The story so far:
Danielle Crittenden, aka Mrs Frum, posted an entry at NewMajority here regretting the decision of Mary Ann Glendon not to share a platform at Notre Dame with President Obama. It should probably be mentioned that Glendon and Danielle are associates from former days at the Independent Women’s Forum, whose quarterly used to be edited by Danielle.
Danielle’s blogpost provoked some criticism from our friends over at the Corner, see for example here by Ramesh Ponnuru, who suggested with his familiar suavity that Danielle’s regret was “idiotic.”
To these criticisms, Danielle posted a reply here.
That second post excited Maggie Gallagher to complain, again at the Corner, that failure to apprehend the total reasonableness of Glendon’s action was “childish, silly, and ignorant.”
Ignoring these repeated hints that this was one discussion that preferred not to be elevated, Danielle has now posted directly on the Corner a words-of-one-syllable version of the argument, which follows below:
A Public Fight [Danielle Crittenden]
I figured that when I waded into the Mary Ann Glendon/Notre Dame affair, it would be a little like wandering into an Irish bar and asking, as the joke goes, Is this a private fight or may I join in?
While I expected criticism (to which I replied in a second take here), I probably did not sufficiently recognize how beleaguered and isolated strong prolife Catholics such as Maggie Gallagher and Ramesh Ponnuru now feel. It’s only 100 days into the Obama administration, but they are already at second-term despair.
I’d hoped I’d phrased my critique of Mary Ann Glendon’s decision respectfully, acknowledging from the start that I could not enter into the internal Catholic politics of Glendon’s refusal to accept an award from Notre Dame if that meant sharing a platform with President Obama. I won’t restate the argument: interested NRO readers can follow the links above.
Let me instead just say this: My criticism of Glendon’s decision was expressed from the point of view of a conservative who is watching her movement self-destruct before her eyes. Glendon (and Maggie and Ramesh) may of course choose if they wish to view her decision entirely from within a Catholic frame of reference.
But Glendon (and Maggie and Ramesh) live in a country where other frames of reference coexist as well. And the many Americans — many of them also Catholics — who participate in these nonreligious frames of reference may see in this decision something more than a private act of conscience. They may see one of America’s leading religious conservatives repudiating the moral legitimacy of the president of the United States.
There was too much of that in the past eight years. And now, with year one of a new administration barely begun, prominent conservative voices are accusing this new president of instituting fascism, of falsifying his birth certificate, of sympathizing with Somali pirates over American sailors. For one of our most serious and most conscientious moral thinkers to join the radical rejectionists is alarming, no matter how well stated her reasoning. For Ramesh and Maggie to cheer her on — well that is disheartening. If NR has historically stood against anything, it has stood against this sort of conservative migration to the fringe.
And that is how I arrived at my final conclusion:
“I fear our side is becoming like the leftists we used to mock. We refuse to recognize the American president as our president. And we reduce our politics to a single issue, showing no tolerance or desire for engagement with our opponents, including those who dissent within our own ranks.
In the coming four years, all conservatives will have cause to oppose and fight the Obama administration on many, many fronts. But let’s not imitate the past eight years of political opposition. We are better than that. And we should—we must—be willing to share a platform with our elected President.”
You can keep trying to insist the Glendon/Notre Dame debate is a private fight. But whether you like it or not, it’s a public fight as well.
Let me add here a personal editorial comment. A large part of the secret of President Obama’s political success is his self-presentation as calm, judicious, and fair-minded – and his ability to depict his opponents as intemperate and extreme. You’d think by now that Obama’s opponents would have figured out this trick. You want to beat him? Great. Be more calm, more judicious, and more fair-minded. Don’t be provoked. Don’t throw wild allegations. Don’t boycott. Don’t lose your temper.
Instead, we get Anger Theater. It’s not smart. And it’s not working.
73 responses so far
1 Purple Fury // May 2, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Mr. Frum,
With all due respect, you are not being fair to the Corner contributors who disagree with your wife. You’ve cherry picked quotes that allow you to paint their arguments as intemperate. They were not. The arguments they posed were exceptionally well-reasoned and moderate in tone. The quotes you’ve cherry-picked are in response to your wife’s clear misrepresentation of Glendon’s position, and the cheap shots thrown at the Corner contributors that they are somehow “beleagured” and “isolated”.
Your wife’s position seems to be that Glendon is rejecting the award and refusing to attend because she is rejecting Obama as her President. That is manifestly not the case — she’s said nothing of the sort. She’s simply making a principled stand based on her beliefs, and refusing to allow Notre Dame to use her as political cover for a position she holds as abominable.
More power to her.
I invite readers to read Glendon’s (multi-syllabic) letter and the Cornerites’ arguments in support of her, to judge for themselves just how angry, unfair-minded, provocative, and riddled with wild allegations any of this material actually is:
http://www.firstthings.com/blog/2009/04/27/declining-notre-dame-a-letter-from-mary-ann-glendon/
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzkwNTE0OWFjYWRjMTc2MDU5ZWUyYTE4MjEwYTE5OGE=
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWZhOGZlYWM0NTVmNDFiMmYyYWRlY2I0NjFlNDY1YmI=
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWUyNzFmMjJhNzNhZDY5MDU0OGE0ZGU3NDhlZjVkMDk=
2 Roger // May 2, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Aren’t you in favor of maintaining the legality of killing babies before their born? Why are you offering us your “helpful” advice?
3 tarazeigler // May 2, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Purple Fury: While your point is well-taken, there is more to consider here. Most Americans who hear about this story are not going to take the time to read Glendon’s letter or any of the reasoned (though I am not entirely convinced) arguments from the Corner. They will only see the surface story, which makes Glendon (and by extension, pro-life conservatives) look really bad. Think about it: Notre Dame has invited Glendon to share the stage and receive an honor alongside the President of the United States and she is boycotting. That is it, in a nutshell. Like it or not, President Obama comes out looking gracious and, well, presidential. Glendon comes out looking like she is rejecting the President. Is this fair. No, but welcome to the game of politics.
There is another option for her, which is to show up and make a speech that clearly articulates her life-affirming views. It doesn’t have to be political, as many commenters have claimed. She can be respectful of the president and the students while still making her voice heard. She is refusing to take the opportunity, which would be baffling to me except that this is how conservatives seem to be handling the President across the board. David is absolutely right. This is a losing strategy and until conservatives start taking every opportunity possible to communicate positive ways that their agenda is superior to the liberal agenda, they will lose again and again and again.
4 Purple Fury // May 2, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Tara,
There is no way that Glendon could make a speech articulating her life-affirming views and have it *not* be political, least of all with the President sharing the stage. I’d love to see a draft of this “non-political” pro-life speech. Perhaps you have one?
Regarding the rest, I think Frum and his wife are wrong, and in any event did not make the case that you just did — instead, they’ve both deliberately misrepresented Glendon’s position, which is truly unfortunate and not at all helpful for the new climate of discourse Frum claims to want to create.
We’ll have to agree to disagree.
5 Jeff // May 2, 2009 at 7:24 pm
This is sounding disturbingly like a request for religious perspectives to please be quiet. I hope not, but since the internal Palin bloodletting, it feels like there is a faction that wants all religious perspective to just be quiet and stay out of the main line of debate.
6 BigM // May 2, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Jeff’s post is classic. The Frums are NOT asking religious people to “be quiet” – the religious people are choosing to be quiet on their own! Faced with the ascendancy of a president who disagrees with them, they’re walking out in a huff.
“It’s not smart. And it’s not working” Indeed it’s not. What such tactics are doing, is helping to convince on-the-fence moderates that religious conservatives are fanatical nut cases.
7 danoand // May 2, 2009 at 10:18 pm
So I am making my third and (hopefully) final comment. I think it may be time for Mr. and Ms. Crittendon to cut their losses on this one after getting spanked by commenters both here and at the Corner. But here goes…
There are two issues here, the first far more important than the other. They are:
1. The first is foundational: the institutional integrity of Notre Dame and socially conservative Catholics to hold steadfast to our principles. Notre Dame is not just Duke or Vanderbilt with some religious artifacts sprinkled about. It is an important Catholic institution which is squandering its identity. Ms. Glendon has acted according to her principles and the direction of the U.S. bishops to not honor a politician such the President who represents the most radical vision of abortion policy to date. [Saying this again and again, but remember that was "not honor" NOT "don't engage, or discuss, or dialogue". There is a big difference but for some reason this just ain't gettin' through]
2. The second is tactical: bluntly spoken – don’t play your adversary’s game. The Left and the current Administration are very good at playing the political and pr game. They hold incredible advantages including virtual control of the mainstream media to propagate their message. These inherent advantages are still not enough so they disingenuously appeal to Conservatives’ inherent respect for the office by imploring that we show fealty to the man. If that doesn’t do the trick get down and dirty and have a Hollywood personality pull out the racism card if the hoi polloi really start to get out of line.
Let’s do a little hypothetical visioning. Fast forward to the day after the commencement where both the President and Ms. Glendon have spoken, what do we see and hear on millions of televisions, radios, and online and offline news outlets:
* Cool images of the President in august robes depicted under the (Whitehouse approved) university logos and branding (remember Georgetown U. anyone?)
* Quick audio of clips of the President’s soaring teleprompter driven rhetoric… good stuff sounds great doesn’t it?
* Talking heads doing “analysis” remarking how great it is the President is reaching out to those who oppose his policies
* Same talking heads dripping with hand wringing concern remarking how Catholics and recalcitrant conservatives are deeply divided on abortion… cue appropriate voting and polling statistics to back up the claim
Ok, so in our hypothetical scenario what do you NOT see:
* Any true dialogue, engagement, discussion of any type
* Ms. Glendon speaking truth to power
* Any meaningful giving of ground on the radical abortion agenda. [Quick question, in the Democrat party where 40+ million people voted for the President, name 2 prominent pro-Life Democrats? Ok... name 1?]
Finally, in our scenario what happens after the 24 – 48 hour news cycle?:
* Notre Dame doesn’t get the wake up call it sorely needs to pull itself out of an existential crises of identity
* Ms. Glendon used as a prop for a little Notre Dame CYA and Presidential “wadda great guy” sound bites
* Increased division of Catholics and social conservatives
Here’s the deal, #1 is more important than #2. Why? Without core principles the tactics won’t matter. #1 is important to non-Catholics and Conservatives who are pro-Choice or for whom abortion is not a priority. Why? If the Left can manipulate or simply exploit the degrading of principles for Catholic institutions why not other foundational principles that constitute us as Conservatives: rule of law, defense of capitalism and free enterprise, belief in the individual, the list goes on.
It’s time to hold to our principles AND be smart.
8 cheesehead // May 2, 2009 at 11:02 pm
As many posters have said, this is a Roman Catholic issue–not a “movement conservative” issue.
With all due respect, since Ms. Crittenden is not a Catholic, she has no standing to comment at all. I can’t speak for all Roman Catholics, but personally I resent her so publicly butting in.
Furthermore, I take offense at her NRO post in which she characterized dissenting Catholics as being “beleaguered and isolated,” and “already at second term despair.”
She also takes a cheap shot by implicitly lumping anti-Notre Dame critics with loony wingnuts: “prominent conservative voices are accusing this new president of instituting fascism, of falsifying his birth certificate, of sympathizing with Somali pirates over American sailors.”
Note: this is NOT principally about President Obama. He is what he is, including being pro-abortion. Notre Dame can’t change that. Instead, it’s about a Catholic university like Notre Dame “honoring” an abortion advocate, contrary to US Catholic Bishops’ guidelines.
Of course, President Obama has political and civic legitimacy, which all citizens respect. (Ms. Crittenden overreaches though when she suggests that he has “moral legitimacy,” which I vigorously reject, as do many Catholics and other persons of faith.)
I think President Obama should speak at as many (secular) university commencements as his schedule permits, starting with the service academies. But I refuse to be cow-towed into Ms. Crittenden’s belief that opposing President Obama’s speaking at Notre Dame is un-American.
Again: Ms. Crittenden, please butt out!
9 Churl // May 3, 2009 at 1:37 am
Frum almost gets it: “A large part of the secret of President Obama’s political success is … his ability to depict his opponents as intemperate and extreme.” What Frum does not quite get is that he and his pals at newmajority.com help make Obama’s false depictions stick. Abortion opponents are religious maniacs, global warming scepticism is merely sublimated hatred of Al Gore, the tea party protesters are a disjointed bunch of losers unappreciative of the government’s largess in allowing them to keep part of their earnings… and so on ad infinitum et nauseaum.
10 joemarier // May 3, 2009 at 5:12 am
Here’s why I support her decision:
Remember Ahmadenijad at Columbia (I AM NOT COMPARING OBAMA TO AHMADENIJAD)? Where the President gave an blistering introduction saying he was a horrible, horrible person, and then let him speak?
Yeah, I didn’t think that was very effective. If Mary Ann Glendon gave a five minute anti-abortion speech before Obama spoke, it would have made her look churlish.
Joe
11 ottovbvs // May 3, 2009 at 5:55 am
“A large part of the secret of President Obama’s political success is his self-presentation as calm, judicious, and fair-minded – and his ability to depict his opponents as intemperate and extreme. You’d think by now that Obama’s opponents would have figured out this trick.”
…..The problem David is that it’s not a trick as you apparently believe. He really IS intelligent, calm, judicious and fair minded. And his opponents, as you acknowledge, really ARE angry and intemperate. It all may be in pursuit of an agenda you don’t like but that doesn’t make a realistic assessment of the president’s qualities any less essential to figuring out how Republicans go forward. The problem is that this unrealism is being fed by opinion formers in the conservative movement. As someone pointed out today: a week after Karl Rove in the WSJ accused Obama of being the most divisive president in forty years, the WSJ published their OWN poll showing that 81% of the country liked the guy and two thirds approved of the job he was doing. Republicans at all levels are thus in deep denial. The Notre Dame controversy which has basically been ginned up by a lot of movement conservatives is just another symptom of the anger and intemperance as your good lady points out. It’s going to take a long time before the fever breaks.
12 ottovbvs // May 3, 2009 at 6:02 am
You have to smile at the anger and self righteousness of all the catholic commentators here who apparently think they know better than the ordained priest who is president of the university and who despite I’m sure sincerely held religious beliefs has a lot more commonsense than they do. He recognizes as they do not American life and culture is based on inclusion not exclusion. Litmus tests have become a way of life with these people and it’s destroying the Republican party and conservatism as a political force.
13 Purple Fury // May 3, 2009 at 6:07 am
Otto:
“He really IS intelligent, calm, judicious and fair minded.”
No he’s not. Cf. reaction to the tea parties. Or his famous retort to Congressional Republicans’ budget proposals (“I won”). He’s a thin-skinned, closed-minded jerk.
It really *is* a trick. He uses a very well-known rhetorical device in nearly all his speeches. He will take an argument of his opponent’s, minimize it or maximize it to an extreme, and then argue against this ridiculous extreme.
He did this a day or so ago when reacting to news of Souter’s retirement. He said, “I will seek someone who understands that justice isnt about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book…”
Who could possibly argue against the position that justice isn’t about abstract theories or a footnote in a case book? Of course what he doesn’t tell you is that proponents of originalism (who he’s insulting here) don’t hold that position. That’s a grotesque caricature of their position.
Once you recognize this a time or two you will hear it in his speeches ALL THE TIME. His remarks are full of this kind of crap. It makes him seem “moderate” and “sensible” and “thoughtful” — when in fact all he’s really doing is employing a device to dismiss the position of people he doesn’t agree with.
14 sinz54 // May 3, 2009 at 6:07 am
Ms. Crittenden and I went two rounds on this already, and we’re just going to have to agree to disagree.
In case anyone didn’t read my previous posts:
What Ms. Glendon is doing–staying away quietly from the Commencement in protest–is NOT an act of anger. It’s an act of civil disobedience–passive resistance. It’s certainly passionate, but passion and anger are not synonymous. It’s no more “angry” than the acts of civil disobedience practiced by Gandhi or Martin Luther King.
That said, there is real, genuine, freak-out type anger present among the GOP base, which I will discuss more in my next post.
15 ottovbvs // May 3, 2009 at 6:14 am
danoand
10:18 PM
……You have a bad case of Obama Derangement Syndrome I fear. My wife is a devout Catholic and spends hours on church activities from arranging flowers to charity work. Although moderately conservative she is also on of the president’s greatest admirers. She’s disgusted with this, as she perceives it, attempt by political conservatives to hijack what is essentially an academic event in order to score political points. I’m not in the least religious but it does all seem very small minded. Overall it’s doing the conservative cause far more harm than good. Not that I expect you to see this but then conservatives seem to have lost all sense of self awareness lately.
16 ottovbvs // May 3, 2009 at 6:19 am
Purple Fury
wrote 7 minutes ago
Another bad case of ODS. As I mentioned, that WSJ poll shows that 81% of the country likes the guy. I’m afraid you are denying reality and actually prove David’s and my point.
17 Purple Fury // May 3, 2009 at 6:20 am
At some point, a serious person who considers himself or herself a Catholic has to ask what that means. For different religions, it means different things, but what it means for Catholics, is a certain obeisance to orthodoxy. If it is not adherence to basic principles as articulated by the Church, what is it?
The Church’s position on this issue is crystal-clear, and Glendon is acting in accord with it. She’s acting not out of anger, but out of conscience. She is talking the talk and walking the walk.
I think this makes a lot of people uncomfortable, apparently. And I don’t agree at all that not appearing means she won’t be able to make her case. By not appearing, and by virtue of the controversy, I think her views will get a more thorough airing than they would if she were to just mindlessly go along in open rejection of Catholic doctrine as so many of brethren apparently do.
18 sinz54 // May 3, 2009 at 6:24 am
Purple Fury sez: “He’s a thin-skinned, closed-minded jerk.”
It sounds more like you’re the one who’s angry. You’re the first person in this discussion to attack someone personally with epithets like “jerk.”
But you’re not the only person in the GOP like that.
On major blogs like Redstate.com, I’m seeing stuff that’s just wild, approaching black-helicopter tin-foil level. Even some things that in a saner time could be considered incitement to violence, but today must just be considered flights of rhetoric.
Even a thoroughly right-wing blog like Little Green Footballs has expressed alarm at how wild and how extreme the right-wing blogosphere is becoming. (For which its manager, Charles Johnson, has been pilloried by the Right as a “squish” and a “sellout” and a “dupe,” the same venom they’re dumping on David Frum–and on me.)
I wish these conservatives would remember what Rush Limbaugh observed about Howard Dean in 2004: “Anger doesn’t win elections.”
19 Purple Fury // May 3, 2009 at 6:26 am
Otto:
“Another bad case of ODS. As I mentioned, that WSJ poll shows that 81% of the country likes the guy. I’m afraid you are denying reality and actually prove David’s and my point.”
I don’t deny for a second that his popularity is high (although I’d like a link to that 81% figure, and of course it sweeps under the rug the distinction between personal popularity and the popularity of his policies), so you’ll have to pin that diagnosis on someone else. That said, it does nothing to refute my point about his use of rhetorical tricks to present the illusion of temperateness.
20 sinz54 // May 3, 2009 at 6:28 am
ottovbvs: If it’s being too personal, may I ask:
How does your wife deal with the conundrum of being a devout Catholic, while at the same time being an admirer of a pro-choice President?
Is your wife pro-choice herself, or is she willing to look past Obama’s pro-choice stance because of his competence on other issues, such as economic policy?
And if she’s pro-choice herself, how does she deal with the fact that her Church is not?
Just curious.
21 Purple Fury // May 3, 2009 at 6:33 am
sinz:
LGF is not now, nor ever was, a “thoroughly right-wing blog.”
And btw, thanks for lumping me in with the black helicopter crowd.
Nice.
22 sinz54 // May 3, 2009 at 6:37 am
Purple Fury: I’m glad you agree that most of the public likes Obama personally, though as you say they don’t agree with all of his policies.
But don’t you see how that puts you and the rest of the GOP base out of the mainstream, when you call Obama a “thin-skinned, closed-minded jerk.” The majority of Americans, judging by every poll I’ve seen, do NOT think Obama is a “jerk”. They think he’s a pretty decent fellow. And so do I.
They are troubled about the growing Federal budget and the soaring Federal deficits and national debt. That is a potential opening for the GOP. But you are turning off all those Americans who think Obama isn’t such a bad guy, when you attack him personally.
23 sinz54 // May 3, 2009 at 6:38 am
Purple Fury: I didn’t lump YOU in with the black helicopter crowd. I said:
“On major blogs like Redstate.com, I’m seeing stuff that’s just wild, approaching black-helicopter tin-foil level.”
And that’s absolutely true, and I stand by it.
24 ottovbvs // May 3, 2009 at 6:39 am
sinz54
wrote 3 minutes ago
“How does your wife deal with the conundrum of being a devout Catholic, while at the same time being an admirer of a pro-choice President?”
…..Unless you’d noticed millions do….I think he actually got a majority of the catholic vote…for most catholics when real life crashes into church doctrine on everything from birth control to abortion they tend to go with real life…the catholic faith and its rituals have always struck me as very flexible in practice whether its protecting child molesters, giving absolution to members cosa nostra, or a few hail mary’s to drunken irishmen who beat their wives.
25 Purple Fury // May 3, 2009 at 6:45 am
sinz:
You left out some context: “It sounds more like you’re the one who’s angry. You’re the first person in this discussion to attack someone personally with epithets like “jerk.”
But you’re not the only person in the GOP like that.
On major blogs like Redstate.com, I’m seeing stuff that’s just wild, approaching black-helicopter tin-foil level.”
As to the rest:
I’m not going to apologize for not complimenting the Emperor on his new clothes. If that puts me out of the mainstream, so be it.
He is not a moderate (cf. the policies he’s enacted), and he is not temperate, and I’ve given examples to support why I believe that. It’s not anger, it’s just a statement of my perception. You might try refuting my actual argument rather than resorting to ad populum (“but, but, but, everybody LIKES him!!”).
26 ottovbvs // May 3, 2009 at 6:46 am
Purple Fury
wrote 13 minutes ago
“and of course it sweeps under the rug the distinction between personal popularity and the popularity of his policies),”
…..The same poll had appro for most of his policies in the fifties and his personal appro in the sixties. The fact is as that polls showed this guy is the most trusted and respected man and institution in the country at present.
” That said, it does nothing to refute my point about his use of rhetorical tricks to present the illusion of temperateness.”
…….This is just whining about his communication and political skills which in itself is a testament to his intelligence and strategic sense.
27 Purple Fury // May 3, 2009 at 6:51 am
otto:
“The fact is as that polls showed this guy is the most trusted and respected man and institution in the country at present.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
“This is just whining about his communication and political skills which in itself is a testament to his intelligence and strategic sense.”
I don’t deny that he has intelligence and strategic sense. What I deny is that he’s moderate or temperate or open-minded.
28 ottovbvs // May 3, 2009 at 6:55 am
Purple Fury
wrote 1 minutes ago
“You might try refuting my actual argument rather than resorting to ad populum”
……Actually you’re arguments are being refuted….You’re just not listening and at the same time implying that the vast majority of Americans who unlike you don’t see him as “a thin skinned, close minded, jerk” are in some way stupid and unable to make value judgements.
29 ottovbvs // May 3, 2009 at 7:02 am
Purple Fury
wrote 3 minutes ago
Stock up on the valium and lipitor…this guys going to be around for eight years and reshape the country in all sorts of ways you’re not going to like…..Emigration?
30 sinz54 // May 3, 2009 at 7:28 am
Purple Fury: It’s not being “closed-minded” for Obama to have policies that he really believes in, and really wants to have adopted.
It is being “closed-minded” when someone deliberately ignores stubborn facts or other views.
Do you have any evidence that Obama is deliberately ignoring facts?
Do you have any evidence that Obama is deliberately ignoring other views but his own? At this past week’s press conference, he seemed quite familiar with the charges being made against him–and then he explained why he thought those charges were baseless.
Obama is truly intelligent, well-read, cool, familiar with both liberal and conservative philosophies. We’re not going to beat him unless we can also act intelligent, well-read, cool, and familiar with all sides of an issue. Instead of the way we are acting.
31 Purple Fury // May 3, 2009 at 7:45 am
sinz:
I gave two examples of his closed-mindedness and intemperance in my earlier post (6:07AM). One was his reaction to the GOP budget proposals. The GOP came to him with some ideas which he summarily rejected with the comment, “I won”. Mr. Cool followed that up by embarking on a public campaign against Rush Limbaugh and his listeners, and by implication the GOP establishment.
Another example was his reaction to the “tea parties” — which he first claimed he was “unaware of” (deliberately ignoring stubborn facts and other views?), but then later minimized when he claimed the people “waving tea bags” were somehow blaming the deficits solely on the recovery act (ARRA). That was classic Obama: take an argument of your opponents, caricature or misrepresent it completely, and then argue against the resulting strawman he’s created. The tea parties don’t blame the looming deficit crisis on the recovery act. They blame it on the recovery act, plus the record budget, plus healthcare “reform”, plus cap-and-trade, plus auto bailouts, plus bank bailouts, plus delinquent mortgage holder bailouts, plus insurance company bailouts, plus the coming second “stimulus” package. He offered in the same speech to enter into a serious debate about deficit reduction with the tea party organizers, and they’ve taken since him up on that offer.
Wanna lay odds on whether or not Mr. Temperate and Reasonable and Open-Minded follows thru with his promise?
32 sinz54 // May 3, 2009 at 7:48 am
ottovbvs sez: “this guys going to be around for eight years and reshape the country in all sorts of ways you’re not going to like…..Emigration?”
According to the polls, 65% of the American public agree with you that Obama is a doctrinaire liberal. No “post-partisanship” in evidence anywhere.
All that Obama talk of “going beyond old partisanships” was just a deliberate lie, uttered just to get some swing votes (as the left-wing blogs like Huffington Post said at the time).
And your suggestion to conservatives of “emigration” (after all those Hollywood liberals had threatened to emigrate if Bush got re-elected to a second term) suggests that you’re savoring your vengeance.
You’ve been waiting to stick it to us conservatives for a long time. Enjoy your doctrinaire liberal vengeance–while it lasts.
33 ottovbvs // May 3, 2009 at 7:55 am
sinz54
wrote 13 minutes ago
……All the ignoring of facts is currently by conservatives as you point out. The net has given voice to lots of people like Purple Fury when previously they were invisible. On balance it’s putting conservatives at a huge disadvantage because their opinions are basically not appealing to the mass of the country and particularly not to the bit that is computer literate. At the same time they provides an endless seam of excess that can pilloried. From Macacca to Bachmann you just can’t give hostages to fortune. It’s also, so easy with a keystroke to summon up the previous pontifications of a Gingrich, the intellectual artistry of an Inhofe, or to refute incorrect data. More than ever we are in a fact based age when more and more people get their info unstreamed by the MSM or their commentary is critiqued online. And yet at this moment the GOP and conservatives generally are retreating into a cocoon of fact rejection. It’s incredibly dangerous for a political party that seeks to compete nationally.
34 ottovbvs // May 3, 2009 at 8:03 am
sinz54
wrote 7 minutes ago
“All that Obama talk of “going beyond old partisanships” was just a deliberate lie, uttered just to get some swing votes”
….And what was “compassionate conservatism.” Don’t be so naive, it’s political boilerplate. And the fact is he has made overtures to the opposition but they don’t want to play ball as the public clearly perceives because they are holding the GOP primarily responsible for non cooperation. What Republicans are missing is that the country has shifted left on most of the major issues.
“And your suggestion to conservatives of “emigration” (after all those Hollywood liberals had threatened to emigrate if Bush got re-elected to a second term) suggests that you’re savoring your vengeance.”
…..Chill out dude…it was a bit of ironic humor
35 ottovbvs // May 3, 2009 at 8:13 am
“The GOP came to him with some ideas which he summarily rejected with the comment”
…..The ideas being another round of tax cuts for the wealthiest and a spending freeze in the middle of a major Republican created recession….can you blame him
” Mr. Cool followed that up by embarking on a public campaign against Rush Limbaugh and his listeners, and by implication the GOP establishment.”
…..First law of politics and war….when your opponent exposes a flank you attack it….and there are few with bigger flanks than Mr Limbaugh…..the same applies to the tea parties sponsored by Fox and a bunch of Republican front groups….they came off as nutballs… What you’re whining about Purple is his strategic and tactical political skills…..They are all a by product of his intelligence and Rooseveltian temperament.
36 sinz54 // May 3, 2009 at 8:18 am
ottovbs: Bush’s “Compassionate conservatism” included passing Medicare Part D (prescription drugs), and No Child Left Behind.
Bush also wanted to pass comprehensive immigration reform, which would give illegal immigrants a tough but reasonable path to citizenship. He worked with Ted Kennedy to craft that bill and get it passed. The bill failed, NOT due so much to opposition from the Left, but due to unreasoning opposition from the hard-core Right.
Evidently, you forgot about those things.
Has Obama tried to work with conservatives the way Bush worked with Ted Kennedy on immigration reform?
37 ottovbvs // May 3, 2009 at 8:29 am
sinz54
wrote 5 minutes ago
…….Bush was the most divisive president I can remember…and that includes Nixon and Clinton….. Obama has reached out but a much more polarized GOP in house and senate are refusing to play ball…the public can see this clearly as all these polls showing they believe the Republicans are principally responsible for non cooperation.
38 Kaz // May 3, 2009 at 9:07 am
Frum, you’ve got a great site here…with the tagline”Building conservativism that can win again”.
Don’t you find it a bit strange that the most frequent and prolific commenters are lefties?
39 sinz54 // May 3, 2009 at 9:09 am
ottovbvs: You didn’t answer my question:
Bush reached out to Ted Kennedy, and together they created an immigration reform bill. And that was despite the divisive Iraq War, which had liberals screaming bloody murder.
Will Obama reach out to Mitch McConnell to craft any significant piece of legislation together? Entitlement reform, perhaps?
40 ChristianMiller // May 3, 2009 at 9:29 am
danoand
10:18 PM
cheesehead
11:02 PM
Purple Fury
6:07 AM
Great points all!
These three comments eviscerate Frum and his wife’s arguments. sinz seems to be the only moderate here, sometimes he makes good points, other times I disagree with him on strategy, tactics and the overall threat, but he seems to be a Republican.
But then the leftists chime in. These folks want the Republican party, in whatever form, moderate of conservative, to FAIL. They are, in effect, trolls at this site, which has the stated aim or the party to succeed.
So we have a large group of movement conservatives, a handful of active leftists, and one moderate here commenting. If this is the impact of “New majority” I would characterize it as “middle-of-the-road-kill”.
So where is Frum left to go? To write articles for left wing publications and cozy up to Democrats. It is so sad.
It is also a sad sight to see people you agree with on many things be so disingenuous in their arguments. Frum is almost as bad as left-wingers in this regard.
41 ChristianMiller // May 3, 2009 at 9:35 am
I would really like to know why there is a double-standard applied to Republican or conservative activists when it comes to convincing moderates and so-called independents.
Don’t the excesses of the leftist activists count for anything? They don’t alienate moderates?
And if not, why not?
I can answer, but let’s see if anyone else here can first.
42 ottovbvs // May 3, 2009 at 10:08 am
sinz54
wrote 57 minutes ago
Will Obama reach out to Mitch McConnell to craft any significant piece of legislation together? Entitlement reform, perhaps?
…….Quite possible…..but entitlement reform isn’t top of the agenda at present…..how about immigration reform since you think that’s important.
43 larryo // May 3, 2009 at 10:22 am
“But then the leftists chime in. These folks want the Republican party, in whatever form, moderate of conservative, to FAIL.”
Speaking for myself, that is just not true. I am a great believer in what one of Bush’s apparatchiks referred to dismissively as “eighteenth century Americanism.”
I think most of you have lost sight of what moderate conservatism actually is, and it is not embodied in the rantings of sinz54, who writes such things as “I despise what you believe in” and “My only regret is that we didn’t crush you Leftists in the 1960s.”
Take a look at the life and works of Tom McCall, for instance – he was a moderate conservative.
I do not want the Republican Party to fail, because I think our form of government requires two parties to function properly – this is the only major point on which I disagree with James Madison.
But failure, disgrace and entombment are inevitable so long as prevailing Republican thinking is that the most important tasks facing our government include protecting the sanctity of marriage from assault by homosexuals, mandating organized prayer sessions and the teaching of creationism in schools, promoting the theory that eliminating taxes increases government revenues, expediting the execution of prisoners on death row so that the cells can be freed up for abortion providers and so long as that thinking includes implacable outrage at the prospect of those earning over $300,000/year paying extra taxes of $32/week .
44 ottovbvs // May 3, 2009 at 10:25 am
Franco
wrote 44 minutes ago
“These folks want the Republican party, in whatever form, moderate of conservative, to FAIL.”
On the contrary as I’ve pointed out to you before Franco I was probably voting Republican when you were in diapers. The difference is I see no future as a national party geographically based in the South/Mormon corridor/ and scattered rural areas, and wedded to a mass of policies that are out of touch with reality in 21st century America. David is pointing out that reality in the main, although for emotional and institutional reasons he sometimes drifts off into defending one of the most awful presidencies in US history, but his message is the right one. You are one of the anvils I’m afraid.
45 darleenclick // May 3, 2009 at 10:59 am
Mr. and Mrs Frum,
Do you see any difference between Glendon’s letter refusing to be a prop and Andrew McCarthy’s letter also turning down the chance to give President Obama covert?
If not, why are you again beating up religious conservatives for the audicity of being principled?
There is more to life then being on the privileged cocktail party circuit.
46 sinz54 // May 3, 2009 at 11:27 am
larryo: Ranting? Are we talking about ranting?
Didn’t you post this earlier in another discussion thread:
“That should be obvious to even the most casual observer by this time, as it should be obvious that the militarists, the imperialists, the defense contractors and all their respective toadies who gave us the war in SE Asia and then this embroilment in the middle east value only their own enrichment and their narrow, warped and murderous agendas.”
I doubt you’ll find anything like that in the Federalist Papers.
The only “19th century Americanism” you represent are the turn-of-the-century fans of Karl Marx.
47 ChristianMiller // May 3, 2009 at 11:44 am
ottovbvs Pure BS. What Republicans did you vote for? Eisenhower? I can read, otto. You aren’t a Republican unless you want to follow Frum’s footsteps in re-definition and say there are left-wingers who are Republicans.
“The difference is I see no future as a national party geographically based in the South/Mormon corridor/ and scattered rural areas…” This by itself reveals you are not a Republican; conservative, moderate whatever, as our government was set up as a Republic precisely to provide for minority opinions in diverse geographical areas. This is why Nevada has two Senators and that the US Senate exists at all.
I also find your age reference incongruous with your historical perspective since it has only been four years that Republicans have been out of power in congress and less than one year in the Presidency, and for you to have been voting Republican since I was in diapers means that you must have been a Dewey supporter !
Larryo,
You weren’t being accused. You hadn’t posted yet, so why incude yourself in that category and not any other of the three? Hmmm.
You can tell a lot about a person’s ideology by his threat assessments.
“…promoting the theory that eliminating taxes increases government revenues, (this is a core Republican principle – exaggerated by you into ridiculousness BTW) expediting the execution of prisoners on death row so that the cells can be freed up for abortion providers (wow, talk about derangement…) and so long as that thinking includes implacable outrage at the prospect of those earning over $300,000/year paying extra taxes of $32/week . (Another wild exaggeration.)
Another tell-tale sign of a non-Republican is the level to which these people believe the party line about Obama. No Republican, even the most moderate, isn’t at least somewhat skeptical about Obama. But you guys are in the tank for him and everything that the MSM says.
Lastly, leftists are operating under the impression that those who don’t agree with them are stupid, which puts them at a distinct disadvantage when they are trying to fool us. It is hilarious to hear you guys protest that you vote Republican by assertion, and then blather on like any leftist drone.
48 sinz54 // May 3, 2009 at 11:48 am
Franco: Yes, we’ve got hard-core lefties like “larryo,” and hard-core right-wingers like “Purple Fury.”
So compute the average of the two:
(larryo + PurpleFury) / 2 = moderation !!!
49 sinz54 // May 3, 2009 at 11:51 am
Franco,
I just wish there was room in the conservative movement, not just for the votes of non-Christians like me,
but for our ideas as well.
We cannot abide advocating the passage of Constitutional Amendments that have no philosophical justification other than that the Church might like them.
For folks like me, that is a show-stopper. Despite your claims about individual liberty, such Amendments would enshrine “Christian values” even in the most secular, most liberal areas of San Francisco and Vermont.
If the Vermont legislature, through the democratic process, legalized same-sex marriage, what right do you have to tell them they cannot have that?
50 Purple Fury // May 3, 2009 at 12:35 pm
sinz:
What exactly is “hard-core right-wing” about my views? That I haven’t been seduced by the mythology surrounding Obama? (heaven forbid) That I think that if the Frums want to criticize Glendon, they ought to at least represent her views accurately and fairly?
And fwiw, I’m a non-Christian as well. I’m for gay civil unions (and persuadable on gay marriage, if it weren’t for cretins like Perez Hilton I’d probably be there already). I’m opposed to capital punishment. I’m reluctantly pro-choice and oppose the teaching of creationism in school science classes. I think to the extent the GOP is involved in that (promoting creationism/intelligent design), it’s sheer madness. That said, I respect people who hold pro-life and pro-traditional marriage views in good faith, just as I respect people who hold anti-war and anti-torture and anti-capital punishment views in good faith.
51 ChristianMiller // May 3, 2009 at 12:41 pm
sinz54,
I am a default Christian, as are most Americans. I learned this by living for a full year in Cairo, Egypt at the age of 26. It took me years to process what I saw/learned there.
America IS a Christian country, like it or not. As someone who questioned the teachings of the Catholic Church from the age of 12 and then stopped going to church, then rebelled and had very negative things to say, I have later come to be more mature and accepted that religion is not exclusively a negative force and that EVERYBODY has a belief system they operate out of, and who am I to judge them. I am pretty jaundiced about the Catholic Church still since they have some inherent philosophical contradictions they can’t seem to escape and this issue is one of them.
But at least most religious people KNOW they are believers whereas the leftists and others think they “know” something we don’t. And on that basis they are absolutists and fundamentalists. “It’s a proven fact! You must agree!” IE Global Warming.
What I learned by living in a Muslim country (and reading and collating a lot) is that so much of culture is borne from religious philosophy and is reinforced by it as well. We are so immersed in cultural Christianity here we are like fish swimming in water…”what water?” asks the fish.
So many Americans think others naturally think like they do. This was what I had to grapple with in Cairo, until I realized… they don’t! They don’t believe in “tolerance” -very Christian POV, much less “turning the other cheek” It is preposterous to them.
Christianity outside of its fundamentalist sects, has integrated Western reason and logic. Islam is dominated by imams who preach absolutism without shame and without restraint. That is, they feel fully justified in advancing their religion and/or cause without regard for human life. You could say that Christianity was like that once, but the religion did mature to what it is today which is way ahead of Islam and the fruits of Christianity are widespread. The fruits if Islam? And think where they would be without oil.
Another significant difference. Islam is deeply against separating church and State. This goes against everything Islam represents. Islam IS the law; they call it sharia, and there can be no other. That is what they believe.
Much of Christianity is outright communistic when you take their beliefs into the political sphere. But even non-religious leftists are preaching Christian principles when they rail against the death penalty, inveigh against war ( as though we can, like Christ, convert our enemies with love, which is a fundamental Christian concept)
Most leftists are profoundly influenced by Christian values. They hate religion but they preach all this self-righteous moralism, they actually want to be the high priests and consider all the ordained priests (in the generic sense) hypocritical charlatains. THEY are the real disseminators of truth and morality.
So I am not a believer, but I am a “respector”. I believe (there is that word again) that people are believers inherently and that without a religious object, they will choose something else for their believing tendencies. Usually this gets converted to politics, or to a human, a celebrity, a President or some constellation of orphaned beliefs. Therefore I don’t see religion per se, a big problem.
52 sinz54 // May 3, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Franco: I agree with much of what you wrote. But what you wrote doesn’t change what I said:
The GOP party platform includes calls for a new Constitutional Amendment that would make every woman who has an abortion guilty of violating the 14th Amendment. It also includes a call for a new Constitutional Amendment that would define civil marriage; overriding the marriage laws, customs and case law of all 50 states.
Why do we need a Constitutional Amendment on civil marriage? What part of the Preamble to the Constitution motivates this?
And how is overriding the marriage laws, customs and case law of all 50 states consistent with the conservative principle of federalism?
Since America cannot have an official endorsement of religion, what non-religious arguments can be mustered in support of such Amendments?
For those of us who are not part of the Religious Right (wherever we fall on the political spectrum on other issues), these Amendments are a show-stopper. They’ve got to go.
53 ChristianMiller // May 3, 2009 at 1:27 pm
And I am a proud hard-core “right winger” in that I will give no quarter to the left and leftists. I sympathize with Christians who have a right to their beliefs. That is ALSO separation of Church and Sate.
I don’t really CARE about “gay marriage” I think it is a bogus issue. I do know that changing culture radically is usually a bad idea. Twenty years ago, anyone promoting gay marriage would have been booed off the stage at a gay rights rally, proving this is just another fad, and an issue that isn’t vital. Gays are a small( but vocal) minority, and most of them don’t themselves want to marry anyone. Civil unions, or some mechanism to give gays and others rights in lieu of marriage, is fine.
I am a hard core because the left is hard core, and I think the Republican party are a bunch of frightened wimps for the most part who are out of touch.
Globalism, computers/internet and years of regulation has turned this country into a quasi-fascist state (and I don’t mean that the way leftist use the term fascist). The government and industry are in cahoots. But not just Halliburton and Boeing, but Microsoft, Google, Time-Warner, Disney, Wall mart, Archer-Daniels Midland, GE, you name it. It is now essential that these corporations donate to both parties and lobby both parties for regulations that give them advantage over smaller competitors, etc. Enough corporations will gain from the Global Warming State imperative that they will gladly go for more regulations, and politicians will gladly accept their money and influence. The game is the same, only bigger stakes and it is quite a bit simpler now, since competitors are kept from emerging because of the overwhelming size a company has to be before making a profit.
Government now has the power, with computerization, to monitor 1984-like, every one of the 280 million of us and is doing so aggressively. It isn’t just the Patriot Act, it goes way beyond that. The Patriot Act as implemented was pretty harmless, it is just the metastasizing of it, and other laws which are infringing on our rights and will become worse – not better, under Democrat administrations.
More and more police are targeting middle-class, non-threatening citizens for traffic offenses, while leaving whole criminal enterprises intact because it is difficult and dangerous to fight them.
Our government, at every level is LYING to us, and the MSM is in on the game.
54 sinz54 // May 3, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Purple Fury: Are there any nationally known liberals whom you respect–perhaps even admire?
Or is it impossible for you to respect someone on the diametric opposite side of the political spectrum?
55 Purple Fury // May 3, 2009 at 1:44 pm
sinz:
Interesting question, and I’ll be happy to answer, but before I do, what’s that got to do with my views being hard-core right wing?
Also for what it’s worth, I’m opposed to pro-life & traditional marriage amendments to the Constitution.
56 ChristianMiller // May 3, 2009 at 1:47 pm
sinz, I don’t know much about these Constitutional amendments, so I am not disagreeing with you . I think people try various ways to get their agenda passed and sometimes they are ill-advised, even hypocritical, but there is nothing we can do.
There is no monolithic conservatism any more than there is a monolithic Republican (or Democrat) Party. Sometimes these debates are blown way out of proportion by the media and people react.
Personally I find it ludicrous that we are spending so much debate time on the gay marriage issue. It isn’t a civil right, and most gays don’t want to get married. Hell, most straight men don’t want to get married either!
But I don’t see the down side to fighting these things either, as Frum apparently does. His strategy is to acquiesce, but he doesn’t seem to realize that as soon as we give in, another issue takes the place and the fight begins anew. Nothing changes. Look at the history of the civil rights movement, the women’s movement (that is VERY revealing) and the gay rights movement. They used to clamor for civil unions. Now, people who aren’t fully supportive of gay marriage are called homophobes! So it doesn’t matter politically the left always uses some civil-rights issue as a cudgel, and at this point they are literally making up these issues.
57 danoand // May 3, 2009 at 2:36 pm
re: ottovbvs
First of all, kudos to your wife for work with the Church and those in need. But by far the most important issue is that Notre Dame, the premier Catholic university in the country, is essentially losing its core principles. If any other person holding the office of the presidency (President Obama or a President Pelosi, Reid or McCain) held the same views and took the same governing actions I’d feel the same way. At the end of the day, this is (sadly) fundamentally Notre Dame’s own, self-inflicted damage. It isn’t the President’s fault. If you’re not Catholic or a Notre Dame alumni or supporter then okay but dude that’s the core issue.
Notre Dame then compounded the issue by putting McGlendon who they were attempting to honor in an untenable position, where she would have to reject those same core principles as a Catholic and reject the explicit guidance of US bishops. From my vantage point, there is only one group of people playing politics here and that is the Notre Dame administration who were framing her honor as a way to do some last minute CYA.
I respect your wife’s admiration of the President and I admit there is much to admire about the President – he has charisma, ambition, eloquence. But my admiration is but a feeling about personal traits that are in the end unimportant or even superficial. Conservatives assess the President (any President) by the power of their ideas and the impact of their action. For many reasons to list here Conservatives are concerned by the President’s ideas and governing to date. Pushing a budget that will incur a debt level in excess of all the federal debt built up since the beginning of the republic is one example and it’s alarming indeed.
In your post you completely miss my first point and don’t even attempt to explain why you feel this sad episode is merely a hijacking for “political points” or why the harm is greater than the good. But without any grounding, you claim that I must therefore have some sort derangement syndrome. This is the classic ploy of the left, let’s not argue on the merits but start the name calling – for just one example see the mainstream media’s treatment of the recent tax protests (the protesters are just a bunch of rednecks from flyover country; too dumb to understand the tax code; add in a dash of race baiting and some cheap, sophomoric double entendre regarding a term depicting a sex act. This was from so called “respectable” journalists like Anderson Cooper!)
Self awareness is what this is all about. In my opinion, Notre Dame is losing its identity. Self awareness truly comes about when people define and steadfastly hold their core principles. As I mentioned in my last post, there is an abstract lesson here for Conservatives, if an institution such as Notre Dame can lose it’s identity on such a core principle as the right to life so can any other institution. For this we as Conservatives need to be on guard because many of those on the Left will be more than happy to step aside and watch our ideals implode.
58 balconesfault // May 3, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Sadly, much of the public front for the GOP today comes from media outlets which depend on allegations, outrage, and extremism for fuel. Just like there is too much sports radio – and as a result you have personalities competing for airtime and attention with the hyperbole of turning everything into a crisis … perhaps the conservative media has been a victim of its own success, with the hyperbole of turning everything into a crisis. Sadly, these conservative “shock jocks” aren’t going to tone it down … because that’s a direct path to irrelevance for all but the best of them. On the flip side, any conservative politician who tries to back away from the most inflammatory rhetoric will him/herself become a target of their wrath. It’s a really tough problem, and I don’t see a way out of it right now.
59 krove // May 3, 2009 at 4:19 pm
In the last paragraph Frum says. “A large part of the secret of President Obama’s political success is his self-presentation as calm, judicious, and fair-minded”
If you had been paying attention since 2006 you would have seen this as more than as “self presentation” as though it was some sort of act. It’s who he is.
Also he says “and his ability to depict his opponents as intemperate and extreme. “
The truth is that many of his opponents are intemperate and extreme. He has no need to depict them as such.
The Bachmans, Hannity’s, Limbaugh’s, Grinrichic’s of this world are just that. Add in the congress critters on the GOP side and you have a boatload of crazy.
60 sinz54 // May 3, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Purple Fury: I stand corrected. Your views on a number of issues are more moderate than I thought.
Now how about answering my question: Does your personal dislike of Obama automatically follow from his political liberalism? Or, as a counterexample, are there some other liberals whom you at least respect as decent human beings?
61 sinz54 // May 3, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Franco: I happen to agree with you, that “corporate welfare” is nothing but a socially benign form of fascism.
The GOP got off the track, when it switched from advocating *across-the-board* tax cuts (and then letting the free market pick winners and losers), to instead huddle with industry lobbyists to craft special-purpose legislation to grant favors to the agribusiness and energy industries (essentially allowing Republican legislators to pick winners).
On top of that, the GOP had the gall to defend these corporate welfare acts as “supply-side economics” or “helping the free market” or whatever other Reaganite phrase they could yank out of its original context and slap onto corporate welfare to cover their unethical deeds.
If I was a Congressman, and a lobbyist from Enron showed up, I would tell him that since I believe in the free market, I will continue to try to cut taxes for all, not just Enron. And in the meantime, he should get the heck out of my office before I call the security guards.
62 vwcat // May 3, 2009 at 5:48 pm
I thought maybe I could give my perspective from the ‘other side’.
I see a few different issues here.
One is the refusal to stand on the same stage as the president because he holds opposing views is just rude and disrespectful of the office.
I was no fan of Bush but, if I was in a similar situation I would have stood on the same stage and treated him with respect and graciously.
And that is the problem these days.
We do not see the other side as just holding a different view but we demonize and even hate and vilify them.
Cable and talk radio hold much responsibility for the current state of our sorry politics and our awful behavior to our fellow citizens.Casey. He is pro life and a democrat (yes, there are democrats wh
My side is the same way and I have scolded them for hypocrisy and unreasonableness for indulging the same behavior as those they criticize.
So, why can’t republicans and democrats behave in the same manner when they disagree? Why is it always trying to show how big a jerk you can be and prove you lack manners or class.
And sadly this behavior is not just encouraged but, cheered.
We all need to take a hard look at a republican who was much liked and respected, even by most democrats.
The recently passed Jack Kemp.
This is how we should demand our politicians act and for us to act as well.
And this is how this woman needs to act.
63 larryo // May 3, 2009 at 8:24 pm
“I doubt you’ll find anything like that in the Federalist Papers.”
No, nor in his Journals of the Constitutional Convention, sinz. I often wonder what the founders would have done had they been fated to do it amidst or after the industrial revolution, which gave birth to things of which the founders, for all their insight into human nature and repressive government, simply could not have foreseen.
And I stand by that sentence you quoted – you are so inured to the Bushes and the Boehners and the rest of the reactionary Babbitts that you don’t know what a real moderate conservative looks or sounds like. That’s why I mentioned Tom McCall.
64 Purple Fury // May 3, 2009 at 10:07 pm
sinz:
Re: respectable liberals, Joe Lieberman and John McCain come to mind.
And no, I don’t automatically dislike Obama because of his politics, in the same way I don’t automatically dislike many of my personal friends, just because they hold liberal views. I dislike Obama mostly because — as I’ve shown numerous times in my earlier posts — he refuses to deal honestly and fairly with the actual views of his political opposition. Instead, he minimizes them or carries them to a ridiculous extreme, and by doing so casts himself as a “moderate”, and his opponents as “extremists”. To the extent I happen to hold some of those opposing views, I find it insulting when he does this.
65 barker13 // May 4, 2009 at 7:07 am
Re: Sinz54; 11:51 AM –
“I just wish there was room in the conservative movement, not just for the votes of non-Christians like me, but for our ideas as well.”
Oh, cry me a frigg’n river, Sinz. I don’t know where your obvious problem with Christians comes from, but clearly you have one.
BTW… the Catholic Church is very liberal on social welfare, immigration, the use of force in foreign policy… etc. My own Episcopal Church – and the Lutherans, Methodists, Congregationalists, etc., are often far to the Left on both “social” and “security” issues.
You ever hear of Liberation Theology…? How’bout…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqtX4qZBdRs
Jeez, Sinz… they were all on the cover of Newsweek for God’s sake!
(*GRIN*)
“We cannot abide advocating the passage of Constitutional Amendments that have no philosophical justification other than that the Church might like them.”
I agree. HOWEVER… folks have a right to advocate for what they want to advocate for. When you disagree with them state your case… don’t try to shut them down for stating theirs. The whole point of the constitutional amendment process is to give citizens the right to advocate for change… yes… up to and including changes in the constitution.
“For folks like me, that is a show-stopper.”
Diversity of opinion is a “show stopper” for people like you…??? See… THAT’S a problem, Sinz; and the problem is with YOU.
“If the Vermont legislature, through the democratic process, legalized same-sex marriage, what right do you have to tell them they cannot have that?”
We’re on the same page, here, Sinz, but again… you need to show a bit more open-mindedness – not to mention confidence in your own beliefs – by trying to convince “the other side” (aka “those damned Christian Right Wingers) (*GRIN*) that when it comes to the Constitution… well… Jesus did say “Give unto Caesar…”
(*WINK*)
Seriously… Sinz… you come across as having a real intolerance for religious Christians if their ideology is more politically conservative than not on social issues.
BILL
66 barker13 // May 4, 2009 at 7:13 am
Re: Purple Fury; 12:35 PM –
“I respect people who hold pro-life and pro-traditional marriage views in good faith…”
And Sinz… er… doesn’t. In fact, Sinz actively disdains such folks.
(*SHRUG*)
Sinz… that’s how it comes across.
(*SHRUG*)
BILL
67 barker13 // May 4, 2009 at 7:33 am
Re: Sinz54; 1:27 PM –
“Since America cannot have an official endorsement of religion…”
Nonsense, Sinz, as I explained to you over on another thread. (*SHRUG*)
(See the thread: “Don’t Know Much About Science Books” by David Jenkins.)
“Since America cannot have an official endorsement of religion, what non-religious arguments can be mustered in support of such Amendments?”
Sinz. You’re giving me a headache. We’re talking about Constitutional AMENDMENTS…!!!!
AMENDMENTS…!!!
Now I’m with you in opposing these particular Amendments and indeed my default position is “Stop Screwing Around With The Constitution,” but the whole PURPOSE of the amendment process was to allow future generations to ADVOCATE for (and with enough popular support achieve) change of any kind… for ANY REASON.
(*SIGH*)
Sinz. You should have learned this stuff in Elementary School.
BILL
68 barker13 // May 4, 2009 at 8:02 am
Re: Franco; 1:27 PM –
(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)
Franco gets it.
(*NOD*)
Re: Sinz54; 1:30 PM –
“…is it impossible for you to respect someone on the diametric opposite side of the political spectrum?”
You ask that as if you doubt any of “us” on what you seemingly consider the “irrational Right” could response in the negative. (*SNORT*) (*SMIRK*)
There you go with the Left-Right spectrum as opposed to the principled-unprincipled spectrum. This is your hang-up, not ours, Sinz.
Ralph Nader. I respect Ralph Nader. (Just as one example…)
Btw… your “Right-Left” spectrum is so limited as to be worthless in the way YOU use the term. Again… what’s “Right,” Buchanan, Dobbs, and Nader on “fair trade” with nationalism a key component of the first two’s argument or are they “Left” because support of “Free Trade” is an absolute pillar of the GOP?
(*SHRUG*)
Re: Sinz54; 4:39 PM –
It’s not a question of “like” or “dislike,” it’s a question of respect.
Let me give you tw examples of where Obama could have had me singing his praises:
1) If he had privately (and if necessary, publicly) used every resource at his disposal – official and unofficial, governmental and Party, reaching over the heads of both government and Party to go directly to the People if necessary – to “purge” Charlie Rangel, Chris Dodd, and Barney Frank from their House/Senate committee chairmanships.
No… neither Rangel nor Dodd has been convicted of criminal activities… but I hope that regardless of ideology we can all agree that these two are corrupt… and as for Frank… along with Dodd and a fair number of former Clintonistas… he and his policies led to economic disaster with the real estate bubble and Fannie/Freddie as personal piggy bank of the Clinton administration retirees…
(*TAKING A BREATH*)
Ideology aside… partisanship aside… Obama could have hit the ground running in January and acted as a true reformer. Instead… instead of going after the bad guys… he appointed tax cheats to high office.
(*SNORT*)
2) He could have DEMANDED the pork be taken out of the Stimulus bill. He didn’t.
(*SHRUG*)
BILL
69 sinz54 // May 4, 2009 at 9:39 am
barker13: “Sinz actively disdains such folks.”
FALSE.
I don’t “disdain” them. I always respected the Christian evangelicals tremendously. I know a few personally. And when, in the late 1970s, they starting coming into the GOP in large numbers, I was glad that they saw how liberalism was hurting them too.
BUT then they started taking over everything. They pushed the GOP platform on domestic issues way to the right. They started excommunicating moderates like myself as “RINOs.” They got their own guy, George W. Bush, a born-again Christian but an economic moderate, into the White House. They even had their own private agenda for the War on Terror: It was Christianity that was going to vanquish Islam! And finally, they stopped McCain from picking a popular moderate–say Tom Ridge–as running mate, thus losing Pennsylvania for good.
You and Franco should stop inverting the truth. We moderates are fighting a last-ditch effort to keep from being expunged, after which the GOP will turn into the Southern White Christian Party, a rump party that is virtually dead in the Blue States, and nearly so in many Purple States.
70 sinz54 // May 4, 2009 at 9:45 am
barker13 sez: “When you disagree with them state your case… don’t try to shut them down for stating theirs. “
I’m NOT shutting THEM down. They’re try to shut US down, can’t you see that? Every time there has been an attempt to moderate the platform or its candidates, the Religious Right threatens to walk out.
Here’s what the 1976 GOP Platform said about abortion:
“The question of abortion is one of the most difficult and controversial of our time. It is undoubtedly a moral and personal issue but it also involves complex questions relating to medical science and criminal justice. There are those in our Party who favor complete support for the Supreme Court decision which permits abortion on demand. There are others who share sincere convictions that the Supreme Court’s decision must be changed by a constitutional amendment prohibiting all abortions. Others have yet to take a position, or they have assumed a stance somewhere in between polar positions.
“We protest the Supreme Court’s intrusion into the family structure through its denial of the parents’ obligation and right to guide their minor children. The Republican Party favors a continuance of the public dialogue on abortion and supports the efforts of those who seek enactment of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children.”
Notice the difference? Back then, the GOP majority could call for a Constitutional Amendment on abortion, while still recognizing that there was a sizable minority who disagreed on this.
But in the 2008 Platform, that language is gone. All that’s left is the call for the Human Life Amendment, with no acknowledgment of dissenters. And the wording on the Amendment got much stronger; it now says that even an embryo deserves 14th Amendment rights.
71 barker13 // May 4, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Re: Sinz54; 9:39 AM –
Sinz. I’m just informing you how you come across to me.
(*SHRUG*)
“I always respected the Christian evangelicals tremendously. I know a few personally.”
Hey… and I bet some of your best friends are black!
(*CHORTLE*)
Hey… you and the wife treat Juanita the cleaning lady like FAMILY, right…?
(*GRIN*)
Sinz. Obviously I’m busting your chops, but you get the picture. Your proclamation that you “know a few” doesn’t exactly put paid to my… er… suspicions. (*SMILE*)
“They started excommunicating…”
(*SNORT*) Rim shot, Sinz. (*CHUCKLE*)
“They got their own guy, George W. Bush, a born-again Christian…”
No, Sinz. The fact that George W. Bush was the SON of former PRESIDENT George H. W. Bush was what cleared Dubya’s path to the White House.
Bush’s faith… (*SHRUG*)… sure it helped him with the “Christian Right,” particularly in the face of McCain’s relationship with them, but long before Dubya this nation elected a “wear it on your sleeve” Christian named James Earl Carter.
“…they stopped McCain from picking a popular moderate–say Tom Ridge–as running mate…”
Popular with who – you? My guess is that McCain would have lost even worse with Ridge on the ticket.
Palin gave McCain a shot at winning, but of course McCain – being McCain- just had to waste her and had to waste his opportunity to reject Bush’s socialistic bailout. If McCain had campaigned as a true conservative – an economic conservative and not a “Bush moderate” as you use the term – he might well have pulled the election out and won.
(God only knows if as a result I’d be more or less depressed today if McCain had won the presidency… but he COULD have won.)
“You and Franco should stop inverting the truth.”
(*SNORT*)
“We moderates are fighting a last-ditch effort to keep from being expunged…”
Sinz. GO! Join the Democratic Party! Work from the inside to move it to the Right and then at election time… in the privacy of the booth… if the Republican candidate is the more conservative… vote for the Republican.
What else do you want me to tell you?
BILL
72 barker13 // May 4, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Re: Sinz54; 9:45 AM –
“I’m NOT shutting THEM down. They’re try to shut US down, can’t you see that?”
No. Obviously not. (*SHRUG*)
“Every time there has been an attempt to moderate the platform or its candidates, the Religious Right threatens to walk out.”
All I can tell you is where I stand on issues… issue by issue.
What the Religious Right does… it does… “they” do. Just as you’re gonna do what you feel you have to.
Sinz… frankly… people tend to take Party platforms about as seriously as Justice Ginsberg takes… er… the text of the Constitution and the intent of the Founders.
(*RUEFUL SMILE*)
Still… for what it’s worth… I’m sure you and I – working together – could improve upon any Republican Platform in recent memory.
BILL
(And Franco and I could REALLY improve upon any existing GOP platform!!!) (*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN*)
73 celtoid2 // May 5, 2009 at 7:03 am
This fight IS about Catholic orthodoxy and is not really about politics.
You must log in to post a comment.