship with Limbaugh….it’s a total embarrasment but they have no option and it’s the road to marginalization.

• 213 owl // Mar 6, 2009 at 6:37 am

  I agreee with ottovbvs. I won’t speak to the historic context, but the end result is on target. And, as a liberal I hope that the GOP “leaders” continue to genuflect to Rush and the rest of the right wing crowd. At this point, I forsee Palin and Jindal trying to out right wing each other in 2012, as the GOP conservatives, the real conservatives, watch and listen in horror.

• 214 pampl // Mar 6, 2009 at 6:39 am

  I don’t think David Frum is deleting posts, it seems to be a random bug. It’s pretty funny visualizing Frum scrolling through this thread in the middle of the night, deleting a handful of posts both pro and con, though.

• 215 jlamkin98 // Mar 6, 2009 at 6:48 am

  David,
  You and I are not going to agree on much politically, but I wanted to thank you for taking on the screaming heads on talk radio.
  You can’t win with people like this Levin character. He will always hold the upper hand as long as he can cut your mike. Still, your patience was exemplary.
  Thanks from this crazy lefty for taking on the beast, by the horns. Hope you’re recovering!

• 216 krove // Mar 6, 2009 at 6:53 am

  otto, you are correct, a quick read of blogs like redstate will give you an idea were this is possibly heading. There are open calls for physical harm to the President (the A word) calls for armed struggle etc. And for Hannity to put a poll on his website asking what form of revolution his supporters wanted is inexcusable and seditious. We just had an open honest election that was decided by a wide margin. How can anyone defend these things from conservatives?

• 217 willfb // Mar 6, 2009 at 6:56 am

  Franco: I love you, man. Keep on keepin’ on.

  I’m a long-time lefty, voted for Obama, Kerry before that, Gore before that, Clinton before that. Subscribed to the Nation for many years. Right-wingers today are the mirror image of Nation-reading lefties in the Reagan years, preaching to the choir.

  I thought McCain was toast in the last campaign when he went off on his riff about “Georgetown cocktail parties”–and it was REPUBLICANS he was talking about, being–oh, no!–MEAN! Can anyone imaging Ronald Reagan getting into a twist because or something somebody at a cocktail party said?

  Franco, just keep nursing your resentments, and you and the other 20% or so of the people in this country who feel the way you do can sit by your radios and listen to Limbaugh and Levin until the cows come home. Have fun.

• 218 Chekote // Mar 6, 2009 at 7:34 am

  Here we go again more comments from people who don’t listen to Rush. The Magico song was a parody based on a Los Angeles Times column published in 2007 http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,3391015.story . Rush was making fun of AA questioning Obama’s “blackness”. If there are any racists in this indicident, it is them not Rush. Again, before posting about Rush take the time to listen to his program.

• 219 ChristianMiller // Mar 6, 2009 at 7:36 am

  Conservatism has been hijacked by talk radio and publishing! That is a riot. What isn’t mentioned? TV news, newspapers and magazines (publishing I take to mean, you know , books) TV and movie entertainment and celebrity culture. This is where the everyday American is informed. Letterman, Leno, Oprah, the View, Colbert, Jon Stewart SNL, various stand-up comedians and more. That hasn’t been hijacked by leftists. That is mainstream. They love to mock Republicans. Sure, from time to time they send a friendly zinger at Democrats, but it is usually of the less biting style of humor, and never is a smear. So you moderates propose to present yourselves as what exactly to be acceptable to them to the hijacked left-wing media? And what is interesting is that the goal posts are in constant motion. and the same level of anger is leveled at far right wingers and moderates. They will tolerate moderates like Frum more, they are happy to have a reasonable debate on what kind of socialist policies are better for the USA, and they will still snicker behind your back. Remember when the debate was about civil unions for gays? That was only about ten or fifteen years ago. If you were for civil unions you were a liberal – against it a conservative. Now it is abouty marriage, if you are for civil unions you are a bigot and homophobe. Were the liberals of the 90’s homophobes? My position?y marriage now! Share the misery!That is but one example of the leftward drift of our culture. I’ve also observed that when the Republican party concedes ground and moves toward Democrat policies, Democrats respond by moving further left and then complaining that Republicans are out of step, bigoted, whatever. JFK would be vilified by today’s Democrat as an arch conservative. So would MLK today. I would take the Democratic party of the 60’s (without the racist ones) in place of today’s Republicans

• 220 Chekote // Mar 6, 2009 at 7:39 am

  Cforchange. Rush did not endorse any candidate during the primary. Actually, he was complimentary of Rudy and referred to him as a conservative. More comments from people who don’t follow Rush.

• 221 owl // Mar 6, 2009 at 7:42 am

  I’m not surprised, Franco. The Democratic Party of the 1960’s is today’s GOP down there in the southern states. And racism is part of the deal.

• 222 pampl // Mar 6, 2009 at 7:46 am

  The general shift to the left over time is a product of peace and prosperity. It’s common to all first world countries. It doesn’t really make sense to say it’s caused by the Democrats and Hollywood

• 223 Chekote // Mar 6, 2009 at 7:48 am

  “And racism is part of the deal.” The playing of the race card is really getting boring. Talk about retro politics!

• 224 Chekote // Mar 6, 2009 at 7:51 am

  Hollywood influences the people who don’t follow politics. That was the point. I just don’t understand all the anger from the people on the Left. You guys won everything!

• 225 ChristianMiller // Mar 6, 2009 at 7:51 am

  Chekote – right you are, but these folks don’t care about realities they care about perceptions. If something is perceived as racist, then it is racist. On top of that, as long as they go along with this definition of racism they will always allow others to call them racists. They will find something, somewhere that offends them about one of their otherwise pristine candidates. maybe one of his friends said something. maybe he belonged to a golf club that refused to admit blacks until 1960 -it doesn’t matter. And somehow, none of these things ever matter when it comes to Democrats. If McCain comes to the NAACP to speak he is hectored and abused and he still gets zero votes from them because it is a POLITICAL branch of the Democratic Party. If he chooses to use his time more wisely and put himself in front of a group he has a possibility of influencing, he is attacked for not being sensitive to blacks. By the way, if the NAACP was an organization that skewed toward Republicans, does anyone here think that Democrats would mock the name of the organization and call it self-loathing and backward? National Association for the Advancement of Colored People?

• 226 ChristianMiller // Mar 6, 2009 at 7:58 am

  Owl – you call yourself a liberal. You don’t know the meaning of the word since you are not acting like one. The alternative is that you are a liberal but have a very limited ability to read a paragraph and understand it’s meaning.

• 227 owl // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:04 am

  Franco, you and Chekote missed my point entirely. The southern Democrats of the 1960’s became southern Republicans of today, which was the result of Nixon’s Southern strategy, which worked, and which, at least in part, was based on an appeal to racism.

  And I take note of your personal attack on my ability to read. It certainly is characteristic of what passses for debate where the right wing is concerend these days.

• 228 Chekote // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:10 am

  owl. Enough with the Southern strategy. For God’s sake that was Nixon. That was 1972!!!!! Reagan did not win based on the Southern strategy. He wan because of the Reagan Democrats which were working class, Catholics in PA, OH, MI, NY. Nixon did not lay the foundation for the Republican Revolution. It was Reagan.

• 229 Chekote // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:13 am

  owl. There are three reasons to be a liberal. 1) idealism/naivete. This accounts for the youth vote. 2) ignorance. If people looked at the actual results of the War on Poverty and other liberal programs, they would not vote for liberals. 3) Laziness. Easier to vote in the guys who will tax the producers and give it to me than to get off my butt and go to work.

• 230 sinz54 // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:17 am

  Goodtimes22: Perhaps I didn’t express myself well, so let me try again: I have been an economic conservative since the 1970s. I oppose much in Obama’s spending plans. But I want the GOP to *welcome* Hispanics, gays and lesbians, single women, single moms, the college educated, the young, etc. Not shame them, denounce them and drive them to the Democrats. The nativism coming from Michelle Malkin and Tom Tancredo and most of the RedState.com type conservatives, has reversed Bush’s success with the Hispanic vote (the fastest growing voting bloc in America), and driven many Hispanics to vote Democrat. The constant refrain that single parenting is immoral has driven single moms, a fast-growing voting bloc, into the arms of the Dem Party. The bitter attacks on unions are even driving the original “Reagan Democrats,” many of whom are union members and proud of it, away from the GOP. “Conservatives” like YOU are driving conservatism to regress, back before Reagan, back to the 1930s when conservatism was nativist, isolationist, angry, and reactionary. We have got to STOP this! We have got to start reaching out to those groups I mentioned. Go ahead, tell me. What is YOUR plan to appeal to young voters? What is YOUR plan to appeal to Hispanic votesr? What is YOUR plan to appeal to the college educated? What is YOUR plan to win back the blue-collar union members who voted for Reagan? Get out of your RedState/Limbaugh cocoon and start figuring out how we can expand into the rest of the nation that voted for Obama this time around.

• 231 ottovbvs // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:19 am

  owl
  wrote 4 minutes agoFranco, you and Chekote missed my point entirely. The southern Democrats of the 1960’s became southern Republicans of today, which was the result of Nixon’s Southern strategy, which worked, and which, at least in part, was based on an appeal to racism
  ……This is basically true. If you want to understand how the old pre sixties Dem coalition worked read Robert Caro’s biography of Johnson which is one the best primers on how politics works out there. …Chekote then dismisses the 53% of people who voted Democrat as naive, ignorant and lazy…..this is his plan for winning back a Republican majority.

• 232 ChristianMiller // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:19 am

  Owl – I see, implying that I am a racist is acceptable debate even though I said “without the racists” explicitly. And my positing that you either are NOT a liberal, by using a gratuitous and incendiary ad hominem, or you have limited comprehension skills, is considered by you to be a personal attack. PS I know all about the “southern strategy” which is why I added the condition,

  Hey folks here in Moderatie Central city,This is what you are up against! Owl, you are the second Democrat here who has directly proven the case I’m making. Thanks!

• 233 Chekote // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:21 am

  Franco. I think we keep fooling ourselves that the reason AAs don’t vote for the GOP is because there is a lack of outreach. AAs don’t share our view of role of government and policies. AAs generally see the federal government as their savior against the racist state rights people. AAs attribute their economic advancement to affirmative action programs. So it is a total waste of time and resources. Our efforts are better served by focusing elsewhere.

• 234 ottovbvs // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:27 am

  Chekote: wrong again. Nixon did not lay the foundation for the Republican Revolution….Actually he did…..and if you don’t think racism is still part of the GOP’s appeal in the south then you can’t have lived there……I can assure it is. As David explained the other day it was almost happenstance that Reagan was elected but he certainly created a coalition of social conservatives, national conservatives and economic conservatives that was attractive to blue collar workers…the so called Reagan democrats. That three legged coalition has essentially disintegrated under demographic, economic and social stresses of one sort and another. The fact that there is no viable way to build a new one is what this site is all about.

• 235 Chekote // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:29 am

  otto. As Rush says, ignorance is our most expensive commodity. Despite the utter and complete failure of the Great Society programs, people still have faith that the federal government can solve poverty, wage gap problems. We live in a world where a reduction in the rate of growth is termed a cut. Face it most people go to the polls ignorant of facts. Also, I think it was Keane in the Rehm show that defined the difference between a movement vs a party person. I am a movement person. I want to win power so that my ideas, principles can be implemented. Frum is a party person. He uses ideas to get to power. If that means changing ideas to accomodate new polls numbers so be it. I don’t want the GOP to win if they are going to implement liberal policies. It is not that important to me whether the GOP wins.

• 236 sinz54 // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:30 am

  Chekote: Reagan did win by putting together a *coalition* of the social conservatives of the Deep South (which is now the GOP’s “Solid South”) and the blue-collar working-class voters in the North. But right now, that coalition has collapsed, and so the GOP can count on only one sure base: the Solid South. And as a result, the nativist social conservatives of the Deep South and West (who are often angry and vocal) tend to dominate discourse, particularly on talk radio and in the right-wing blogosphere. Michelle Malkin has become the darling of the nativists within our conservative movement. She and her fans are an embarrassment to sane conservatives, with their angry nativism which is driving away anyone who is not a White Christian Heterosexual With Just a High-School Diploma And A Pickup Truck.

• 237 Bulldoglover100 // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:31 am

  Chekote…….I’d love to see things from your point of view but an education and my inability to stick my head that far up my rear render me incapable of doing so…….

• 238 owl // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:31 am

  The success of Nixon’s southern strategy has produced today’s Republican Party. And where have those Reagan Democrats gone? Those conservative Catholic union members in NY, OH, MI, PA? What message is the GOP sending them? Move to the south?

• 239 ottovbvs // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:32 am

  “Franco:maybe he belonged to a golf club that refused to admit blacks until 1960 -”….It’s still with us brother…..a candidate for chairman of the RNC has just had to resign from his club because they won’t admit black members…

• 240 Chekote // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:35 am

  otto. I have live in the South. There has been just as much racism in the North. Remember the Boston reaction to school busing? I do. Frum has never lived in the South. Frum runs around with the DC clique that talks to each and reinforces itself. Reagan was not happenstance. Goldwater did lay the foundation for Reagan and, Reaga laid the foundation for Gingrich. Nixon’s southern strategy won him a landslide in 1972 which was immediately negated by Watergate. Where was the GOP after Nixon left office? Go study some American history.

• 241 sinz54 // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:36 am

  chekote sez: “It is not that important to me whether the GOP wins.” And on that note, I think my participation in this particular discussion is concluded. But I will say one more thing before I go: This blog is not an online academic university seminar. This blog is about politics. Ideas are useless if they cannot sway the public to support them. Without public support, you become part of the fringe, marginalized, ignored. We have a two-party system in this country. If the GOP doesn’t win, then the Democrats get to control the entire country and do as they please. And you shouldn’t like much of what they are doing. I know I don’t. Chekote, you have to start thinking about which of your ideas, if any, can sway the public, not which ideas you personally prefer. Otherwise, don’t complain about anything Obama is doing. You’ve ceded the field to him by default.

• 242 ottovbvs // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:44 am

  Chekote: “It is not that important to me whether the GOP wins.”……That’s fairly obvious if I may say so…….Sure some of Johnson’s great society plans were a failure but no one is ever going to do away with Medicare/Medicaid or a similar substitute as part of of a wider health program. Same applies to Social Security or Wilson’s labor legislation. This attempt to turn the clock back is destined to failure. Someone else below was complaining about use of the phrase “hijacked the GOP” to describe Limbaugh and complained that we had a “liberal” culture as if there was the remotest equivalence. The culture is the culture whether we like it not and it’s basically progressive, iconoclastic, laid back, a bit syrupy, but good luck changing it.

• 243 ottovbvs // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:52 am

  Chekote:otto. “I have live in the South. There has been just as much racism in the North”……Until recently I had houses in the south and north but recently got rid of the southern one. Nothing to do with racism…it became nuisance. Sure there’s racism in the north, the guy who does some work in my yard in the North is alway displaying it but there’s no way it’s as systemic in the North as down south. It really is a deep part of the culture down there as is deep religiosity. I’m not expressing an opinion about it one way or the other but its existence is totally real.

• 244 ottovbvs // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:57 am

  Chekote:”Go study some American history.”……Why are you so angry…..as it happens I have a degree in history……Watergate had nothing to do with the basic structure of American politics….it was an abberation that gave the white house to the dems…..without it the Republicans would almost certainly have won again in ‘76.

• 245 owl // Mar 6, 2009 at 9:12 am

  ottovbvs: “…without it the Republicans would almost certainly have won again in ‘76.” And most likely, Jimmy Carter would not have been the Dem nominee. One can only speculate as to the outcome in 1976.

• 246 krove // Mar 6, 2009 at 9:24 am

  otto, chekote is always angry, his anger comes form his ideology being roundly rejected by the electorate. It’s an anger I see all over the blogosphere and even today was demonstrated in the mind boggling statement by the head of Fox News Roger Aisles to quote ” We will fight Obama to the last bullet” What sort of language is that from a network head? Obama has held the White house for 6 weeks. Everything he has done was in his electoral platform was voted on and the country by a large margin accepted. The anger and threats to violence do not belong in a civilized society.

• 247 ChristianMiller // Mar 6, 2009 at 9:26 am

  sinz54 “If the GOP doesn’t win, then the Democrats get to control the entire country and do as they please. And you shouldn’t like much of what they are doing. I know I don’t. Chekote, you have to start thinking about which of your ideas, if any, can sway the public, not which ideas you personally prefer. Otherwise, don’t complain about anything Obama is doing. You’ve ceded the field to him by default.”

  The fact is that the GOP has been appeasing the left to the point where it can’t even argue without being shouted down. In this environment the best idea (and face it each idea is filled with negatives) won’t fly. And it isn’t about ideas in the popular culture anyway, none of these idiots are policy wonks they listen to whatever the NAACP tells them or Letterman ot P-Diddy or Barbra or their Union bosses. Rush and Levin aren’t going away. So what are you going to do? Run and hide and offer some miracle solution to all our problems and peddle it on The View? On Oprah? On MTV? What? You guys have lost the debate before it is even started and now Rush and Levin and all those guys you are embarrassed about have to take the debate back to where it needs to be so that some of YOUR policy ideas will be heard. You guys are the ones who have ceded the field by not challenging assumptions. Frum and his cronies in the Bush White House never stood up for themselves and the rest of us. If it weren’t for talk radio, the war in Iraq would be lost by now, and McCain and Republicans would have suffered a much worse defeat. I am disgusted by you feeble-minded wimps focused on policy when we are losing our country to leftists. You guys don’t even know what leftism is or how to defeat it which is pathetic. Brooks Noonan Frum couldn’t comprehend that Obama might be a leftist. They belong on the Harvard short bus. You like to hold on to your money and vaguely like your freedom but you are narcissists who care primarily that you will be held in high esteem by people who loathe you and your ideas.

• 248 owl // Mar 6, 2009 at 9:38 am

  Keep at it, guys. As long as the idealogues/demagogues are out there attempting to purge the GOP, then the GOP can expect to spend a long time out there in the wilderness. And unless the conservatives can figure out a way to mute them, there may be a third party on the way, and I suspect liberals like myself may take another look.

• 249 ChristianMiller // Mar 6, 2009 at 9:39 am

  One more thing before I go. There is a great satire over at Big Hollywood by Iowahawk that is pertinent, written in the hand of one T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII

• 250 Chekote // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:05 am

  sinz. I would be willing to bet that most people who went to the polls in November have no idea who Malkin is. What do you think? So stop bringing her up. You seem to buy into every canard put out by out political opposition.

• 251 E=mc2 // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:07 am

  I listened to the exchange and Mr. Frum represented himself as an “inside the the beltway authoritarian posing as a conservative”. I did not appreciate the manner in which Mr. Frum attempted to debate Mark Levin by yapping away (fillibuster style). It’s not good manners to interrupt during point-counter point. Out here on main street USA, we don’t appreciate that type of behavior, regardless of the debate or point of view. Actually, Mr. Frum came off sounding like a whiny liberal and I do not support his approach to conservatism. Hey David, you need to take a trip out to the Midwest get grounded in reality.

• 252 Chekote // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:14 am

  sinz. I don’t want power for power’s sake. That is corrupting. I want power to implement my ideas, limited government, individual freedom and fiscal responsibility. I have no interest in being in power so that I can expand government’s role in my life.

• 253 Chekote // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:18 am

  E=mc2. Correct. Frum’s heart in the right place. But he needs to get out of DC.

• 254 Chekote // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:35 am

  Seattle. All Frum had to do is attack the White House for wasting time on a talk show host instead of focusing on the declining wealth of our country.

• 255 ChristianMiller // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:59 am

  Owl – you started it by calling me a racist. That is standard operating procedure from your side and you are so used to people like Frum taking it you don’t even see that it was you who was offensive. Then owl gets all pissy when I resist the charge.Owl is now offended, and while she was thinking about voting “third, new majority party” because of people like me and Rush etc. she will never do it now. I just turned off another of your possible converts, David. But for us neanderthals Republicans would be in the majority!

• 256 chaosDrew // Mar 6, 2009 at 11:15 am

  seattlesith “You’ve completely played into Obama’s Alinskyesque tactic of defining and pigeonholing the opposition with ridicule” Undoubtedly I’m ignorant of history, but is Saul Alinsky some sort of modern father of using ridicule in politics? And if so, why are are so many pundits and talk show hosts his disciples?

• 257 Cforchange // Mar 6, 2009 at 11:29 am

  Chekote: “It is not that important to me whether the GOP wins.”…… Didn’t I call that sentiment exactly! So why on earth are you dissatisfied with the 2008 outcome? Why even be a Republican? Further – cut me a big break on the Rudy. Rush didn’t endorse Rudy because he didn’t want to, Rush says exactly what he wants. You have to be stone deaf not to get his message. He sure let his glowing opinion or actually lovesfest be known for Palin. I heard “guns and babies” echoing through my work place – I never ever heard; Rudy, Rudy, Rudy for the year prior. Further, if Rush had wisely promoted Rudy, I would certainly know it becausel would be frozen. He didn’t promote Rudy like O’Reilly did because to him and the listeners he persaudes, Rudy wasn’t your “perfect” candidate and so what and as in your own words, winning doesn’t matter. The Rush army totally underestimated how the majority American voter wanted a clear expert communicator or a law enforcer with a good plan. This army doesn’t know how to recruit support nor is it essential because once again winning is not paramount, offending is part of the drill. If this isn’t recognized as a real problem that’s very, very interesting actually disturbing. If the Republican organization itself doesn’t recognize the shortcomings of a large group of it’s membership that has desires not to win – how will we recruit the knockout candidates or new party members we require? Let’s face it, government work is not ideal (unless you’re unemployed).

• 258 seattlesith // Mar 6, 2009 at 11:49 am

  chaosDrew,

  I have no idea what your point is. Alinksyesque is an adjective I used to refer to the tactic being used. It gets the idea across without me having to describe it in detail — Alinksy documented it and I’m pointing to his description. There’s more to it than simple ridicule.

  Frum should have recognized this instead of playing into his opponent’s hand.

• 259 Chekote // Mar 6, 2009 at 12:17 pm

  CforChange. Rush did not endorse ANYBODY in the primary. He is not required to do so. He is a free American. He was hot for Palin. So what? Many men were. That’s just life. I don’t want the Republican party to win if they are going to expand government. Been there. Done that. It seems to me that Rudy’s biggest obstacle ( I supported him) was the abortion issue. Actually, most Republicans agree on economic and foreign policy issues. It is the abortion issue that causes the most problem. So instead of nibbling around the margins on global warming, immigration why doesn’t Frum take on the issue of abortion. It is the overly religious tone of the GOP that turned off Republicans in NY, NE and West.

• 260 chaosDrew // Mar 6, 2009 at 1:24 pm

  seattlesith- well I partly retract my snark as I looked up Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals’ ie. “RULE 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” But I don’t really see where Obama used ridicule to bait Rush or conservatives. Obama: “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.” Is this ridicule? Or how about Rahm Emanuel? “(Rush Limbaugh is) the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party… Our goal is to continue to reach out and its our desire that the Republicans would work with us and try to be constructive, rather than adopt the philosophy of somebody like Rush Limbaugh.” Again, ridicule? I don’t see it. I’d say Alinsky’s RULE 12 covers it much better: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Of course to imply these rules only apply or have only been implemented by liberals or Obama is, indeed, ridiculous. As a matter of fact, from here on out I will refer to the Bush Administration’s methods in selling the Iraq war as Alinkyesque (RULE 9: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself).

• 261 Cforchange // Mar 6, 2009 at 1:42 pm

  Chekote well now we have the problem identified but who dares bring it up. If dear Elsie Hillman was attacked for her approach on the topic, Frum better get a bodyguard or two.

• 262 littleschue // Mar 6, 2009 at 1:53 pm

  I find it curious that Mr. Frum cries foul when Mark Levin lowers the volume, yet posts here are removed on a daily basis. Doing so makes him as culpable as the ones he criticizes.

• 263 seattlesith // Mar 6, 2009 at 3:21 pm

  chaosDrew,

  Again, I’m not sure what your point is. I never suggested the strawman that you’re knocking down (that Alinksy’s ideas have only been implemented by liberals or — even more absurd — only by Obama).

  Rule 12, as you list below, is exactly what I had in mind (in combination with 5) when I used the word Alinskyesque. Why would you assume I was referring to one, and only one, of his “Rules”?

  Although it’s not important, I do think Obama’s tone crossed into that of “ridicule” in the first quote you have below (it’s particularly noticable when you hear the audio and the manner in which he uses Rush’s name). In fact, I’d say his entire purpose in briging Rush into that statement is to set him up as something ridiculous and therefore that which should be dismissed.

  But, whether you feel Obama’s dismissiveness toward Rush’s thinking qualifies as ridicule is really beside the point I was trying to make.

  And, that is: Obama was, in my view, clearly trying to isolate Rush and his supporters from other conservatives (in particular, the Congressional Republicans he was directly addressing at the time) in order to weaken his opposition. It’s an effective, well known tactic. I’m not saying it was invented by Alinsky or only used by his disciples, but rather that Frum was a useful idiot when he stepped in and helped Obama implement it.

  Further, that it’s particularly inexcusable on Frum’s part given Obama’s familiarity with Alinksky’s teachings (from his days as a community organizer literally teaching from the man’s writings). It’s like having your advesary’s playbook and still not recognizing the plays he’s calling.

  I agree with you regarding the similarity between some of Bush’s arguments and Alinsky Rule #9. Whether Bush consciously had Alinsky in mind when he argued from that position is another matter entirely.

• 264 jimjim // Mar 6, 2009 at 3:32 pm

  Anger at what the “most intelligent” people in the country are doing to our country, and that includes people like you that supported one of the worst Republican candidates ever, is completely justified, Mr. Frum. We are all angry. If you were one of us, you would be too.

• 265 dmt3 // Mar 6, 2009 at 3:48 pm

  The Democrats and their allies, the main stream media, have successfully established folks like Limbaugh and Levin as the face of the GOP. If this is a losing strategy for them then the GOP should do nothing, except celebrate. If it is a winning strategy for them… well you get picture and so do the American people. Folks defend L&L until the cows come home, but it won’t change reality. They cost the GOP votes. If that’s ok, then hey let’s go on to another topic. But if it’s not, starting thinking about who the face of the GOP should be and what contribution you can make to facilitate that. In the meantime conservatives are relegated to the little corner of the world of talk radio, where there is all talk and no action.

• 266 palomino70 // Mar 6, 2009 at 4:14 pm

  I’m with you, moderategal. The reason I post on this site is that I’m tired of huffpo/kos on the left and redstate on the right. There’s nothing intellectually stimulating about partisan stalwarts who make the same 4 tired arguments over and over.

• 267 karlj // Mar 6, 2009 at 4:56 pm

  Agree with everything David Frum said. Rush is a Republican, not a conservative. Republicans are not really much different than Democrats, both parties want more power and more money. Look at the way the deficit has been run up under the last three Republican Presidents, that is not a conservative value. True conservatives need to start a new party. Also Rush is a chickhawk, also not a conservative value.

• 268 owl // Mar 6, 2009 at 5:03 pm

  If Chekote and Franco are the face of the future GOP, then you guys are in deep trouble.

• 269 mwrobo // Mar 6, 2009 at 5:47 pm

  To a degree Mark was right, You guys are forgetting the base truth hear. You are getting caught up in the democrat spin on this. What Rush is saying is right, irregardless of who says it. Becoming socialist lite to appease is not the way to go. Get the message of self responsibility , and of unbridled self achievement and being able to enjoy the fruits of your labor instead of thinking well we’ll only take half as much as the socialist democrats will and that should make people happy. The Republicans lost the last two elections because they behaved like democrats and began tos away tax payer money. Enough of that, Preach a return to conservative values, to self achievement, self responsibilty responsible government spending and then PRACTICE IT.

• 270 Rhampton // Mar 6, 2009 at 6:44 pm

  mwrobo said “Preach a return to conservative values, to self achievement, self responsibilty, responsible government spending and then PRACTICE IT.” — And that’s exactly what is wrong with today’s Social Conservatives. They don’t like the choices The People make, so they want to limit their freedom. Rush Limbaugh and the like-minded are blind to the fact that they want a Federally mandated, standardized morality (a.k.a. “traditions”). But when has the government ever been the solution in? It’s strictly a matter for the private sector — for individuals, groups, and churches. If you think this country’s culture is headed in the wrong direction, then ask what you need to help your church, not what the government can do to help your church.

• 271 joef // Mar 6, 2009 at 7:17 pm

  mr frum, you hippocritical whiner you cry that “THE GREAT ONE” ADJUSTS THE VOLUME WHEN YOU TRY TO FILLIBUSTER YET YOU KEEP REMOVING POSTS THAT SHOW WHAT A LOSER YOU ARE. if you are the new face of the republican party then i will burn my republican voter ID card faster than a 60s lib that just recieved his draft notice!

• 272 johnnycat // Mar 6, 2009 at 7:28 pm

  I really hope that the “moderates” on this site read some of the professional articles hat make up Frum’s perspective. Many of the people who are attacking conservatism in the comments section are doing so with ideas that most of the authors Frum features here disagree with and criticize as bad ideas. Read, for instance, the article on Iraq about by Falah Shakaram where he called out a German human rights activist for her support of Saddam Hussein. Or read Stanley Jevons article where he posits that state parks should be managed by private groups thus unburdening the overburdened taxpayer. These are things that I think would send most of the people claiming to be “moderates” in the comments section into the anger zone they seem to want to accuse the “fringe right” of entering so often. Many of these same moderates do not acknowledge that David Frum himself wrote a book that recounted George W. Bush’s first year in office and how he dealt with 9/11 which was not a hagiography by any means, but was lambasted by leftist critics when it came out. It is also important to point out that David Frum also authored The End to Evil which was onbe of the most despised books by the left during the Bush years and is known for its support of the Iraq invasion, ostensible support of Syrian and Iran invasions or destabilization, and aggressive stances toward N. Korea and Saudi Arabia. Yes, this Frum perhaps, is the author of the most famous so-called neo-conservative tract from 2000-2008. My point is that if you are just a liberal in “moderate” clothing, this site is probably not for you. I personally disagree with Frum’s attacks on Limbaugh and Levin, but perhaps it is a debate we need to have and maybe one Levin is secretly complicit in facilitating. Regardless, I find it funny that liberals think they have a some kind of home here. Unfortunately, if this site continues to be a place where Obama loyalists and MoveOn agitators think they can bash “the fringe right”-which to them is everyone to the right of Che Guevara-it will not serve its purpose for the conservative movement. I find it counter-productive to have to re-invent the wheel by defending conservative principles to liberals. I do seek a productive discussion with moderates who believe a modification is necessary and who really believe that the core principles of conservatism will make the United States a better place.

• 273 shotpusherRN // Mar 6, 2009 at 7:37 pm

  I thought Mark was very patient with you, instead of lowering the mike, I wanted him to say, “GET OFF THE PHONE YOU BIG DOPE!” He was trying to engage you and you kept shouting over his counterpoint, it was irritating. Furthermore, most people’s biggest expense isn’t healthcare, it TAXES…get a clue. Dems never critcize each other, they stick up for each other…we Republicans are like crabs trying to get out of a bucket, when one gets to the top, the rest pull him back down. We need to UNITE first and foremost and get back to our founding principles…liberty appeals to most everyone.

• 274 johnnycat // Mar 6, 2009 at 7:54 pm

  I think that most of the offense that Mark Levin, Limbaugh and the conservative grassroots feel towards the moderates is very justified. It is important to remember that the so-called right of the conservative movement was trying mightily to shore up the sinking ship of the McCain campaign during the past election. They only started doing this with enthusiasm once McCain/Palin spiked in the polls after the Rep. Convention. Before that they were already reconciling to the fact that McCain would lose and that the with him the Rep. Party had already shifted to the left. Add to this the hostility of the mainstream media to conservatives and their obvious support of Obama and you have a fuel for conservative anger. Another factor too, is the fact that many conservative journalists were pointing out the fact that Obama appeared to be a very radical candidate and inklings of his agenda could be discerned, but were absolutely ignored by most everyone else. let’s even throw in the unfair treatment of Palin and is it any wonder that “moderates” who either endorsed Obama or attacked the MCain/Palin ticket are angry at those same people? I mean, given what we know see coming out of Washington, should not these same conservatives who were ignored and tried mightily to save the McCain ticket at least be given an apology?

• 275 johnnycat // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:12 pm

  Can I get a “moderate” conservative’s take on the following article about Obama’s budget from the London Times:

  “What was most striking about the budget – including that it will explode the federal deficit to $1.75trillion this year, its highest since the Second World War – was that it was a ruthless declaration of how Mr Obama intends fundamentally to change the American social contract, from Right to Left. Its goal is not just to rescue the economy. It is to crush conservatism, end the age of anti-tax, anti-regulation policies that have been the guiding philosophies of US governance for a generation, and usher in a fresh “epoch”, as his aides call it, of New Deal-Great Society wealth redistribution and central intervention that were repudiated by Ronald Reagan 30 years ago.”

• 276 johnnycat // Mar 6, 2009 at 11:55 pm

  I just listened again to both Marc Levin’s comments about Frum and the reformist moderates. I have to say that when I first listened, I thought Levin could have done a better job. But, you know, after the second review, I must say that Levin is really brilliant and more important, he is passionately committed to the conservative movement. He left a tear in my eye after listening to him…and yes, he was shouting a bit. I won’t get into all the detail here because those “moderates” that truly care about the future of conservatism I’m sure will listen. David was actually being unfair to Levin when David called Levin’s show. Although David felt that levin was being unfair when asked how many books he sold, what Levin was actually trying to say is David has essentially anointed himself the leader to this “moderate” wing and they want to rise to power and influence by defining who the right is and attacking them. I think Levin knows that Frum et.al. will have assistance in doing this by the libs and the media.And that is a dangerous road.

• 277 TheodorAdorno // Mar 7, 2009 at 1:37 am

  be honest… who linked this to the freepers?! I originally came to this site because it had the potential for reasonable dialogue..

• 278 ChristianMiller // Mar 7, 2009 at 5:07 am

  Rather than interact with you wacko-moderates and voyeuristic leftiwing partisans here, I’d like to re-focus on the article. Frum is appalled that he is called a “putz” and other general invectives, but for what? Here it is again ; Limbaugh is “A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as losers. With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence” Well, I guess as long as he is not using a word like “putz”, Frum isn’t the least insulting. Frum misunderstands Rush on several levels. Much of what he critisizes is Rush’s exaggerated persona meant to be humorous. Anyone who tries to objectively determine what Rush is really doing with the bombast sees that he must be kidding. And he is! But David and Rushs’ enemies either can’t or won’t see this. Regular Rush listeners know that Limbaugh is presenting a caricature of himself, in a sense mocking those who believe he is arrogant. Next, Rush is unashamed of his wealth and success. This is refreshing display of what is great about America. Someone like Rush without a college education can become a multimillionaire. Only people who harbor envy or don’t understand America can be offended. Did Rush steal his cigars from you David? David then spends several column inches about his son calling the Levin show and not being put on, but a casual listening to the recording reveals why Mark didn’t (this was obvious to me before hearing it) and mark was very gracious and eloquent about it,, Is Frum that desperate and shameless to spin something like this, something that is transparently misleading, to make Levin look bad? And to the question about whether Levin convinces people. He does! But does anyone think that David Frum with his 25,000 books were bought by anyone who didn’t already agree? And what kind of impact a person like Frum has vs. a Levin? Lastly, johnnycat makes some good points which I want to elaborate upon. Frum is considered by the left as a “neo-con” and I have defended him and other accused “neo-cons” many times. What a “neo-con is to many of these people are Jews who have conflicting loyalties, which is why they argued for the iraq War, ostensibly with allegiance to Israel in mind.It is quite insulting and it is dangerous. It is a lot worse than being called a putz David. I find this kind of attack reprehensible and if it weren’t for talk radio and conservatives willing to FIGHT this kind of thing, Frum might find himself in a War Crimes tribunal run by neo-anti-semites. Instead he is bothered about being called a “putz”. I’ll defend Frum from the leftists anytime. The question is will Frum defend me from the left? Apparently not Frum, you are a putz.

• 279 Chekote // Mar 7, 2009 at 7:24 am

  Franco. What is interesting to me is that Frum says that they way we come back is by focusing on policies. Yet, look at this blog. How many posts on policy threads vs. threads that focus on philosophy. I have posted many times that to mobilize people you need big ideas.

• 280 sinz54 // Mar 7, 2009 at 9:06 am

  Franco: I said I was out of here, but I’m not going to allow myself to be insulted without defending myself. I’m sorry that you think I’m a “feeble-minded wimp” and a pathetic “narcissist.” But you have a right to your opinion. I will repeat what I said before: I truly believe in defending time-honored conservative principles. I’ve done my best to advocate for them. It’s folks like YOU who keep defending PERSONALITIES, rather than PRINCIPLES. You reflexively leap to the defense of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and now Limbaugh, without ever giving a thought to whether these “heroes” of yours might be violating those principles. Fealty to principle sometimes means being disloyal to those who have betrayed those principles. I’m not going to defend Bush or Rumsfeld on Iraq–a military crusade for nation-building is NOT consistent with conservative principle, as Bush himself said back in 2000. I’m not going to defend the social conservatives when they call for MORE government regulation of broadcasting. A real defense of “conservative principles” means you’re going to alienate some folks who like to call themselves “conservative,” but who have substituted their own agenda for the original principles of conservatism.

• 281 Cforchange // Mar 7, 2009 at 10:07 am

  Chekote – I am not one to labor a point and I think this issue is a dead horse but after reflecting on your response to me I feel I must point out that while you say Rush didn’t endorse any primary candidate but then chose to support Palin because of her high heals reveals that you folks are not smart enough for the power you hold. You all must look inward when you look at the defeat we just suffered – per your claim I conclude then that your collective voices weren’t exercised when they were needed and now you all want to whine oops I mean yell. You either underestimated your power or were too cowardly to step up for the party when it counted – I think the latter. Further the true coward aspect of your group is really why women in masse are turned off. Symptons here are expertise at yelling into the airways but the inability to have a civil discourse in person. Where do you all hide – I’m involved with working in my community to improve our dior situation, I never encounter anyone from your army – all talk??? Or are you bitter and think that paying taxes excuses you from helping others? I’m an inclusive person, I’m not screaming for you to exit the party but you all must modify your self serving nature, recognize your limitations and adjust your volume and rhetoric, This election proved you are not enough to ELECT, conceding on narrow principal isn’t a rational option.

• 282 johnnycat // Mar 7, 2009 at 11:34 am

  by theodor Adorn “be honest… who linked this to the freepers?! I originally came to this site because it had the potential for reasonable dialogue.” That is reasonable dialogue? And why would any conservative name himself after one of founders of the Frankfurt School? The progenitors of cultural Marxism?

• 283 johnnycat // Mar 7, 2009 at 11:38 am

  And another thing comrade Adorno: Frum claims that he is attempting to rebuild the conservative movement and create a “New Majority.” If that is the case that at its most fundamental it is a conservative discussion. If freepers are part of the conservative movement-they are, then they belong here discussing the issues, more than anyone from the left. If it is the future of their movement we are discussing, they certainly reasonably belong here discussing it. So, I find your comment to be very unreasonable and proof that just calling yourself reasonable doesn’t make it so.

• 284 A. Wilson // Mar 7, 2009 at 12:20 pm

  Seems to me that at one time, Frum understood that sometimes you just gotta say it like it is.

  “States like these constitute an AXIS OF EVIL, arming to threaten the peace of this world.” — I believe he wrote for Bush.

  Thus his words inflamed the Arab world and the left in this country, on a scale that makes anything coming from Levin and Limbaugh seem rather insignificant.

  Frum has no business scolding others in the areas of what and what does not constitute acceptable discourse. Just as we wish the left had joined us in our efforts in Iraq, speaking with one voice that would have been infinitely more powerful and intimidating, we on the right should speak with one voice, regardless of style and the amount of passion contained therein.

• 285 johnnycat // Mar 7, 2009 at 12:35 pm

  I also find this interesting: while scanning the voluminous links to poignant and timely articles, commentary and analysis that freeper provides, I came across an article in The Weekhttp://www.theweek.com/article/index/93904/The_Limbaugh_schism

  It is a reprint of David’s original article on Limbaugh and it is titled “The Limbaugh Schism.” Does anyone need anymore evidence that people that dislike conservatism (many who likely disagree with Frum on the Iraq War) will use his position to fracture the movement…just like Mark Levin has said?

• 286 A. Wilson // Mar 7, 2009 at 3:11 pm

  Here’s what infuriates me about David Frum. On August 29, 2008, in Canada’s National Post, he wrote this about McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin for VP: “Ms. Palin’s experience in government makes Barack Obama look like George C. Marshall. She served two terms on the city council of Wasilla, Alaska, population 9,000. She served two terms as mayor. In November, 2006, she was elected governor of the state, a job she has held for a little more than 18 months. She has zero foreign policy experience, and no record on national security issues. …… If anything were to happen to a President McCain, the destiny of the free world would be placed in the hands of a woman who until the day before Friday was a small-town mayor.” ——– Small town Mayor? Wasn’t that the line that the Democrats tried to disingenuously and disgustingly put forth after her speech? What’s up with that, David? I’m not sure about David, he probably was, but many sharing his rather IMHO arrogant and wrong-headed attitude were all the rage in the media. They made it possible for the media to create the false narrative that all the “smart” folks on the right think Palin would be dangerous in office. Therefore, I believe this inability to hold one’s tongue (and that’s what he’s advocating that Levin and others do, isn’t it?) had much to do with McCain/Palin’s loss. Now, he’s got the gall to point fingers at those who, at least once McCain was the nominee, and especially after he picked Palin, passionately and powerfully campaigned for the ticket. Good God, do you really think that Obama’s “experience”, but more importantly ATTITUDE on “national security issues” is somehow superior to what Palin’s would have turned out to be? Now, funny how all these “smart” people are just finally now realizing how much they wish that McCain and Palin — with their respect as opposed to disrespect for the private sector and free markets — had won last November. In short, David, you certainly have the right, but you have very little room, to talk. On a side note, would it be too much to ask for the ability to write comments using PARAGRAPHS, like all those writing articles here enjoy? Trying to “build a movement”, while at the same time making it difficult to put forth ideas in a readable form, as opposed to one big hard to read block?

• 287 ademocrat // Mar 7, 2009 at 7:41 pm

  I am a conservative democrat. I like and admire your thoughts. I have studied the true conservative movement and admire it – going all the way back to Barry Goldwater etc. I am wondering how anything pertaining to Rush will help the movement or party. There is nothing, no idea he espouses that makes sense.

• 288 Rhampton // Mar 7, 2009 at 7:48 pm

  johnnycat, The Conservative movement is already fractured. Frum’s coments didn’t break it. And if Mark Levin is correct, then Frum’s op-eds and the ‘New Majority’ are too insignificant to cause any real damage. Now I don’t know if you consider Rudy Giuliani to be a Conservative, but he is to many of us moderates (liberals as you see us). It’s no secret that among the GOP base many (I believe a majority), Rudy is a RINO and that makes him unacceptable. Worse still is the curious case of Mitt Romney, whose Mormon beliefs cost him the nomination. What ‘flaw’ did both of these men have? They could not please the Evagelical soc-cons. That is your fault line — and the tremors felt thought the Republican Party are the direct result of those forces colliding.

• 289 johnnycat // Mar 7, 2009 at 8:41 pm

  Rhampton: there is nothing wrong with Rudy Giuliani as I worked for his campaign and donated to him in the primaries. I still think he would be the best man for president. As with any broad-based political coalition there will be many groups inside it. people who actually want their party to succeed accept this and try to work the best they can to push their agenda. this has been happening in the conservative movement from day one. everyone knows that coalition building is a constant process of compromise. I have worked in politics and the Republican Party and I see this happening all the time. What I said below is that there is no schism, but that there is a clear attempt to create one by those who do not have the Republican Party’s best interests in mind: the Dems and the Obama Administration. In my experience natural tensions in the movement do not lead to schisms, but can actually strengthen the movement. You say you are a moderate, let me say, I do not believe your declaration that there is a schism is based on any activism on your part in the name of Republicans. It sounds like you get your impressions from TV and what the biased media says about Republicans. So, forgive me, if what I know from being inside my Party for years does not comport with your view. You are wrong and have a problem with the social conservatives and want them to go away. They are not and if you are a Republican will have to live with that. You do have other options.

• 290 Rhampton // Mar 7, 2009 at 9:20 pm

  1) I do not want social conservatives to go away. I want them to open the tent. They are the ones trying to drive us away but declaring us RINOs (persona non grata) — Now be honest with me, how many times have you heard Rush, Levin, et al. demand the purging of moderates from the Party? As I said, the fault line is real. 2) I formulate my impressions of the Republican Party and those who vote for it by reading (and at times commenting) NRO, RedStates, Townhall, First Things, WorldNetDaily, CNSNews, OneNewsNow, Associated Baptist Press, Rasmussen Reports, Crunchy Con, and any related stories that catch my interest on Google News. I think I have a real good handle on things and I’m not afraid to say the emperor has no clothes.

• 291 johnnycat // Mar 7, 2009 at 10:04 pm

  r

• 292 johnnycat // Mar 7, 2009 at 10:05 pm

  rhampton: You and Frum are operating from a false premise. The tent has always been open and frankly, the claim that social conservatives have closed it, is not born out by experience. If you want more influence in the party, fight for it. You will face as much heat as the social conservatives did and still do, as they struggled for influence and fight to maintain what they have won. No one faction should be granted influence because they think they have better ideas or represent a more sophisticated style than those who they dislike. I disagree that the way to obtain more influence is by joining the Dems in their pile-on of Limbaugh. RINO is not synonymous with moderate. It relates specifically to those who supported Obama or weakened the McCain/Palin ticket. Yes it is pejorative, but it raises a serious critique of those who could not see the radical Obama is and I think appropriately calls into question their ability to lead a conservative political party.

• 293 Rhampton // Mar 7, 2009 at 10:08 pm

  I call your bluff — read “Conservative Power Brokers Strategize” by Amanda Carpenter, November 06, 2008
  http://townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/11/06/conservative_power_brokers_strategize

• 294 johnnycat // Mar 7, 2009 at 10:12 pm

  rhampton: I also want to point out that I consider myself a social conservative and you are welcome. Please join your local Republican Party committee and I am sure you will be pleasantly surprised at the people you will meet. Generally, most activists are professionals and many are normal working people with families. Most just want what’s best for the Party and will work long hours volunteering their time to do what is necessary for that to happen. Many go to church on a regular but many do not. I have never met anyone in my political life who has tried to convert me during an election campaign. Let me also say: you should try The New Criterion, Big Hollywood and the City Journal. I consider the best journals on the web for cultural critique. They are socially very conservative. I think you will be pleasantly surprised by the erudition you will find there.

• 295 johnnycat // Mar 7, 2009 at 10:16 pm

  Concerning that article: here’s what I said below-If you want more influence in the party, fight for it. You will face as much heat as the social conservatives did and still do, as they struggled for influence and fight to maintain what they have won.” I’m not pretending if you are a marginalized faction that it will be easy for you. That’s just life.

• 296 Rhampton // Mar 7, 2009 at 10:18 pm

  I read to understand the forces within the party, and I know what the means for moderates. I’m sure my local GOP organization would welcome me, because it probably has more moderates then conservatives. But at the National level and within Right-wing media I know they don’t want me.

• 297 johnnycat // Mar 7, 2009 at 10:22 pm

  Rhampton: I wonder why you’re sod off at someone like Brent Bozell. Don’t you find Media Research Center and Newsbusters indispensible if you are on the center-right? I think what he does is absolutely heroic.

• 298 johnnycat // Mar 7, 2009 at 10:25 pm

  so you know your local gop would welcome you. I’m sure my local would too…we need all the people we can get. There’s your starting point to begin to take back the party from the likes of Brent Bozell. I am sorry but I think Brent Bozell and the others mentioned in that article are superb people and would have to fight you if you think they should go. (Henry Regnery-publisher of Regnery Press, I buy a lot of books from them.) But like I said, that’s life, there are no free rides.

• 299 johnnycat // Mar 7, 2009 at 10:28 pm

  complaining about it and especially attacking radio guys based on the Dems script, I don’t think will help your cause much. But go at it.

• 300 Rhampton // Mar 7, 2009 at 10:29 pm

  New Majority is one way moderates are standing up for themselves. I’m certain there will be others.

• 301 johnnycat // Mar 7, 2009 at 10:33 pm

  good: you have to be in it to win it. I still can’t believe you think Brent Bozell and all the work he does for the right in general is a bad guy. But still, he doesn’t run the party, he is a media critic. You can still work from within to forward your cause. It took the social conservatives a long time to gain influence. It does take compromise and patience and loyalty. Good luck you crazy moderates…

• 302 johnnycat // Mar 7, 2009 at 10:35 pm

  calling a fellow Republican’s bluff I don’t think is a good start either…but that’s me. I’m from the fever swamps of the social conservatives, even though I voted for Giuliani and live in New York….

• 303 Canada Calling // Mar 7, 2009 at 11:07 pm

  Brilliantly written, correct and courageous Newsweek article. Conservatives applaud you.

• 304 sinz54 // Mar 8, 2009 at 8:57 am

  BrianTheRight: We all want the GOP to be a national party, not a regional party of the South and Mountain States. But the Dems are making inroads in traditional GOP areas, like the Southwest, thanks to the Hispanic vote. Obama even won Indiana. And I’ve always believed that the best defense is a good offense. What is YOUR plan to take the fight to the Blue States and win there?

• 305 sinz54 // Mar 8, 2009 at 9:23 am

  Cforchange & BrianTheRight: Polls taken in 2008 showed that health care ranked very low on the list of priorities of the GOP base; the issue they cared most about was terrorism. This is almost the diametric opposite of what the rest of the electorate cared about: For them, health care ranked high on their priority list, and terrorism ranked low. For the GOP to reach out beyond its base voters, it’s going to have to address issues that the base doesn’t care about. Health care is probably near or at the top of that list.

• 306 sinz54 // Mar 8, 2009 at 9:28 am

  johnnycat sez: “I am sorry but I think Brent Bozell and the others mentioned in that article are superb people and would have to fight you if you think they should go.” Bring it on. But I don’t want them to “go.” I want them to release their stranglehold on the GOP, and make room for lots of others within the GOP’s big tent. I’ve actually agreed with Bozell on occasion. But I want the GOP platform to reflect a broader consensus than it does now, on a lot of domestic issues.

• 307 johnnycat // Mar 8, 2009 at 12:24 pm

  Okay sinz; Here’ my answer. I think the Republican Party always has had a big tent and frankly, many conservatives themselves have left it for being too moderate. If you read American Conservative, this is filled with a lot of Reaganite type conservatives. Ron Paul’s movement is also filled with former Reagan officials. I will also make the argument that Bush comes from the Eastern Establishment of liberal Republicans, one of the reason a lot of those conservatives I mentioned left the party. To me, if you are involved and active in the Party, you actually understand this and that a figure like Brent Bozell really does do important work and does not have a stranglehold on the party, but is a leading conservative voice within it. Many people on this site have not seriously addressed all that really happened in the past 8 years and acknowledge some of the ideological problems within the Republican Party…which have always existed…and want to go along with this myth that there is actually a split between the mainstream of the party and the moderates. The split, if there is one, is between the American Conservative crowd and the mainstream. Many of them have put their faith in Ron Paul…who I read and whose gatherings I attend as well. But, some people here only know conservatism as Rush Limbaugh and I am sorry, I can’t take critics seriously if that is all they know about conservatism. (I know this doesn’t mean you…your post are thoughtful)

• 308 Rhampton // Mar 8, 2009 at 1:02 pm

  Excellent article that reiterates points from some of my previous comments — “It’s possible that Dobson refused to endorse Romney because, had he done so, it would have appeared in the minds of many Evangelicals as an endorsement of a cult member – - and this potentially could have been harmful to Focus On The Family. If this is correct, then it appears that, perhaps out of necessity, Dobson chose to protect his organization, rather than publicly support his preferred presidential candidate. And thus, my question, what is the purpose of this movement – - to preserve its existing institutions, or to do what is necessary for the future?” — 2009 A.D. (After Dobson), by Austin Hill, Townhall, March 08, 2009

• 309 johnnycat // Mar 8, 2009 at 1:12 pm

  Every movement has to weigh its decisions. If it is a part of a coalition it has to weigh what it believes against what it wants from the broader movement. Moderates, paleos, mainstream conservatives, Rush Limbaugh fans, Eastern liberals, all have to do that. Again, that’s life. It is senseless to think it will be anything else. Do you not think that the Democrats have their problems?…which by the way, just a few years back, many were saying those problems were intractable. Remember “What’s Wrong with Kansas?” or “A National Party No More?” How did they regain their electability? They went back to the principals and every coalition united. They took their chances with the anger they created by frustrating Hillary voters, and won that battle. Personally, I want the party to become more conservative and to be clearer on what we believe. I will roll the dice, like the Democrats did on frustrating the very small group of moderates. In the end, though, I like many of the ideas on this site, although some of the articles are not really about policy but just impressions and stories. Kind of weird.

• 310 oldranger // Mar 9, 2009 at 2:11 am

  I listened to that dust-up you had with Mark Levin. The reason he muted you is you wanted to keep speaking without the show’s host getting a word in to respond. Incidentally, congratulations on the Newsweek hit piece.

• 311 LIBERTY // Mar 10, 2009 at 3:30 am

  “With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history…Rush knows what he is doing. The worse conservatives do, the more important Rush becomes as leader of the ardent remnant.” THAT provoked Levin’s outrage. PERSONAL attacks against somebody because he doesn’t subscribe to your nuanced-brain fart-moderate republicanism is worthy indeed of condemnation. Levin said the excerpts above in REACTION to this, which prompted Frum to call in and do some shouting of his own. Levin gave him the floor, and would lower him when he insisted on either rambling or reiterating the same ad hominem personal attacks. He was more respectful of this drivel than I would have been. With his sellout ideas and his nasty disposition, I think he should relocate his big tent to the Democrat fairgrounds… where they like a good sideshow.

• 312 bpas // Apr 28, 2009 at 9:44 pm

  Levin ripped you apart! You are a loser! Do not ever call yourself a Conservative! I’ll tell you like Ann Coulter would, YOU ARE A P###Y! Go hang out with Madcow! You want to know why she was polite to you? Because you were bashing Conservatives! Please just start calling yourself a liberal a get over it. We don’t want you, we reject you, you’re a pseudo-conservative! Go join Spector!

You must log in to post a comment.