I had a freaky experience yesterday evening.
A week ago, I wrote a column contrasting conservative enthusiasm for the third-party challenger in the NY-23 special election to the conservative indignation against the third-party challenger in the New Jersey gubernatorial election.
To make the point, I indulged in a bit of fun: I spoofed a recent interview Hugh Hewitt had done with the N.J. challenger, Chris Daggett. I quoted Hugh’s words, but substituted Doug Hoffman as the target.
Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt this week offered a stern condemnation of this fratricide on his popular program, calling the third-party candidate: “…. a wrecker, a selfish “look at me” poser …. It takes an outsized ego to look at poll after poll that puts you behind not one but two candidates by more than 10 points and still declare yourself in the hunt.” Whoops! Sorry, rewind. Fzzzzwwwwvvvvwwwzzzp. That was an editing error. Hugh Hewitt was not blasting Doug Hoffman, the third-party candidate in New York. In fact, Hoffman is the darling of talk radio and Fox News, which have helped to spread Hoffman Fever for the past few weeks.
Yesterday I got a call from a booker on the Hewitt program inviting me to appear to defend my words. I cheerfully accepted.
I expected that Hewitt would want to talk about the New Jersey and New York races, the role of moderates vs. conservatives in the GOP, etc. I also looked forward to reminding Hugh that in 2005 he had bet a steak dinner that Harriet Miers would be confirmed by the Senate for the U.S. Supreme Court… and that I was still waiting by the phone for his invitation.
Instead I got this.
You drove off of an on-ramp, you drove off of the highway, you ran by, sideswiped me … You wrote this sloppily, you did no research, you can’t back it up, you didn’t bother to call me. In fact, it is the worst kind of drive-by punditry that I have seen in a long time from you. … You are an outrageous example of the worst kind of yellow journalism out there.
There’s much more besides, and you can read it in full here.
Whew. I didn’t know that the rules of journalism required a “mother may I” phone call for permission before publishing a send-up. Still: I truly did not intend to slight Hewitt by teasing him, and I am sorry that he feels I did so.
On air, as I hope the transcript shows, I did my best to avert the kind of ugly quarrel that erupted. But as the saying goes, you cannot escape a quarrel with a man who is determined to quarrel with you.
Yet notice something: We never did get around to discussing what the underlying topic of our interview was – the races in New York and New Jersey.
We spent 20 minutes, two full segments, on Hugh’s bruised feelings.
DF: I don’t know why you want to make this conversation about you.
HH: Well David, you name me in your columns. Why shouldn’t it be about me.
DF: ..or even about you and me.
HH: If you’re going to name me in your columns, aren’t you going to be man enough to stand up and back up your aspersions on me?
DF: But I didn’t make aspersions, and I’m not hostile to you, and I’m not being critical of you.
As you see, my point made zero impression.
I should have thought that a man who dispenses the kind of violent language Hugh Hewitt dispensed throughout the interview – accusations of cowardice, accusations of misrepresentation, accusations of slander, etc. etc. – would have had the toughness to withstand a little gentle teasing. But no. On the radio, it seems, the tolerance for criticism goes only one way: the host may vilify anyone and everyone in the most extreme language. But one little spoof against the host, and it’s like you slapped a baby.
It all goes to confirm a wonderful lesson my father-in-law taught my son: When you face a bully, no matter how much bigger than you, always swing for the nose. There hasn’t been a bully born who won’t burst into tears when he sees his own blood.
* * * * *
UPDATE
Hugh Hewitt posted a reflection on our encounter here.
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 8:43 PM
David Frum and I mixed it up on air tonight. The two columns I challenge him on are here and here. Frum accused me of narcissism because I treat the references to me in both of them as attacks on me. You read them and decide for yourself.
The transcript will be posted here later. The audio will be available at the Hughniverse. I invited David to continue the debate in the third hour of the show. He declined. The unwillingness to confront anger in his targets doesn’t speak well of Frum. Neither does his unwillingness to own what he writes.
One more reply: It’s hardly apt for Hugh to describe his show as a “debate.” In a debate, both sides are informed in advance of the topic, both sides get equal time, and neither party controls the other’s microphone. But leave that go. What is truly disingenuous is for Hugh to complain that I was unwilling to confront his anger. I did confront it – for every minute of the scheduled time. If Hugh felt that he had failed to make his points effectively within the alloted period, how is that my fault?
* * * * *
UPDATE
Very briefly, a competely inappropriate headline and image went up over this piece. For that, I do sincerely apologize.
58 responses so far
1 Willems // Oct 27, 2009 at 1:59 pm
You guys need a beer summit mediated by Steyn.
2 joemarier // Oct 27, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Willems, that’d be awesome.
3 ottovbvs // Oct 27, 2009 at 2:13 pm
……….Hewitt is nuts as most people outside of the kool aid crowd recognize…..it takes a lot of talent for a conservative to get fired from the Reagan library but he managed it.
4 MI-GOPer // Oct 27, 2009 at 2:13 pm
David, about the only people who would find your explanation compelling or interesting would be a Frum-groupie… trust me, there are no Frum groupies out here in reality.
Funny thing is, if the shoe was on the other foot, I’m thinking you’d have responded just like Hugh Hewitt –big ego guys are like that and, you’re right, if someone hit you or Hugh in the nose, you’d bawl like GlennBeck at tissue commerical.
I think you’d do better if you’d quit trying to act like some conservative Jon Stewart wannabe and stick to opinion journalism. Few speech writers ever make goo d comedians… it’s why the president’s Annual Press dinner speech is always farmed out –or the President ends up looking like an ass.
5 ottovbvs // Oct 27, 2009 at 2:16 pm
ireign // Oct 27, 2009 at 1:54 pm
“Frum, to address the crux of your argument — no one takes you seriously in GOP circles anymore. You are seen as an opportunist…… It also seems you are a little thin-skinned for someone who has engaged in character assassination when it comes to the whole Palin family, everyone on Fox News, and Harriet Miers.”
………….Meanwhile another bulletin from the moderate and rational irreign
6 Reason60 // Oct 27, 2009 at 2:29 pm
The exchange sounded like nothing more than the “so’s yer mama” flaming on blogs.
Which only points out why I steadfastly refuse to get sucked into blogging thread flame wars;
Regardless of the merits, Hewitt only made himself look thin skinned and petty. The exchange will be little noticed and quickly forgotten.
7 ottovbvs // Oct 27, 2009 at 2:36 pm
reason60 // Oct 27, 2009 at 2:29 pm
……….the incident will be little noticed and quickly forgotten but it’s a symptom of something much larger and that’s the developing schism in the GOP which is basically unstoppable…….David has another post up about the startling admission from Kristol this morning about the loony ground the GOP is shifting to……of course he doesn’t think it’s loony he thinks it’s the center…….I know Kristol’s not exactly Nostradamus but even a innacurate clock is correct twice a day.
8 MI-GOPer // Oct 27, 2009 at 2:41 pm
ireign, ottoBS is having a tough day. None of the usual batch of suspect Trolls are here to help defend his silly and meaningless commentary. He’s lost three discussions in the last three days –the latest one trying to defend ACORN and claiming no one from ACORN was ever indicted and no one at ACORN ever engaged in voter fraud.
It’s been a tough few days. Obama, his Messiah, has dithered on Afghanistan and now the fresh blood from more deaths and violence on his hands… Obama, his Messiah, has dithered on H1N1 and now over 1200 people have died because of Obama’s failure to act, failure to lead, failure to be President… all the while, Obama’s War on Fox, War on Medicine, War on Insurance Companies, War on the USCC, War on the GOP, War on Talk Radio haven’t had the intended results of whipping up the far Left, red-meat loving base.
I think they need to discover another round of Sarah Palin bashing. Or bring back Geo Bush. Or indict some natl intel professionals.
It’s been a tough, rough time for guys like ottoBS.
9 mymy // Oct 27, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Willems great idea.How about Frum vs Steyn debate.That I’d pay to watch
10 ottovbvs // Oct 27, 2009 at 2:43 pm
9 ireign // Oct 27, 2009 at 2:32 pm
“Why thank you ottoBS. Hopefully, you are finally benefitting from hooked on phonics’
………..Is phonics one of these weird teaching systems they use to teach the not awfully bright…….I assume this how you were taught since you seem to know a lot about it
11 ottovbvs // Oct 27, 2009 at 2:49 pm
mi-goper // Oct 27, 2009 at 2:41 pm
…….another rational moderate speaks out………it’s good to know the Republican party is dominated by rational, moderate folks like mi goper and irreign (sample: Obama, his Messiah, has dithered on H1N1 and now over 1200 people have died because of Obama’s failure to act)
12 Willems // Oct 27, 2009 at 2:50 pm
I actually think its time for Frum, Hewit, Beck and Limbaugh to sit for a beer summit moderated by Steyn.
13 Willems // Oct 27, 2009 at 2:54 pm
And if there is oing to be a debate, it definitely should not be between Frum and Steyn, but Frum and Palin. A a serious good-spirited debate followed by a trukey dinner with Steyn, Limbaugh, Hewit and Beck.
14 LFC // Oct 27, 2009 at 3:03 pm
willems said… I actually think its time for Frum, Hewit, Beck and Limbaugh to sit for a beer summit moderated by Steyn.
Uh, Beck and Limbaugh are both drug addicts. Beck is also an alcoholic. Maybe an iced tea summit would be more appropriate.
Or you could also invite George W. Bush and Larry Kudlow and make it a real party!
15 mymy // Oct 27, 2009 at 3:09 pm
LFC Ah there is some true compassion and understanding.So very Liberal of you
16 ottovbvs // Oct 27, 2009 at 3:11 pm
17 ireign // Oct 27, 2009 at 2:56 pm
“(sample: Obama, his Messiah, has dithered on H1N1 and now over 1200 people have died because of Obama’s failure to act)”
“Once again, the implication that Republicans on this site endorse incindiary rhetoric. ottoBS (BS for short) have you no shame? You should change your user name to hyperbole.”
…………So mi-goper isn’t a Republican and he didn’t say this…….ok…..the irreign version of moderation, truth and rationality.
17 ottovbvs // Oct 27, 2009 at 3:56 pm
23 ireign // Oct 27, 2009 at 3:31 pm
“I have no idea what he said or if so, in what context. ”
……..Well perhaps you should do because you said:
“Once again, the implication that Republicans on this site endorse incindiary rhetoric. ottoBS (BS for short) have you no shame? You should change your user name to hyperbole.”
……….And as must be obvious to even someone as myopic as you mi-goper is a Republican, as are you, and he was indulging in incendiary rhetoric as you also did above in this comment:
“Frum, to address the crux of your argument — no one takes you seriously in GOP circles anymore. You are seen as an opportunist”
Q.E.D.
18 ncstater // Oct 27, 2009 at 4:55 pm
ottovbvs // Oct 27, 2009 at 2:13 pm
……….Hewitt is nuts as most people outside of the kool aid crowd recognize…..it takes a lot of talent for a conservative to get fired from the Reagan library but he managed it.
Huh? Linky Please.
19 ottovbvs // Oct 27, 2009 at 5:04 pm
ncstater // Oct 27, 2009 at 4:55 pm
“Huh? Linky Please”
…….Trust me he was……..you can research it for yourself……as I recall, it had something to do with restricting access to scholars and academics he deemed “too liberal”
20 ncstater // Oct 27, 2009 at 5:10 pm
ottovbvs // Oct 27, 2009 at 5:04 pm
ncstater // Oct 27, 2009 at 4:55 pm
“Huh? Linky Please”
…….Trust me he was……..you can research it for yourself……as I recall, it had something to do with restricting access to scholars and academics he deemed “too liberal”
——————————–
I cannot find any reference of him ever working there. If you’re wrong about that, how can i trust anything else you say about him?
21 ottovbvs // Oct 27, 2009 at 5:15 pm
ncstater // Oct 27, 2009 at 5:10 pm
“I cannot find any reference of him ever working there. If you’re wrong about that, how can i trust anything else you say about him?”
……….Ok he’s a totally rational commentator if you want to believe that…….to be honest I was speaking from memory which could be at fault of course and if it is I’ll fess up, but I’m my memory is usually fairly good and I seem to remember he had some job there in the 90’s, there was a row about access and he got squeezed out.
22 ncstater // Oct 27, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Otto
I’ve found Hugh to be much more rational than most.
But, I didn’t particularly like his interview with Frum. As Ireign pointed out, Frum is conflating two very different situations, so his argument flows from a false premise. I thought that Hugh coulda pointed that out.
Also, i find it richly ironic that someone who is worried about “republican fratricide” is spending their time attacking people who he says has similar beliefs on the vast majority of issues.
23 ottovbvs // Oct 27, 2009 at 5:40 pm
ncstater // Oct 27, 2009 at 5:29 pm
“I’ve found Hugh to be much more rational than most.”
…….Well that positions you then
“Also, i find it richly ironic that someone who is worried about “republican fratricide” is spending their time attacking people who he says has similar beliefs on the vast majority of issues.”
…….it’s probably personal……..for myself I believe the extremism that Hewitt and most of the conservative talk radio crowd represents is doing much to turn the GOP into a fringe party……you won’t agree…..so I guess we’ll have to see how it plays out
24 ottovbvs // Oct 27, 2009 at 5:48 pm
37 ireign // Oct 27, 2009 at 5:40 pm
ottoBS-makes up lies and then wastes your time having to do the work necessary to prove they are lies. Hewitt never worked at the Reagan library and thus could not have been fired from that post. He worked at the Nixon library and there was a dispute over granting access to certain journalists but it is not clear he was fired from that job either.
……….the Nixon and Reagan libraries…….so I was right on the substance…..I apologize for getting the conservative Republican presidents wrong…….
………Correction: It takes a lot of talent for a conservative to get fired from the Nixon library but he managed it.
………Satisfied irreign……..
25 ottovbvs // Oct 27, 2009 at 6:01 pm
…….From a little piece about the Nixon library……the family squeezed him out because he’d queered the chances of getting papers from the national archives…….basically the Hewitt is an idiot with a law degree…..a not unknown phenomenon
“What is missing from the Nixon Library and Birthplace is an actual library. In 1974, Congress impounded forty-four million of Nixon’s Presidential papers and almost four thousand hours of his tapes. There was an entirely reasonable belief at the time that Nixon could not be trusted with his own papers. So the California library was opened, in 1990, without the documentary record of Nixon’s Presidency. It was administered not by the National Archives, which oversees the nation’s eleven other Presidential libraries, but by the Nixon family. Nixon assiduously sought possession of his papers, but the cause was subverted by the library’s first director, Hugh Hewitt, who announced that he would screen researchers for partisan compatibility; Bob Woodward, Hewitt said, would not be welcome. Hewitt is long gone (he has since made his name in conservative talk radio), “
26 MI-GOPer // Oct 27, 2009 at 6:21 pm
ottoBS caught dishing out more BS than even his wagon can hold: “Hewitt… (got) fired from the Reagan Library….”
Then, when called on his BS, ottoBS whines: “Ok he’s a totally rational commentator if you want to believe that….” As if all of otto’s usual BS is defensible by trying to paint you into a corner of “being unreasonable” just because he’s wrong.
I think ottoBS is full of it. Hewitt never, ever served in any managerial capacity at the Reagan Library. He was once the 1st executive director of the Nixon Library and was never fired from that post. He bravely stood on principle by refusing to let liberal activist newshounds like Bob Woodward gain access to the Nixon materials even though left wing activist liberals wanted his head for it.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/213257
ottoBS displays the typical liberal, left wing disease of unmitigated arrogance in the face of being wrong and wanting everyone to defend him and his “right” to continue to enjoy his arrogant posture… just like Messiah Obama… when Obama got caught creating a Nixonian-like Enemies List, his defense is to claim he’s just “pushing back a little”.
Neither Obama or ottoBS should be trusted with much beyond their own harshly partisan self-interests.
27 ottovbvs // Oct 27, 2009 at 6:34 pm
42 mi-goper // Oct 27, 2009 at 6:21 pm
………he was squeezed out by the family by screwing up an effort by the family to obtain the transfer of Nixon’s papers from the national archive by his extremism (which he later reversed btw despite mi-gopers description of his heroism, but by then it was too late)……..does this make sense…..of course it does to any normal person but then mi-goper, who gives us another classic bit of rational and moderate Republican rhetoric where I get put in the same as the president (thanks), doesn’t exactly fit that category.
…….Don’t get me wrong….I wish Hewitt well with his career…..I hope he gets lots of visibility because he’s going to further identify that the GOP is largely composed of people like mi-goper
28 ottovbvs // Oct 27, 2009 at 6:40 pm
mi-goper // Oct 27, 2009 at 6:27 pm
“that matches up with “OJ was found innocent”, ‘
……..Would you like to show me where I ever said OJ was found innocent?……..and I don’t care if ten million doctors consider alcoholism a disease……as far as I’m concerned it’s an alibi for self indulgence……but you’re welcome to go with the social studies view
29 Oldskool // Oct 27, 2009 at 7:44 pm
“The right-wingnutosphere is populated wall to wall with pansies who can’t take 10% of what they dish out.”
That hammer landed squarely and you could add that their party leadership is the same way, full of chickenhawks strutting around like badasses. Of course when the shtf, they found ways to avoid going anyplace where their trash-talking bravado could have been put to use.
30 Willems // Oct 27, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Stand down, boys. Stand down!
31 MI-GOPer // Oct 27, 2009 at 8:50 pm
ottoBS says Hugh Hewitt, whom ottoBS claimed worked at the Reagan Library, now agrees he was wrong –again– and it was actually the Nixon Library, some 20 yrs earlier.
ottoBS says Hewitt was fired but now has changed the tune to –get this, wait, wait… “pushed out” by the family –even though the family hasn’t controlled the Nixon Library and Birth site since it’s founding. Nope ottoBS, you are wrong again. Hewitt left the Nixon Library to begin a successful law practice and dabble in talk radio.
When first confronted with his lies and half-truths, ottoBS wanted to paint the truth-tellers into a corner as being naive and unrealistic. Now, ottoBS wants us all to believe he was right all along because the next time he tries to peddle some whopper of a lie like a snakeoil salesman, he wants us to trust the next tonic will be truthful.
Of course, we should have believed him when he defended ACORN and railed against those of us who thought ACORN a touch corrupt. We all saw nothing but truth from ottoBS in that tonic, eh?
ottoBS had a meltdown, his mouth was clearly writing checks his brain couldn’t cash and now we’re the ones who should trust him the next time he tells a whopper? Don’t think so, ottoBS.
By the way, ottoBS’s derangement over anything Hugh Hewitt stems from Hewitt’s well known defense of religion & its role in America’s history and institutions. ottoBS has some latent athetist inferiority issues that often afflict far Left trolls.
32 MI-GOPer // Oct 27, 2009 at 8:55 pm
oldskool offers: “That hammer landed squarely and you could add that their party leadership is the same way, full of chickenhawks strutting around like badasses.”
Ahh, yes, the old liberal Democrat cliche retold and reapplied with gusto. If that’s the case, I wonder why most military personnel and their families –who actually serve with honor and not just keyboard their patriotism like oldskool and lots of the trolls here– support GOPers? I guess it’s because our Party doesn’t have the same aversion to patriotism that Obama and his thuggery goons have displayed in the past… at least the Celebrity in Chief is NOW wearing a flag lapel pin once in a while. We all thought he’d tossed it over some fence while on a walk with Democrat #1 John-Swiftie-Kerry.
33 Oldskool // Oct 27, 2009 at 9:41 pm
“I wonder why most military personnel and their families –who actually serve with honor and not just keyboard their patriotism like oldskool and lots of the trolls here– support GOPers? I guess it’s because our Party doesn’t have the same aversion to patriotism that Obama and his thuggery goons have displayed in the past”
Pretty lame as far as logic goes. You seem to confuse patriotism with trash-talking. But hey, you’re a troll, right?
34 MI-GOPer // Oct 28, 2009 at 7:43 am
oldskool inquires: “Pretty lame as far as logic goes. You seem to confuse patriotism with trash-talking. But hey, you’re a troll, right?”
“Pretty lame” as a label coming from someone who used the chickenhawk slur? Please look up the meaning of the words “hypocritical” and “projection” and “ironic”… they fit you. Plus, “troll”, my chicken-sh*t liberal friend, because the first premise of troll is excessive posts on an ideologically opposite site. I’m here because I am a GOP activist; you’re here because the DailyKos O-bots told you what to do. Big difference, troll… and that name fits you.
35 ottovbvs // Oct 28, 2009 at 9:31 am
“mi-goper // Oct 27, 2009 at 8:50 pm”
“even though the family hasn’t controlled the Nixon Library and Birth site since it’s founding. Nope ottoBS, you are wrong again. ”
…….Not what that little quote I picked up from some completely apolitical historical society’s site said…..and I know you don’t do nuance but there’s more than one way to get fired
…….Otherwise another dose of rationality and moderation from a movement conservative……fortunately my computer’s spittle deflectors were turned on……or how about this retort to oldskool:
“Pretty lame” as a label coming from someone who used the chickenhawk slur? Please look up the meaning of the words “hypocritical” and “projection” and “ironic”… they fit you. Plus, “troll”, my chicken-sh*t liberal friend, because the first premise of troll is excessive posts on an ideologically opposite site. I’m here because I am a GOP activist; you’re here because the DailyKos O-bots told you what to do. Big difference, troll… and that name fits you.”
………GOP activists like mi-goper are so deliciously nasty rather like Basil Fawlty….. and
just as funny.
36 ottovbvs // Oct 28, 2009 at 9:45 am
ireign // Oct 27, 2009 at 9:13 pm
………This article makes the rather absurd claim that the Bush administration never practiced supply side economics which they clearly did which is why they were being applauded every night for doing so on cable talks shows by the likes of Art Laffer or Larry Kudlow, or in the oped pages of the WSJ. The problem was, as Bartlett points out in his book that I bought the other day, they turned them into a caricature by utilizing them at innappropriate times (the tax cuts were largely ineffectual at stimulating growth) and/or saw them as answer to all economic problems. They did lots of other stupid things economically too, but that’s another matter…….I recommend Bartlett’s book because the content is sensible and realistic……. he’s that unusual phenomenon an intellectually honest conservative……..As Martin Wolf at the FT put it “Bartlett…..understands the truth is rarely pure and never simple.”
37 MI-GOPer // Oct 28, 2009 at 10:45 am
ottoBS whines: “Not what that little quote I picked up from some completely apolitical historical society’s site said…..and I know you don’t do nuance but there’s more than one way to get fired.”
Let’s recap, shall we? First, ottoBS claims that Hewitt was fired while working at the Reagan Library.
Kind of hard when Hewitt wasn’t an employee of the Reagan Library. It was the Nixon Library.
ottoBS tried to spin his wrong-headedness aside by attacking those who pointed out his error suggesting that if they want to consider Hewitt reasonable, then that just shows they are kooks.
Then ottoBS was shown that Hewitt wasn’t “fired” by the Nixon Family; the Nixon family never controlled the Nixon Library nor the management team there, nor the programmatic services… but that didn’t matter to ottoBS because he just knows Hewitt was fired –let’s not cufuse ottoBS with truth or the facts. Nor, evidently, expect him to tell the truth. He’s not here to tell the truth, he’s here to troll.
We point out that ottoBS’s personal animosity toward Hewitt is actually from his deep-seated anti-Christian bigotry and hatred of religious activists –shown here on many, many occasions. Of course, ottoBS confirms that with his tacit agreement. It’s a badge of honor for DailyKos trolls, afterall.
Now, ottoBS claims everyone else is wrong, he’s still right, we should all believe him. Trolls like ottoBS often avoid reality, veracity or the truth because it never helps their side of the argument. Unfortunately, the rendering of an idiot is still the uninformed opinion of our village idiot… ottoBS gains title to NM Village Idiot.
38 sinz54 // Oct 28, 2009 at 11:00 am
ottovbs:
It was the Nixon Library, not the Reagan Library.
Hewitt tried to have Bob Woodward banned from the Nixon Library because Hewitt felt he was hostile to Nixon.
Now fess up.
39 sinz54 // Oct 28, 2009 at 11:04 am
oldskool:
Surveys by Army Times and others have consistently shown that America’s officer corps is staunchly conservative and staunchly Republican.
The reason is simple. Your fellow liberals from Cambridge MA and San Francisco and Seattle wouldn’t be caught dead going to West Point or Annapolis. Go ask them what they would think of pursuing a career as a military officer.
40 sinz54 // Oct 28, 2009 at 11:08 am
mi-goper:
You’re absolutely right about Afghanistan.
But you’re wrong about H1N1. We would still be having a shortage of vaccine under President McCain. Trust me on this.
OTOH, President McCain would have surged Afghanistan months ago.
41 ottovbvs // Oct 28, 2009 at 12:05 pm
sinz54 // Oct 28, 2009 at 11:00 am
“Now fess up.”
…….I’ve already done so…..see above……right substance…..wrong president
42 ottovbvs // Oct 28, 2009 at 12:06 pm
mi-goper // Oct 28, 2009 at 10:45 am
………spittle deflector alert
43 ottovbvs // Oct 28, 2009 at 12:08 pm
mi-goper:
“Obama, his Messiah, has dithered on Afghanistan and now the fresh blood from more deaths and violence on his hands… Obama, his Messiah, has dithered on H1N1 and now over 1200 people have died because of Obama’s failure to act”
…….Turn spittle deflectors to warp speed
44 ottovbvs // Oct 28, 2009 at 12:14 pm
mi-goper
“We point out that ottoBS’s personal animosity toward Hewitt is actually from his deep-seated anti-Christian bigotry and hatred of religious activists –shown here on many, many occasions. Of course, ottoBS confirms that with his tacit agreement. It’s a badge of honor for DailyKos trolls, afterall.”
……….spittle deflectors fully deployed……..have fun Basil
45 DFL // Oct 28, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Most radio blabbermouths have frail egos. When challenged by an intelligent, articulate caller, they usually buffalo their tormenter. It’s their microphone and they get to talk over the enemy caller. Hewitt is no different.
46 R.E. Munn // Oct 28, 2009 at 1:21 pm
The most immediate indication that David has lost this argument, as well as others, is that this post has been up for two days, plus or minus, and has garnered 53 comments, many of which are from the dweebs that live here.
47 MI-GOPer // Oct 28, 2009 at 1:46 pm
not just dweens, but trolls and NM Village Idiots like ottoBS.
48 Stephen B // Oct 28, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Mr. Frum is being read out of the “movement”. Too much of a maverick for the party of Palin.
49 blogenfreude // Oct 28, 2009 at 5:09 pm
David, David, David … don’t you get it? Your involvement in PNAC and the needless invasion of Iraq has empowered these wingnuts. Complain all you want, but it’s people like you that have brought the real GOP to the fore. I’ll say it again – the GOP has nothing left but sociopaths, the home-schooled, and the clinically insane. See, e.g., Limbaugh, Palin, Beck, et seq. Welcome to your new reality. This genie can’t be put back in the bottle, and I will thoroughly enjoy watching the Republican party fly into bits. Probably best that you go back to Canada, where you have decent healthcare. You have been exposed for what you are – a deeply disingenuous shill trying to legitimize selfishness via your ‘conservative’ ideas. Go home. Enough.
50 ottovbvs // Oct 28, 2009 at 7:47 pm
blogenfreude // Oct 28, 2009 at 5:09 pm
“David, David, David … don’t you get it? Your involvement in PNAC and the needless invasion of Iraq has empowered these wingnuts.”
…….This is unfortunately all too true……..party professionals like David let the Morlocks out of the basement when it served their purpose but now they have taken over the house and are burning it down.
51 MI-GOPer // Oct 29, 2009 at 8:48 am
more nonsense from our New Majority Village Idiot. Way to hoe that row, ottoBS! WHat a good O-bot.
52 ottovbvs // Oct 29, 2009 at 10:23 am
mi-goper // Oct 29, 2009 at 8:48 am
“more nonsense from our New Majority Village Idiot”
………from the latest NBC/WSJ poll……there seem to be rather a lot of village idiots…….but keep up contaminating the dog food I’m sure you’ll be proved right someday
*** Time to resurrect that dog food metaphor? While impressions of Obama’s professional performance are mixed, the same can’t be said of the Republican Party at large. Put simply, the GOP’s brand is still a mess. According to the poll, just 25% have a positive opinion of the party (compared with 42% for the Dem Party), which ties the GOP’s low-water mark in the survey and which is a worse score than it ever had during the Bush presidency. (Honest question: Can the party still blame Bush for their problems if their numbers have gotten lower since he left the scene?) In addition, only 23% approve of the way in which congressional Republicans have handled health care (compared with 43% for Obama). And looking ahead to the 2010 midterms, 46% prefer a Democratic-controlled Congress, versus 38% who want a GOP-controlled Congress. Last month, Dems held a 43%-40% advantage. Also, don’t miss this: Despite being out of office and (relatively) out of the news, Sarah Palin’s fav/unfav in our poll has dropped from 32%-43% in July to 27%-46% now. In fact, her numbers now are nearly identical to Nancy Pelosi’s (26%-42%). By the way, both Palin and Pelosi are more popular than the Republican Party.
53 sinz54 // Oct 29, 2009 at 10:35 am
blogenfreude:
AFAIK, David Frum was not a member of PNAC. But he was a speechwriter for Bush (on economic issues), and he did support the invasion of Iraq.
And David Frum cannot “go back to Canada.” He became a U.S. citizen in 2007.
I know you hate Frum and all Republicans. But try to get your facts straight.
54 sinz54 // Oct 29, 2009 at 10:49 am
ottovbs:
No, that’s not quite right.
The fundamental problem is that the original raison d’etre for the conservative coalition had ended.
The conservative coalition had three components: Social conservatives; free market advocates; and anti-Communist hawks. What held this coalition together since the 1950s was really anti-Communism: Free market advocates hated command economies, and the social conservatives considered Communism to be “atheist” and “godless” and “secular.”
But the economic and foreign policy battles were eventually won: Taxes had been cut dramatically, the USSR was gone, Communism was spent as a possible threat. So activists in those issues drifted away, which is what always happens when the issue they care most about no longer matters.
As a result, the only sure component of the conservative coalition left was the social conservatives–because their issues were the only ones yet unresolved. Taxes had been cut dramatically, the USSR was gone–but Roe v. Wade remained in effect. So the social conservatives were the easiest to keep mobilizing.
55 ottovbvs // Oct 29, 2009 at 10:56 am
sinz54 // Oct 29, 2009 at 10:35 am
” I know you hate Frum and all Republicans. But try to get your facts straight.”
………He may be slightly wrong on some of his facts but he’s surely right in the spirit of his comments……..I’m a semi admirer of David’s because he was the first highly visible pundit to blow the whistle on Palin, but he was definitely a fully paid up member(if only a minor one) of the Republican establishment that summoned up these demons because they were useful…….and now they have taken over…….it’s been going on for well over 20 years but accelerated in the nineties when the party became much more southern and polarized (Gingrich’s leadership was the tipping point I think)…….In the medium term there is no chance whatever of exorcizing these demons……so things will take their natural course.
56 ottovbvs // Oct 29, 2009 at 11:13 am
sinz54 // Oct 29, 2009 at 10:49 am
…….You’re right in some respects but these factions are much more interrelated than you suggest…….the Reagan coalition as I’ll call it was composed of economic, nationalist and social conservative……..the economic conservatives (who could also be called the management conservatives) have largely jumped ship outside the south and mormon corridor(I’m one of them) so Republicans are left overly dependant on the socials/nationalists who are largely interchangeable and a strategy which I will call Roveism or polarization which relied on maximizing their vote. Roveism requires drummers like Limbaugh and Hewitt, and it also has the electoral effect of polarizing the type of people who get elected within the GOP. The problem with Roveism is that it alienates large slugs of country. Rove himself perceived this potential problem hence his out reach to hispanics but by then it was too late. He’d lost control of the demons he’d conjured up and they weren’t interested in accomodation with the immigrant community……….The Southern strategy and Roveism/polarisation have left the GOP entirely dependant on the most socially conservative/nationalist segment of the electorate which is concentrated disproportionately in the South and mormon corridor. Even worse it’s predominantly white and aging(see that latest NBC/WS poll I mentioned above)…….it looked smart at the time but has proved to be a massive miscalculation that will probably take a generation to correct.
57 Contrarian_Libertarian // Oct 29, 2009 at 1:59 pm
sinz54: But the economic and foreign policy battles were eventually won: Taxes had been cut dramatically, the USSR was gone, Communism was spent as a possible threat. So activists in those issues drifted away, which is what always happens when the issue they care most about no longer matters.
***********************************
Interesting point — and it makes a lot of sense.
But while tax rates were lowered, our spending path wasn’t. And that’s always been my biggest frustration with the Republicans: they’re great at pushing for tax cuts, and virtually unwilling to push for spending cuts….which are, obviously, a lot more politically perilous.
Moreover, I’d say that our wacky jihadist friends have filled the void that the Soviets left in terms of providing an external threat to unify around fighting.
The best model for what Republicans need to become, IMO, is Gov. Mitch Daniels in Indiana. Rhetorically, he’s not an ideological firebrand. He does prefer to keep taxes low for all the right reasons — but he’s most intently focused on reforming government to make it more efficient and cost-effective. He’s keenly aware of how to attract capital investment. And, best of all, he’s not afraid to pull out the budget ax.
That seems to fit perfectly both what Republicans and the country need right now.
58 rubenseagle // Nov 1, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Ottovbs wrote: “Rove himself perceived this potential problem hence his out reach to hispanics but by then it was too late. He’d lost control of the demons he’d conjured up and they weren’t interested in accomodation with the immigrant community. The Southern strategy and Roveism/polarisation have left the GOP entirely dependant on the most socially conservative/nationalist segment of the electorate” Otto, actually, some of the most socially conservative people around are immigrants. According to a 2007 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Hispanic Center, nearly half of second-generation Latinos think that abortion should be illegal, while 65 percent of first-generation Latinos think it should be outlawed. Latinos, along with African Americans, seemed to tilt the scales on the passage of Prop 8 here in California. And in 2008, McCain lost the Latino vote soundly to Obama, but the reasons were typical of most Americans concerns: jobs and the economy. You write the electorate they are serving is “white and aging.” Maybe so, but highly religious Latinos who define themselves as “renewalists,” spirit-filled Christians and Catholics, is huge and growing dramatically. And yes, in poll after poll, they say that their spirit life affects their political vote. And yes, they are overwhelmingly conservative.
You must log in to post a comment.