Just Say “No” To New Gop Voters

177 responses so far

• 1 sinz54 // May 29, 2009 at 6:31 am

  David,
  I wasn’t hostile.

  Let’s remember that the Democratic Party *never* attacked the so-called “Reagan Democrats” as sellouts, or yelled that the “Reagan Democrats” weren’t welcome in the Dem Party anymore and they should just become Repubs and be done with it. Rather, the Dem Party has worked to bring the Reagan Democrats back into the Dem fold.

  Party loyalty has to be a two-way street. This is America, not the USSR with its Communist Party. Nobody is *obligated* to belong to a party that they believe has betrayed them–and their cause.

• 2 ottovbvs // May 29, 2009 at 6:36 am

  She doesn’t actually say she voted for Obama just flirted with the idea. And I’m afraid a lot of her reasoning particularly the suggestion that there is even a hint of buyer’s remorse among the electorate is total wishful thinking. Obama’s appros remain a comfortable 10% ahead of the share of the popular vote he received in the election. Meanwhile Republicans as you constantly but somewhat inconsistently point out continue to behave an irrelevant and often buffoonish manner. I’m afraid this was largely whistling past the cemetary but the reactions it evoked are a useful guide to the divisions that exist in the GOP today. It’s not pretty and it looks set to stay that way for some time.

• 3 balconesfault // May 29, 2009 at 6:44 am

  “Barack Obama won almost 10 million more votes than John McCain. The next Republican president will have to win a lot of them back.”

  And the Republicans need to understand that a lot of voters still voted against Obama, and not for McCain, because they were still worried and scared by “the other”.

  In 2012, “the other” will be viewed by many as a loving, dedicated family man who is cheered when he visits the troops who defend our country, and avoids incindiary rhetoric with the care of a welder working on an active gas pipeline. Yep, he’s spending money, but that’s what he pledged to do going in, and in 2012 Americans will be voting based on whether they’re still worried about their jobs, and whether they’re feeling more or less secure than in 2008. And let’s face it – Cheney’s infamous “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter” doesn’t help the shouting now about Obama’s pull out the stops spending programs.

  Potshots at Obama just aren’t going to convince Americans that the Republicans have made a real assessment of how we got where we currently are, and what their plan is going forward. And simple name calling (like “King Obama”) trivializes the argument and marginalizes the party further.

• 4 southsidered // May 29, 2009 at 6:49 am

  As a far-left Democratic voter (not party member – they’re too moderate for my taste), I could not be more thrilled with the current state of the GOP. It’s clearly more important to “the base” to feel better by throwing tantrums than to actually win over any new voters. Not only is the conservative meltdown great for me, and the left, and America – it’s also the funniest spectacle on the Internet this side of The Onion.

• 5 sinz54 // May 29, 2009 at 6:56 am

  southsidered: I’ve discussed this with you before.

  When an incumbent President runs for re-election, it’s a referendum on his job performance.

  For an incumbent President, the second term is always his to lose. It’s extremely difficult to oust an incumbent President who does a *reasonably* decent job in his first term–no matter how good the opposition is.

  So the best thing the GOP can do right now is just be patient, and wait to see if Obama screws up badly somewhere. If not, then he’s got a second term.

  But if Obama does screw up as badly as, say, Jimmy Carter (none of whose screwups were foreseen from his own first 5 months in office), then the GOP can beat him–and the frantic fury you call a “meltdown” will be energy to campaign successfully against Obama.

• 6 sinz54 // May 29, 2009 at 7:16 am

  ottovbvs: Times change.

  In May of 1997 (his first year in office), President Jimmy Carter enjoyed a 65% approval rating–the same approval rating that President Obama enjoys now.

  http://www.gallup.com/poll/118928/Obama-Approval-Compares-Favorably-Prior-Presidents.aspx

  And about 3 1/2 years after that, Carter lost his bid for re-election in a landslide.

  Public opinion can change quickly. Right now, Obama is still in his honeymoon phase (though it’s ebbing), just as Carter was in May 1977. Two years from now, things may look very different–depending on the course of external events.

• 7 ottovbvs // May 29, 2009 at 7:16 am

  sinz54
  wrote 10 minutes ago
  “So the best thing the GOP can do right now is just be patient, and wait to see if Obama screws up badly somewhere. If not, then he’s got a second term.”

  …….In short the GOP strategy is predicated on a massive Obama fail and you evoke Jimmy Carter as an example of what can go wrong. Carter is a very poor template actually since he didn’t have a fraction of Obama’s management or communication skills. He imported a load of kitchen cabinet folks from GA and his admin was fairly shambolic from the get go. His misfortune was to be in office when the inflation chickens of the Johnson/Nixon era, and the foreign policy decisions of the previous 20 years in Iran, came home to roost. Obama’s situation is much more analagous to FDR’s situation where he inherited a host of problems which are all blamed on his predecessor. If he makes a half reasonable job of sorting them out he’ll be re-elected in a landslide.

• 8 joemarier // May 29, 2009 at 7:18 am

  Man, I can’t find that quote in the Buckley Archive. The big interview in “Inveighing” is an interview with Playboy, and I couldn’t find it there. Then again, I didn’t read the whole thing.

• 9 ottovbvs // May 29, 2009 at 7:24 am

  sinz54
  wrote 0 minutes ago
  “Obama is still in his honeymoon phase (though it’s ebbing),”

  ……….Actually it’s stayed remarkably consistent……it’s fallen from the high sixties right after inauguration to the low sixties and stayed there for months. This as I pointed out is a comfortable 10 points ahead of his electoral margin. He’s in no danger whatever at present partly because of his own achievements and personality but just as much from the weakness of the opposition. Who in their right minds is going to overthrow Obama to enthrone Gingrich, Palin, Boehner and co……… You can hope I suppose which is what you are doing but hope is not really a political strategy.

• 10 Mike K // May 29, 2009 at 7:31 am

  As the Democrats here are fond of pointing out, this is very early in Obama’s term. Already we see the credit markets rejecting the massive spending by the administration and the Fed. The bear market rally has convinced many who want to be convinced that the worst is over. “Life is what happens while we’re making plans.” The worst is far from over and “events,” as MacMillan famously said, are going to have their say. I don’t think Obama is up to the job and we will see if I am right. It looks as though Joe Biden might agree with me from his gaffe about the teleprompter the other day.

• 11 GoramFirefly // May 29, 2009 at 7:31 am

  ottovbvs,

  Hah! You’re discussing Obama and then you write this: “You can hope I suppose which is what you are doing but hope is not really a political strategy. “

  I suppose you’re right, but I find that mildly amusing, considering….

• 12 ottovbvs // May 29, 2009 at 7:37 am

  GoramFirefly
  wrote 4 minutes ago
  “suppose you’re right, but I find that mildly amusing, considering….”

  …….Not really since HOPE in Obama’s case was a slogan not a strategy….there’s a substantial difference.

• 13 ottovbvs // May 29, 2009 at 7:45 am

  Mike K
  wrote 7 minutes ago
  “Already we see the credit markets rejecting the massive spending by the administration and the Fed.”

  …….Total misinformation old boy……credit markets by most measures are loosening as Bernanke pointed out the other day and as a brief check of data like Libor would confirm. The markets are up about 30% from the bottom and 70% of an economist’s panel forecast a return to growth by year end. But given the other ranting about Macmillan (sic) and teleprompters hard info doesn’t seem to play a large part in your life.

• 14 ChristianMiller // May 29, 2009 at 8:11 am

  Listen, this is not a cult. Voting for a Republican does not entitle a person to warm fuzzy’s from other Republicans.

  Someone calling themselves a “moderate conservative” and then voting for an overt leftist when McCain, a moderate conservative if there ever was one, is the alternative is baffling.

  The whole idea that permeates this site, how “we” appear and appeal to moderates, as though being a Republican is some kind of fraternity, club or cult that is trying to attract members because we are all such nice people is absurd. And it becomes even more ridiculous when these folks ignore the many vile and nasty people who belong to the other club, if you will. They seem to believe that Democrats can be nasty, ugly, underhanded and insulting, but Republicans must be ever-so-nice or we bleed membership. This implies that people are not voting on principle or conscience but as some form of solidarity with a group of people who are nice folks – our little coffee clatch that meets and discusses politics oh-so civilly and politely. These comments are going to drive her away from voting her principles? A very silly notion indeed.

  If she isn’t thick skinned enough to take these gentle barbs, how is she going to handle the left’s nastiness when they find out she’s no longer an Obama supporter?

• 15 ottovbvs // May 29, 2009 at 8:26 am

  Franco
  wrote 11 minutes ago

  Franco dear boy she doesn’t actually say she voted for him….she may have done but she actually implies she came to her senses before she did the awful deed…..just a comprehension lesson from one of those nasty, vile temporary members of the other club.

• 16 ChristianMiller // May 29, 2009 at 8:31 am

  Mark Levin from Wednesday night’s show. This is not at all out of character for him and I’m posting this here for some balance. Frum cherry picks the worst examples he can find from conservatives and attacks them, giving cover to Democrats and those who would like to defeat us ALL, instead of defending them and their right to speak and countering that there are many Democrats who are off-putting too.
  Levin has brought many more from the independent and Democrat ranks than Frum has, and if Frum just would start with some of the Obama voters who write for his site that would be helpful.

  ML: Rachel, New York City, WABC ,a Democrat, Go!:

  Caller: How do you do Mr. Levin, I just wanted to tell you that you and I grew up in the same city so I have a certain affinity for you. Personally I disagree with everything that you believe in but I’m very glad you are on the radio because every so often I listen to you and I learn things that I think I should know. (ML: really?) and that’s all I called to say.

  ML: Well aren’t you a sweet lady. Now you grew up in Philadelphia?

  Caller: Yes, you grew up in Elkins Park and I grew up in Wynnefield. My sister went to the same University that you did .

  ML: Temple University

  Caller: Absolutely

  ML: And she survived.

  Caller: Well, not as long as I would have liked

  ML: Oh really, I’m sorry…

  Caller: Me too

  ML: Oh my gosh…well, you sound like a lovely lady and I appreciate your kind words even though you disagree with me

  Caller: Absolutely 100 percent, but I’m glad you’re there…

  ML: I’ll tell you what…

  Caller: I’m glad you’re there because that’s what democracy is all about…

  ML: I want to send you a book will you read it if I send it to you?

  Caller: You’re going to send me Liberty and Tyranny?

  ML: Yes, can I send you that?

  Caller: Yes you can. I have to tell you I wouldn’t pay for it. I was going to get it out of the library but if you want to send it to me I’ll take it.

  ML: I want you to read it and then I want you to call me

  Caller: OK, you got it.

  ML: Fair Enough?

  Caller: Fair..

  ML: Alright…and I’m sorry about your sister. Now don’t hang up, we’ll get your address. Send her a signed copy..
  Now a lot of you conservatives out there, (raises voice) Why are you giving her a freebie?!… Ladies and Gentlemen, we are going to see if we can’t have a decent discussion with Rachel after she reads the book, she sounds like a very lovely lady, we’ll be right back.

• 17 ChristianMiller // May 29, 2009 at 8:39 am

  ottovbvs, I think it is you who need the comprehension lessons. The title of the piece was “Buyers Remorse” and this sentence, “Sadly, even though I was still unsure of my vote until the week before the election, I know better now.”

  Furthermore, there was no clarification in the original post or in this one, even though this post refers to the many comments excoriating poor Crystal for having pulled the lever for the O man.

  And I didn’t say ALL Democrats were nasty, but if you want to self-select you are welcome to do so.

• 18 sw // May 29, 2009 at 8:45 am

  Crystal’s post reflects the poor educational standards of the last thirty years, but putting indifferent punctuation and other peccadillos to the side, she is exactly the kind of person this party needs. I visit this site every day because I agree with Frum. As an ex-Democrat myself, I am baffled by the self-appointed moatkeepers and litmus-test administrators who call themselves “conservatives.” We do not have a Conservative and a Liberal party — that’s our buddies across the Pond — our parties are Democrat and Republican, and those titles cover large swaths of ideological territory. If I choose to be, say, a pro-choice agnostic with libertarian leanings, that does not make me a member of Barry Sotero’s Kool-Aid Klub. Many of us are actually capable of separating our thoughts on foreign policy, domestic spending, and the nanny state from our personal/social beliefs.
  I want to win elections and return sanity to Washington. So, apparently, does Crystal. Those who cannot stomach our presence are free to create their own party. However, I would caution them that all or nothing generally ends up … nothing.

• 19 balconesfault // May 29, 2009 at 8:49 am

  Franco – nice example – but I note that the woman didn’t rebut him on any specific issues. There are many people who are very cordial in general, and then become very nasty when challenged in any way. From all accounts, our previous President was very much like that.

  You don’t get to be a jerk only some of the time, without getting the label of jerk. I’m sure his dogs like him as well.

• 20 sw // May 29, 2009 at 8:57 am

  Crystal’s post reflects the poor educational standards of the last thirty years, but putting indifferent punctuation and other peccadillos to the side, she is exactly the kind of person this party needs. I visit this site every day because I agree with Frum. As an ex-Democrat myself, I am baffled by the self-appointed moatkeepers and litmus-test administrators who call themselves “conservatives.” We do not have a Conservative and a Liberal party — that’s our buddies across the Pond — our parties are Democrat and Republican, and those titles cover large swaths of ideological territory. If I choose to be, say, a pro-choice agnostic with libertarian leanings, that does not make me a member of Barry Sotero’s Kool-Aid Klub. Many of us are actually capable of separating our thoughts on foreign policy, domestic spending, and the nanny state from our personal/social beliefs.
  I want to win elections and return sanity to Washington. So, apparently, does Crystal. Those who cannot stomach our presence are free to create their own party. However, I would caution them that all or nothing generally ends up … nothing.

• 21 nwahs // May 29, 2009 at 8:57 am

  Franco, I don’t think people suspect Mark Levin behaves badly 100%, 75% or even 25% of the time. The point is when he does behave badly, he defends his actions. That’s a problem. And its a problem if he encourages his listeners to do the same. Most people apologize when they behave badly. It seems a new tenet of radio conservatism is to defend obnoxious behavior – as long as they’re on your side.

• 22 sw // May 29, 2009 at 9:01 am

  Crystal’s post reflects the poor educational standards of the last thirty years, but putting indifferent punctuation and other peccadillos to the side, she is exactly the kind of person this party needs. I visit this site every day because I agree with Frum. As an ex-Democrat myself, I am baffled by the self-appointed moatkeepers and litmus-test administrators who call themselves “conservatives.” We do not have a Conservative and a Liberal party — that’s our buddies across the Pond — our parties are Democrat and Republican, and those titles cover large swaths of ideological territory. If I choose to be, say, a pro-choice agnostic with libertarian leanings, that does not make me a member of Barry Sotero’s Kool-Aid Klub. Many of us are actually capable of separating our thoughts on foreign policy, domestic spending, and the nanny state from our personal/social beliefs.
  I want to win elections and return sanity to Washington. So, apparently, does Crystal. Those who cannot stomach our presence are free to create their own party. However, I would caution them that all or nothing generally ends up … nothing.

• 23 Mike K // May 29, 2009 at 9:04 am

  “ottovbvs
  7:45 AM
  Mike K
  wrote 7 minutes ago
  “Already we see the credit markets rejecting the massive spending by the administration and the Fed.”

  …….Total misinformation old boy……credit markets by most measures are loosening as Bernanke pointed out the other day and as a brief check of data like Libor would confirm. “

  So the rising interest rates and weak t-bill auctions are good news ? Bluster is fine but time will tell. You could take a look at the yield curve before you pound your chest too hard.

  http://online.wsj.com/public/page/news-fixed-income-bonds.html

  Let’s revisit this in six months, eh ?

• 24 CJJ // May 29, 2009 at 9:34 am

  Mr. Frum,

  I think youre overreacting. Maybe protecting a new contributor, which is understandable.

  Its one thing to bemoan that the right is attacking moderates within the GOP. Its a leap to suggest that it is also attacking Obama voters who want to support the GOP. A huge leap.

  I am among those who would rather the GOP lose a few elections while standing for something (unlike the Bush years when we did the opposite.) Still, I absolutely disdain the attacks on you and others who thoughtfully and genuinely want to help the party. Ive seen a lot of that and I hate it. (I sometimes face it myself when I stray from party line.) But widespread attacks on Obama voters who want to return to the GOP? I see some I told you sos and, yes, some frustration, but it is hardly cumulative hostility.

  I respect you for your undertaking, even if I disagree with your approach. Youve taken a lot of heat, and in this case I think it led to an overreaction.

• 25 avgjoe // May 29, 2009 at 9:39 am

  Inclusion is key to rebuilding beyond the base. However, after two consecutive election beat downs the mild supporters and even the average conservative supporters have gone underground or have placed their attention elsewhere. The majority are not paying attention. This of course is unfortunate.

  The diehards are the ones lurking around and keeping updated and vocal. The loudest guy in the room will keep getting the attention until the reasonable people tell him to cool it. We definitely need people to think over their votes and come back to the fold. They need to be encouraged and welcomed. They need to be the snowball growing down the hill in size and power.

  Certainly we need principles. That’s the core. Yes, we need to challenge misconceptions and create unity, but we don’t need thousands of shrill gatekeepers protecting some rigid “idea” of purity. We need to build.

• 26 jwill // May 29, 2009 at 9:48 am

  franco, you posted the exact same comment in over in the original post. Exactly the same! You cannot become much more literally the definition of an echo chamber than that.

  1) The original post
  2) A lot of nasty comments
  3) A commenter or too pointing out how crazy all the nasty comments were
  4) Franco’s post
  5) David’s nice commentary
  6) The exact same Franco post

  When new information (David’s post) are offered, if you literally copy and paste what you said before, it shows that you did not think, even for a second, about what he said if it had any merit. That’s the echo chamber. And that’s why the GOP is screwed.

• 27 ChristianMiller // May 29, 2009 at 9:50 am

  balconesfault , Yes that is true. But notice Levin didn’t try to confront her either and took no offense at her saying she wouldn’t pay for his book.

  I’ve already made the point that Levin uses ridicule and holds many of his opponents in open contempt – just like hard-line Democrats do with conservatives. I really don’t believe he needs to apologize for that.

  This was a rebuttal that Frum and others, out of ignorance or from just wanting to promote his own agenda, claims Levin is insulated, never hears from people who don’t agree with him and is unable to deal with those who don’t share his views. I posted another example of Levin talking very respectfully to a Democrat, from the same show James on the original, now buried, Levin thread. Not only is it a respectful exchange but it is informative without being partisan. I won’t re-post it here but it is there in three parts.

• 28 ChristianMiller // May 29, 2009 at 9:56 am

  jwill, My comment applies even more to this post.The original comment was addressed to someone who essentially was making the same points Frum is making here, so it applies. I usually write fairly long and thoughtful posts here at NM , I don’t think there will be any folks here who will say I am a lazy writer regardless of how they feel about my opinions.

• 29 ChristianMiller // May 29, 2009 at 10:16 am

  nwahs ,

  If Frum held himself to the same standards as he expects from those who spend 15 hours a week talking off the top of their heads, when Frum writes and puts to print invectives and smears on those whose approach he disagrees, you might have an argument.

  This is Frum writing in a national magazine found in dentist offices around the country, “With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence”. So Frum is not above this sort of thing himself, he just dares not to talk this way about Democrats.

  You know, for someone trying to promote a “big tent” like Frum, he is awfully rude and dismissive of conservatives, who are probably the single most important demographic that Republicans should be wooing right now, and looked at objectively Frum may be doing much more damage to the party than Levin and Rush combined.

• 30 sw // May 29, 2009 at 10:19 am

  jwill is right.
  “That’s the echo chamber. And that’s why the GOP is screwed.”
  If you disagree with Frum, go to another site. We’re supposed to be a political party, not the Donner Party.

• 31 ChristianMiller // May 29, 2009 at 10:23 am

  Back to the topic. This is not a club. By voting your principles or conscience you are not joining anything.

  Because others vote for the same person doesn’t mean they share all your beliefs or are natural friends.

  Because someone you don’t like votes for the same person you do, doesn’t mean you should change your vote.

  Because someone you like votes for someone you oppose should also not change your vote.

  Does anyone disagree with this? No? So what is the big deal?

• 32 ireign // May 29, 2009 at 10:26 am

  Frum is partially correct. Republicans need and should actively seek voters who supported Obama in 2008. That said, where I beg to differ is that I don’t think anyone voted for Obama should play a large role in leading the GOP or telling Republicans what positions to take i..e Colin Powell or Bruce Bartlett.

  While there are prominent Bush supporters now supportive and even working under Obama, there are no prominent Bush supporters leading the Democratic Party under Obama nor providing Democratic talking points. Last I heard, Obama wasn’t looking for guidance from Zell Miller on a daily basis.

  That is the distinction.

• 33 bellecurve // May 29, 2009 at 10:30 am

  Would somebody, like the administrator, switch the friggin’ comment chronology to oldest first. And Crystal’s an idiot. At this point we need to take every idiot we can get.

• 34 Geministorm // May 29, 2009 at 11:13 am

  I think you play purposefully dumb, David.

  Reagan was too right-wing for the Ford moderates of his era, you’d be in that Ford progressive/moderate camp decrying his lack of inclusiveness and fringe attraction right along. This is evidenced by your current penchant for doing so with today’s conservatives. And, you don’t deem to do this first in the conservative bastions, where you would do the most good, no you do so in the “enemy’s” camp with the BS line that you’re trying to appeal to those on the left. Well, it takes no great intelligence to know that you will not win over any of those brain-dead libs by bashing cons, that’s just an idiotic stance. To pretend that you are of the same mind as Goldwater, Reagan or Buckley is ridiculous, if they were representative of the RNC today, you’d be lambasting them as well.

  Reagan won because he was strongly on the right. The moderate conservatives will have to face reality, the RNC ran a moderate and he lost. In fact, he gained his biggest boost from selecting a (perceived?) far right-wing running mate as he said himself the week after the selection. I would argue that Palin was in fact more popular with conservatives than McCain was, and yet she has been on the receiving end of your ire (Palin, the irresponsible choice) as well.

  Principles win national races, not polls. Moderates and being more centrist or left will NOT win an election, so get a clue. The RNC need to run strong (right wing) conservatives and then the moderates need to join the side that best represents their values. You want to know why the Republican party looks to be shrinking? Its because the RNC keeps running and supporting (C.Crist, blech!) un-principled conservatives who are too centrist and too much like Democrat-lite.

  David, if you truly wish to see a resurgence of the conservative party (Lord knows we need some fiscal responsibility around here), then start promoting the strong and principled conservatives. Otherwise, you might as well join the MSM in their daily 24 hours of hate for all things conservative. I suspect however that you enjoy the “Republican who speaks out against Republicans” role too much…

• 35 avgjoe // May 29, 2009 at 11:38 am

  In regards to “Reagan won because he was strongly on the right.”

  This is true, Reagan was that, but he was one of a kind. He had years of experience as union leader, spokesman, Governor, and politician (1980 was his third attempt remember). He traveled a long road. He didn’t appear out of thin air. Nor will the next Republican superstar/savior.

  Reagan also benefited greatly from the zeitgeist of the late 70s. I’ve always pondered if Reagan would have beat Carter in ‘76. Probably but it would have been much closer than ‘80. Or perhaps that was a moderate year. Ford without the pardon of Nixon would have won. Reagan might have lost.

  And lastly, Reagan united most elements of the GOP (the Anderson wing the big exception) and adopted the Fundamentalists who were just beginning to tap into their political strength. Unfortuntatly you can only go to the well so many times. The GOP hasn’t run anyone “strongly on the right” like Reagan since 1984 (Dole, maybe, but we know how that turned out.) 25 years is a long time. Reagan isn’t coming back. Neither is TR or Lincoln or Ike.

• 36 Mark // May 29, 2009 at 11:48 am

  Wow, you have to be blind and deaf to not know what Obama was before you voted for him.

• 37 Geministorm // May 29, 2009 at 11:51 am

  I think that ’sw’ brings up a good point. For the majority of America, political leanings are an a la carte type of dinner selection; pro-choice, small government, less taxes, welfare for needy, immigration reform, and so on. But, understanding this, it must be mentioned that a moderate/centrist Republican representative for national office *cannot* win election. If the goal is to win elections (which is what I keep hearing, but correct me if I’m wrong), then it is elemental statistics to know that a moderate/centrist Republican will merely split the votes within the bell-curve of the middle with *any* candidate from the left/liberal/Democratic party.

  When a strong right candidate runs, the right side of the curve will tend to still vote for the right wing candidate. The same cannot be said for the fringe right on voting for the centrist, most likely (and proven with just this last election) the more right wing will withhold their vote and stay home because they will tend not to give up principles and settle for a lessor of two evils selection. As an example, the most liberal Democrat in the Senate ran and won against arguably the most moderate/centrist Republican in 2008. If the idea that you could win from the center were true, then why did Obama lose and McCain win? The scenario would seem to favor the centrist, not the fringe candidate.

  I would contend that in order for the RNC to regain any power in DC that they will need to run people who are swayed by strong conservative principles, not by centrists who will play the middle. THAT is why moderates are feeling the push-back that seems like they are being ostracized. Its not that they have policies that differ from the farther right, its that their centrist stance seems to be trying to drive the RNC to the center and abandon strong conservatives and which will not win.

  David Frum, Meghan McCain, Brookes, et al seem to want to have a Republican/Democrat-lite party, while the strong conservatives want to step back from the Bush’s and move further right. The two camps are at odds and this is the issue. Frum can no more take up the mantle of “Republican” than can Levin, Hannity or Limbaugh. But, if the RNC is to reclaim the “conservative party” moniker, then it cannot be by adopting the middle.

  To Trexler’s Take;

  So we should abandon the far right to … nobody? If we imagine that the population falls into a bell curve (we’ll ignore the historical assumption that its center-right), then a right-centrist can never win an election against a strong left candidate. Democrats run a far left-leaning candidates and win, so what we learn from that is that we should continue trying a failed proposition? Why is Palin so popular with conservatives and so unpopular with the MSM? Its not because she is some great orator, or has some revolutionary policies (although some of her policies in AK are impressive)…or maybe everybody else is just stupid and Frum et al are all of the geniuses whom we should just tag along behind…

• 38 Mark // May 29, 2009 at 11:59 am

  Oh. We should all be thankful that Crystal has seen the light that’s been shining in her face for over two years. She finally started to pay attention to the harsh reality of the light!

  Get a life! This President will do more damage to this country than you can imagine, and we who tried to tell people like Crystal to open your eyes and look at what is staring you square in the face, only to be ridiculed as extreme nutters, should grovel to have Crystal’s vote!?!

  You sir, are insane. A “moderate” conservative could have voted for a “moderate” Republican (Mcain) instead of voting for left wing extremism.

  We are losing our country because of voters like this and you insist we should massage her back to the party? I would never have voted for Obama because I knew how bad he would be for my country which is much more important than feeling “welcomed”.

  Breathtakingly stupid.

• 39 ottovbvs // May 29, 2009 at 12:04 pm

  Mike K
  9:04 AM
  “So the rising interest rates and weak t-bill auctions are good news ? Bluster is fine but time will tell. You could take a look at the yield curve before you pound your chest too hard.”

  ……Bernanke was obviously blustering the other day when he said credit was easing overall……Time will indeed tell…..you’ve been forecasting no economic recovery for the forseeable future for weeks….by the end of this year the economy will return to positive growth….And Obama will get the credit…tough

• 40 Cforchange // May 29, 2009 at 12:06 pm

  Time out – it’s Friday, “The Donner Party” HAHAHA

• 41 ottovbvs // May 29, 2009 at 12:20 pm

  Mark
  wrote 6 minutes ago
  “We are losing our country “

  I’m afraid Mark, Mike K and Franco are poster boys for the condition of denial that currently afflicts the Republican party. As of now we have a president that is basically fireproof. His appros are in the low to mid sixties and his personal likeability is in the seventies and eighties. He is opposed by a totally disorganized and discredited opposition with a leadership vacuum that is being filled by talk radio hosts and all kinds of retreads and whackos. He inherited two wars and the worst financial and economic crisis since the great depression and he’s seen to be turning it around as is completely obvious by the right direction/wrong direction polls which are moving into positive territory for the first time for years. A couple of days ago the Conference board rang up a 56 number. Against this all we hear is hyperventilating nonsense and promises of “just you wait” it’s all going to come crashing down. Noonan has a oped up in the WSJ on the Sotomayor nomination over which the right are happily self destructing. She talks much sense and alludes to the mania affecting posters on conservative blogs like this one. I’d suggest reading it but it’s not going to any good.

• 42 ChristianMiller // May 29, 2009 at 12:36 pm

  Geministorm, I largely agree with your post. I also believe that politics is relative and moving. We have been moving leftward steadily for decades as more State run programs pile up, gain ever more funding, and taxes and regulations continue to be passed. Thus, the me-too-just-a-bit-less party most of the Republicans have become have taken us inevitably down the road to serfdom. Now we truly are at a crossroads. Any more statism and it’s over.

  The government sector will squash and inhibit the private sector, and when growth fails to occur the government will redouble it’s efforts with more fees and taxes fueling the negative cycle. We can see the results of this style of governing by looking at Americas large cities run by Democrat monopolies for decades.

  So it really doesn’t matter whether the Republican candidate is a so-called moderate or a staunch conservative because the Democrats use the same rhetoric and tactics for both and hold even moderate Republicans in contempt. 15 years ago being for civil unions for gays was considered a liberal enlightened approach. Today if you want civil unions (only) you are some kind of homophobe.

  Bush appointed blacks and women and hispanics in high positions and Republicans are still ridiculed as being bigots. In fact those people Bush supported themselves went over to the other side IE Powell.

  At some point Republicans need to wake up and see that Democrats are playing them for fools on these issues and with these memes. Hey, we aren’t getting the black vote no matter what. It is not because we don’t like them, it is because they choose to not like us, they feel insecure (still) and want to vote as a bloc – a kind of self-fulfilling tautology. IE 90% of blacks vote Democrat therefore the GOP must be racist. The 5-10% of blacks who vote Republican aren’t going to leave, as they are here on principle not for fellowship.

  Feminists are deeply psychologically invested in the Democrat party it’s plain to see. Republicans are never going to win over any significant portion of this block even if they all convert to pro-choice positions, and appoint women as this and that. Whoop-de-doo. These feminists don’t care about women anyway as evidenced by their complete silence on the progress the Bush administration made in Iraq and Afghanistan on those fronts. There was a time feminists protested and wrote about the plight of women in the Middle East. Now they are completely silent. Obviously it is partisan local politics not a general overarching principle as they once claimed.

  You cannot take Democrats at face value, they are forever moving the goal posts and changing words and their meaning to suit themselves. They actually thrive on demonization more than anything else. They create, out of whole cloth the boogeyman that is the typical Republican and they run against that.

  If Rush Limbaugh didn’t exist it would be someone else. If David Frum found himself to be the last man standing on the (near) right they would be going after him on all kinds of things with a full on hatred they now have for Limbaugh.

• 43 ChristianMiller // May 29, 2009 at 12:41 pm

  Cforchange
  wrote 30 minutes ago

  Time out – it’s Friday, “The Donner Party” HAHAHA

  Moderate Republicans are like clowns, they taste funny.

• 44 sinz54 // May 29, 2009 at 1:00 pm

  ottovbvs claims: “His [Carter's] misfortune was to be in office when the inflation chickens of the Johnson/Nixon era, and the foreign policy decisions of the previous 20 years in Iran, came home to roost.”

  Not true.
  In 1976, Carter ran against Ford by using what he called the “misery index”–the sum of the inflation rate and the unemployment rate. That “misery index” had exceeded 10% (as I recall); and Carter said that Ford should be kicked out of office on that basis, implying he could fix it better than Ford.

  By 1980, when Carter tried to run for re-election, the “misery index” was around 25%.

• 45 sinz54 // May 29, 2009 at 1:05 pm

  ottovbvs: Oh, one more thing.

  Carter didn’t create Islamist radicalism, which was starting to propel the Ayatollah Khomeini to fame and power.

  But in 1979, Carter did listen to his national-security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who told him to allow the Shah of Iran into the U.S. for medical treatment for his cancer. That proved catastrophic. The Ayatollah’s supporters took over the U.S. Embassy in retaliation, and took all the American staff there hostage.

  And the rest is history.

  Just about everything Brzezinski did was wrong. This was just one example.

• 46 sinz54 // May 29, 2009 at 1:11 pm

  ottovbvs sez: “Actually it’s stayed remarkably consistent……it’s fallen from the high sixties right after inauguration to the low sixties and stayed there for months.”

  Here is a chart of President Jimmy Carter’s approval ratings, in his four years in office:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gallup_Poll-Approval_Rating-Jimmy_Carter.png

  As you can see, Carter’s approval rating was consistenly above 60% till mid-August of his first year in office, 1977. Anyone looking at Carter’s approval ratings in May of 1977 would never have guessed that he would lose in a landslide just 3 1/2 years later.

  Right now, we’re at the same point in Obama’s administration–May of his first year. As with Carter, a good approval rating in May of Year 1 is hardly a good predictor of approval ratings in subsequent years of the term.

• 47 sinz54 // May 29, 2009 at 1:19 pm

  Franco claims: “There was a time feminists protested and wrote about the plight of women in the Middle East. Now they are completely silent. Obviously it is partisan local politics”

  No, it’s NOT partisan politics. It’s a conflict among basic beliefs.

  I was an observer when it happened.

  Prior to 9-11, the feminists were in the vanguard of those protesting the Taliban’s horrific treatment of women in Afghanistan. This was at a time when the Bush Administration said very little about it.

  But after 9-11, and Bush’s decision to go to war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, the feminist movement split down the middle. Some of them argued that the Taliban’s human rights record was so horrific, it’s just as well that we’re going to get rid of them. But others, committed to the “peace” plank of the N.O.W. platform (”Peace is a Feminist Issue”), turned completely around and opposed ousting the Taliban by military force. And they won the argument. Feminists became pacifists first and women’s rights advocates second. So feminists ended up on the side of leaving the Taliban in power–if removing the Taliban could only be done by war.

  Nearly all feminists are hard-core leftists. And to a modern hard-core leftist, multiculturalism and pacifism are even more important than feminism. So those things take precedence.

• 48 Mike K // May 29, 2009 at 1:29 pm

  I don’t seem to be the only one worried about inflation and interest rates:

  http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Massively-higher-US-spending-driving-up-governments-interest-rate-46398387.html

  Now here is a thoughtful comment:

  “‘m afraid Mark, Mike K and Franco are poster boys for the condition of denial that currently afflicts the Republican party. As of now we have a president that is basically fireproof.”

  Therefore, what ? We should all jump on the big spending, racial spoils system bandwagon ? For your information, I have few dogs in this fight. Most of my income is tax exempt and I am retired. I do have five kids, three of whom voted for Obama, and I worry that they will have to live in the world he bequeaths them. I remember 1976 and I also remember how close the election was. Had Ford won, with Bill Simon his Sec Treas, we might very well have avoided the worst of the late 70s inflation. Simon wrote a very good book, whose title I have forgotten (A Time for Truth, I believe), but it was a prescription for getting control. Remember, Ford had to cope with the feckless 1974 Democrats who were just as charged up about changing the country as the 2009 variety.

  And we know how that worked out. One thing about history, it eventually keeps score. If Obama somehow pulls off his plans (whatever they are are and I’m not sure he knows), I will have no complaint. I’m not planning to run for office. But, if he fails, and I think he will, those who stood by and watched the country badly damaged, like the appeasers in 1940 England, will have to accept responsibility.

  Responsibility is a word that is little used today.

• 49 sinz54 // May 29, 2009 at 1:32 pm

  Geministorm claims: “Reagan won because he was strongly on the right. “

  WRONG.

  Reagan won because by November 1980, the country was so disgusted with the incumbent, Carter (approval rating below 30%), that the election came down to “Anybody but Carter.”

  In 1980, even *liberal Democrats* were disgusted with Carter. First, they drafted Ted Kennedy to run against Carter in the primaries and attempt to take the nomination away from him, badly splitting the Dem Party.

  When that failed, and Carter clinched the Dem nomination, they ran their own third-party candidate, Anderson. So it was actually a three-way race: Anderson-Carter-Reagan. If Anderson hadn’t run, and those liberals had come back into the Dem fold to vote for Carter, the election would have been a lot closer.

• 50 Mike K // May 29, 2009 at 1:32 pm

  “Prior to 9-11, the feminists were in the vanguard of those protesting the Taliban’s horrific treatment of women in Afghanistan. This was at a time when the Bush Administration said very little about it.”

  No, that was during the Clinton Administration. It seemed harmless to protest because they knew Clinton would never do anything about it. With Bush, you might see some action and the last thing the political left wants is action. Talk is their specialty.

• 51 sinz54 // May 29, 2009 at 1:34 pm

  Mike K asks: “We should all jump on the big spending, racial spoils system bandwagon ? “

  No. You should be PATIENT and wait for a better opportunity to present itself.

  As I keep explaining, in May of 1977, Carter’s approval rating was about as high as Obama’s is now. Right now, Obama is still in his honeymoon phase; no NEW disasters have happened on his watch; and the public’s memory of the disastrous Bush years is still fresh in their mind.

  Things may look very different by May 2010.

• 52 ottovbvs // May 29, 2009 at 1:51 pm

  sinz54
  wrote 41 minutes ago

  Unfortunately you have no ability to distinguish between underlying causes and surface outcomes. I’ve heard some strange things from you but the notion that Khomeini returned to power in Iran and the Iranians took over the US embassy because the Shah was admitted for cancer treatment in the US is among the more bizarre.

  The same is true of this comment:

  “In 1976, Carter ran against Ford by using what he called the “misery index”–the sum of the inflation rate and the unemployment rate. That “misery index” had exceeded 10% (as I recall); and Carter said that Ford should be kicked out of office on that basis, implying he could fix it better than Ford.

  By 1980, when Carter tried to run for re-election, the “misery index” was around 25%.”

  ………Do you have the remotest idea of why inflation took off in the seventies….and it preceded Carter’s presidency btw although it really accelerated during his term which is why he put Volcker in the Fed to squeeze it out of the system.

• 53 ottovbvs // May 29, 2009 at 1:59 pm

  Mike K
  wrote 23 minutes ago

  For your info Mike I’m also retired but I can’t say most of my income is tax exempt although some of it is. Judging by your comments I don’t think you know why inflation took off in the seventies either. The only way it could be prevented from taking of was a really tight money policy which Simon might or might not have pursued earlier but I doubt it since Ford wasn’t exactly someone who was going to rock the boat. Ultimately Carter did the right thing and brought in Volcker who turned the screws and caused the worst economic slowdown since the war until the past 18 months.

• 54 sinz54 // May 29, 2009 at 2:05 pm

  Mike K: Feminists continued their protest against the Taliban during Bush’s first year in office, *until* Bush threatened war after 9-11.

  For example:

  http://www.msmagazine.com/news/printnews.asp?id=5286

• 55 sinz54 // May 29, 2009 at 2:09 pm

  ottovbs: Carter didn’t install Volcker till late 1979, by which time inflation had accelerated to the point that only sky-high interest rates (ordered by Volcker) could squeeze inflation out of the system–but at the price of a stiff recession and high unemployment. By 1980, Carter’s own economists were predicting the worst recession in years.

  In Carter’s first three yeras in office, Carter first tried jawboning, then he tried austerity budgets and balanced budgets. None of those things had worked.

  He also proposed a synthetic fuels program, which would produce fuel at twice the price of even the expensive energy sources already available. That would be equivalent to producing synthetic gasoline today at over $5 per gallon.

• 56 ottovbvs // May 29, 2009 at 2:10 pm

  Mike K
  wrote 31 minutes ago
  “And we know how that worked out. One thing about history, it eventually keeps score. If Obama somehow pulls off his plans (whatever they are are and I’m not sure he knows), I will have no complaint. I’m not planning to run for office. But, if he fails, and I think he will, those who stood by and watched the country badly damaged, like the appeasers in 1940 England, will have to accept responsibility.”

  ……It sure does which is why Bush left office in disgrace. Obama and his guys have a fairly good idea of what they’re doing although there’s a bit of experimentation as there has to be. By the middle of next year the economy will be in strong recovery mode. The comparison with thirties England is absurd. BTW appeasement as a policy made a lot of sense for the British in the thirties. The Americans were nowhere to be seen and there was no way Britain and France could win a war against greater Germany alone. In fact there’s currently a whole school of conservative historians who think Britain should never have got involved in a war with Germany. I don’t agree with them but it’s not as simple as you suggest but then most things aren’t.

• 57 ottovbvs // May 29, 2009 at 2:11 pm

  sinz54
  wrote 1 minutes agoottovbs: “Carter didn’t install Volcker till late 1979, by which time inflation had accelerated to the point that only sky-high interest rates (ordered by Volcker) could squeeze inflation out of the system–but at the price of a stiff recession and high unemployment. By 1980, Carter’s own economists were predicting the worst recession in years.”

  ….I just said that…don’t you read

• 58 avgjoe // May 29, 2009 at 2:12 pm

  In regards to Geministorm:

  I don’t think abandoning the far right was suggested by myself, but even though Reagan appealed to some of the far right or libertarian voters (though not all since almost 1 million voted for Ed Clark in ‘80). Most voters are not principled. They vote from a variety of viewpoints and many illogical at that. Emotions, Rhetoric, Empathy, etc.

  I myself was quite intrigue with Palin’s nomination at first. I did think it was a bold move by McCain, but presidential elections are not won my Veep picks (e.g. Joe Biden). MSM is going to hate any conservative. But Palin was too often unprepared and repetitive. She wasn’t ready and Middle America liked the distraction, but she wasn’t Obama. He rode the love wave.

  I, like many of us (probably), have friends who are middle of the road and voted for Obama. I was shocked when I found out. But it happened everywhere.

  And now I’m afraid Palin’s ruined to anything beyond Senator or Cabinet position. What broke her for me was her answer to Katie Couric’s “sort-of-gotta” question on what magazines or newspapers she reads regularly. She answered “all of them.” That is the worst answer ever. I’m sure she can’t wait to get home at night and pick up the latest rag of the Progressive or Mother Jones. “None” would have played better. But I digress.

• 59 sinz54 // May 29, 2009 at 2:12 pm

  ottovbvs: Ford had nothing to do with Arthur Burns’ loose money policy at the Fed.

  That was due to pressure by the preceding Nixon administration. That’s a matter of public record; go google for
  NIXON ARTHUR BURNS

  and you’ll find things like

  http://www.atypon-link.com/doi/abs/10.1257/jep.20.4.177

  Despite loose money, inflation was held in check during the Ford Administration by a severe recession (unemployment 9%, stock market down 50%). But when Carter took office, the economy was recovering–and inflation took off, unrestrained by the Fed.

• 60 Geministorm // May 29, 2009 at 4:36 pm

  Regarding the shape of the economy that Obama was handed…

  Look at the recession of 81, or even the dot com bust, conditions were worse then. Bush started the downward spiral (which he acknowledged with his idiotic statement about abandoning free market principles to save the free market…pfffft), but Obama took that downward plunge and steered us right into a full on death spiral. You know that when socialists in Europe are warning Obama about his actions that he’s doing something terribly wrong.

  Maybe its bad advice, maybe its his handlers, but I doubt it. Obama’s history says that he has an ideology that points exactly where he is headed. And, it has to be done quickly before he loses inertia and traction.

  You can’t spend your way out of a recession and you can’t borrow your way out of debt. However, I sincerely doubt that the Democrat/Obama faithful really care about the economic strength of this nation. Their real concerns are about redistribution, reeling in capitalism, preventing CO2 emissions and removing the limitations of the Constitution upon the government.

  Its sad, really. The things that made America great, that drew so many millions of foreigners to its shores, that gave so many hope, freedom and liberty is going to be expunged from the system as quickly as possible. Well, its going to happen under the watch of the Democratic party, so make what you will of that.

• 61 Realist // May 29, 2009 at 5:54 pm

  Dear Trexler:

  Blaming McCain’s loss on Palin is completely unfair. She was unprepared, but how is that not the McCain campaign’s fault? She pretty much said as much after the election and I don’t blame her one bit.

  And as far as your comment: “MSM is going to hate any conservative”, you seem to have a short memory. The MSM idolized George Bush after 9/11 and at the start of the Iraq war. And who has been the chummiest pal of the MSM for years? That’s right: John McCain.

  Dumping on Palin isn’t going to get us anywhere. But sadly you are right. She has been ruined for future presidential politics thanks to Steve Schmidt and the other clowns running the McCain campaign.

  You want to talk about an “unprepared” candidate: “The economy is fundamentally sound.” Now there’s a strategy for you. Deny something that had been in the works for nearly a year. Way to do your homework, John.

  The best answer Palin could have given to Couric was to say she got her news from the Internet. Seriously, the web is chock full of direct links to news from around the world. She could have rattled off any media outlet McCain’s campaign could think of and look whip-smart.

  Hell, I could have thought of that one. And who even reads magazines anymore? LOL. They are going the way of stone tablets at this point.

  Like I said, blaming the MSM and Sarah Palin is a pathetic cop-out. The McCain campaign had a golden opportunity after the GOP convention. They blew it. I was thrilled when Sarah joined the campaign. But it was all for naught thanks to the man truly unprepared: Sen. John McCain.

• 62 Mike K // May 29, 2009 at 6:29 pm

  “Judging by your comments I don’t think you know why inflation took off in the seventies either. The only way it could be prevented from taking of was a really tight money policy which Simon might or might not have pursued earlier but I doubt it since Ford wasn’t exactly someone who was going to rock the boat. “

  I bow to your far greater wisdom. The Democrat majority in Congress with the 1974 “class” of course had nothing to do with it.

  “Obama and his guys have a fairly good idea of what they’re doing although there’s a bit of experimentation as there has to be. By the middle of next year the economy will be in strong recovery mode. “

  You wouldn’t care to make a small wager with your retirement fund, would you ? I guess they know how the math of massive spending and deficits as far as the eye can see will work out. I sure don’t and I don’t think they will be allowed to do it.

  You are amusing, though, as an example of the clueless Obama supporter who is giving advice to Frum, et al about how to get the GOP going again.

  I have offered another small wager over at Washington Monthly but, so far, no takers. The certainty of the political left that Obama knows what he is doing is touching. The Children’s Crusade members had a similar touching certainty. It didn’t save them from slavery, though.

  The uneducated is being led by the unknowing and it is being reported by the unconscious.

• 63 Dr. Tesla // May 29, 2009 at 7:28 pm

  Does Frum ever post what the leftwing lady on Levin’s show had to say before Levin unloaded on her? He continues to advance this false notion that all Americans love their country…that’s political correctness, not reality….many Americans don’t like this country, and most of them are Democrats. Levin doesn’t have an obligation to be “nice” as Frum defines it to an American hater.

  I’ve made this point before…..Frum is the king of ad hominem…..he’s done a hit piece on Limbaugh in the leftwing rag Newsweek in which he calls Limbaugh fat, brings up Rush’s marital history and past drug addiction in a cheap petty attempt to discredit Rush. He doesn’t want to debate Rush on the merit of his liberal Republican ideas, as Thomas Sowell and others have pointed out. Frum has also mischaracterized Levin’s conduct when Frum appeared on his show….Levin did not yell at him at him as Frum wants people to believe. Levin did criticize Frum harshly for his hit piece on Rush, and Levin did get the best of Frum in that interchange.

  Frum is a minority in the Republican party beacuse he’s is not a conservative. If the party wants to remain viable, it cannot pander to a tiny minority of David Frums. There was no excitement among the base for McCain, and Frum can’t make a convincing case that Palin actually lost votes for McCain for everyone Palin gained him.

  What has Frum ever truly contributed to the Republican party or the conservative movement? Who annointed Frum the leader of any majority? He can’t even get much traffic on this website.

• 64 Dr. Tesla // May 29, 2009 at 7:35 pm

  I laugh everytime that I see Frum link himself to Buckley and make Buckley seem radicallly different from Limbaugh. Buckley APPEARED on Limbaugh’s show to discuss how lliberals like Frum like to use Buckley against Rush.

  Who used the new f- word, anti-gay slur, in a public statement? Rush or Buckley? It was Buckley, yet he continues to prop up Buckley as the example Republicans should emulate and not Rush or Levin. Does referring to gay people as f— really an inclusive approach?

  The only conservatives that Frum likes are dead ones or liberals ones.

• 65 Dr. Tesla // May 29, 2009 at 7:42 pm

  I don’t think anybody cares what Crystal Wright thinks about Obama, good or bad. It would seem Frum doesn’t think she should be criticized at all for anything because she’s a black female. I’ve skewered some of the white guys on this website, and he didn’t see fit to go defend them. Why does he think this black woman needs him to defend her? Frum seems to be a person obsessed with race and treating black people like children rather than equals in the arena of ideas.

• 66 Dr. Tesla // May 29, 2009 at 8:21 pm

  From

  http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/05/levin-takes-down-frum.html

  David Frum was never much of a thinker. Try as he might, he just can’t seem to attract interest, let alone a following, even when stabbing his old boss, President George W. Bush, in the back with a rambling screed. Profiting from a confidential relationship with a president is about as low as it gets. But Frum, the ex-speech-writer turned self-hating blogger, isn’t done descending. Now he spends his lonely days and nights at his keyboard trying to settle personal scores and demonizing those who dare to dismiss his ramblings as the work of an emotional wreck.

  My interactions with Frum have been minimal, despite his past suggestions that they were something more. As best I recall, I met him first on an Amtrak train. He was sitting near the restroom feverishly working his lap top’s keyboard. We exchanged pleasantries, and that was about it. I believe the next time I met him was at the Ledeen’s home. He seemed harmless enough. The next thing I knew, he had a blog at NRO. I rarely read it, but when I did, I noticed he displayed a quirkiness and psuedo-intellectualism which suggested to me that something was a little off with the guy. But I didn’t give it much thought. I became reacquainted with Frum after he viciously attacked Rush Limbaugh, after having attempted to spar with Rush over a period of months. And it was this unhinged, emotional outburst that caught my attention. I then realized, as did others, that Frum was a truly pathetic character subject to wild personality lurches and obsessed with drawing attention to himself.

  In one truly bizarre incident, after I responded to another of Frum’s hate-Rush outbursts, Frum had his own 15 year old son call my talk show. Realizing Frum had become emotionally uncontrollable, I told my producer to tell his son that it would not be appropriate for him to come on the air. If his father called in, I would put him on the show. Within minutes, Frum called, and he proceeded to make a fool of himself by interrupting, name-calling, etc. He could not gather his thoughts or make coherent, reasoned points. So, as the host, with a responsibility to my audience, I had to repeatedly lower the noise-level on his rantings. Frum made a fool of himself. Of course, Frum, as I predicted during the show, would accuse me of cutting him off. (The audio has been widely distributed and played. I recommend folks listen for themselves.) I don’t know what kind of family or private life Frum has, and unlike him, I won’t presume to know and use it to punish him here. But I do know from what I have seen and heard that he is a very troubled individual. He knows it and I know it.

  I have found that it is a complete waste of time to engage Frum in a debate. He is psychologically and emotionally incapable of it. His latest post is a perfect example. He hunts and pecks around the Internet, looking for audio clips and transcripts, hoping to piece together another smear against me or Rush or his favorite target of the day. That’s what people like Frum do. That’s why he is exploited by Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, MSNBC, and Newsweek. They so wish he was the face of conservatism. But, alas, he can barely speak for himself. And apart from this response to Frum’s latest ramblings, today will be like all other days. I will go on the air and talk with millions of listeners and Frum will write to himself on his own website.

  – Mark Levin

• 67 Dr. Tesla // May 29, 2009 at 8:26 pm

  The guy at Riehl World View added this about Levin’s response to the leftwinger that Frum found so “boorish”….I couldn’t agree more:

  Update: A disclaimer of my own for the hand wringing crowd. If you read Frum’s post on ML, linked below – he got very personal and very nasty. In my opinion, Mark is responding in kind, though perhaps not as nastily, or bizarrely and based on facts, not suppositions. It is precisely how I handle such things. You slap me, I slap you. Kick me, I kick you. And if you come at me with a knife, I’ll shoot your ass. So spare me the Mark is mean crap. Thank you.

• 68 Dr. Tesla // May 29, 2009 at 8:39 pm

  I thought this post from the marklevinfan website was amusing:

  You should also go back to when John McCain announced Sarah Palin as his running mate and read what Frum wrote about her. Frum talks a lot about the Republican Partys need to attract younger voters, women, and minorities. So, what does he do when a brilliant, youthful woman joined the ticket and perhaps helped balance it alongside elder statesman McCain? Frum trashed her. He downplayed Palins 13 years in state and local government and executive experience as a two-termed mayor and time as governor, made no mention of her as an entrepreneur, and did not bother to learn of nor mention what foreign policy experience she had gained as the governor of Alaska (Mark wrote about it here). Sarah Palins life, work, and political experience was at least the equal of Barack Obamas community organizing, time in the Illinois state Senate, 3 years as a junior Senator, one junket to Russia with Senator Lugar, and ineffective dabbling (some say damaging) in Kenyas internal politics. Frum chose to attack the very candidate he said he would vote for come November without even taking the time to get to know her. What a guy.

  David Frum is a funny kind of Republican; he attacks conservatives like Rush, Mark, and Palin, and promotes liberal issues. If that is his formula for attracting more people into the Republican Party and he needs work, Im sure Frum would fit right in at ACORN registering people to vote.

• 69 WINDe // May 29, 2009 at 10:39 pm

  “a brilliant, youthful woman”? Palin was a pawn, a foregone loser from the get-go. If Frum saw that she was an unqualified nominee that was going to go down in flames and bring the rest of the party with her, he did well to take a reasoned, moderate position. The fact is she was a terrible nominee, he background a mess, a very poor representative of herself, let alone the Republican party.

  “Mark is mean crap?” Frum’s argument isn’t personal. He isn’t offended or had his feelings hurt. An argument against Levin and Rush need not bring emotions into it at all; have you ever tried to apply logic linguistics to Levin and Rush? They are mentally sloppy, contradicting their own positions, using hyperbole and volume to truncate discussion of important, pressing issues.

  Levin and Rush spell certain death for the republican. These are psychopaths, incapable of concrete argument, unable to see themselves from outside themselves.

  If you, like talk-radio conservatives, want entertainment instead of politics (television’s violence not getting you off? try warhawking an unjust war! splooge!) then follow Palin and Rush and Levin into the brick wall.

  The rest of us conservatives are going to be winning on a fiscal moderation ticket in 2012; if we’re going to make it Rush, Levin and their dead weight burgeoning offshore accounts are going to need to find their way into a ditch.

• 70 WINDe // May 29, 2009 at 11:02 pm

  Tesla, what is the end-game result of your approach? If you had your way, and Rush and Levin ruled the world, what would it look like?

  The appeal of newmajority is it offers a pragmatic, long-term plan for conservatism. One that can win.

  You’re radio host idols couldn’t put together a cohesive platform to save their offshore, $100million bank accounts.

  What do you offer the conservative community, Tesla? Wildly polarized rhetoric? Hawkish foreign policy with less forethought than a child’s first effort to play chess?

  You’re an opportunist mediator. Murrow wasn’t great because he was fair, he wasn’t great because he believed in a grand American future. He was great because his worldview was rational, his arguments based on carefully thought out policy; he could afford to be even-handed, unbiased, demure even, because he was RIGHT! Not right wing, but Right, correct, accurate.

  Your conservatism is an idiot mess, filled with hyperbole, half-baked policy, reactionary pole-dwellers, money-grubbing whores who scam their own audience, condescending, lying, using snake-oil salesman’s tricks to line their own coat pockets.

  Who are you, Tesla? Do you stand to benefit personally from your support of Rush and Levin? Are you a whore?

• 71 ltwpolitics // May 30, 2009 at 1:14 am

  Best defense of Lev-baugh ever by Dr Tesla: “Who used the new f- word, anti-gay slur, in a public statement? Rush or Buckley? It was Buckley, yet he continues to prop up Buckley as the example Republicans should emulate and not Rush or Levin. Does referring to gay people as f— really an inclusive approach?”

  So WFB was an rude biggot, thereby justifying all the rude bigotry pouring forth by Lev-baugh and their ditto-heads. Brilliant!

• 72 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 5:11 am

  Frum is no fiscal conservative. He supports higher income taxation in the name of balancing the budget (how is that possible given Obama’s insanely bloated budgets and desire to nationalize everything?).

  My point about Buckley was that he was not this innocent angel that Frum likes to portray him as, not to dump on Buckley. The guy he called a f— called Buckley a Nazi prior to that, which is something all BIG GOVERNMENT leftwingers like to do, which is to accuse small government conservatives of beiing Nazis.

  There doesn’t appear to be much of an appeal to newmajority. Nobody posts on this website but a few Obama supporters and a few Rush/Levin fans like me.

  Frum’s “pragmatic” plan for conservativism is to tell social conservatives to go f—- themselves, which instantly puts all southern and midwestern states in play for the Democrats. He then wants to raise income taxes and implement a carbon tax, which is indicative of a big government leftwinger. For the Republican party to abandon it’s position on taxation is political suicide.

  Frum is a national security hawk. He was in the “evil” Bush adminstation. The Iraq war was suppported by Hillary, Kerry, John Edwards and other Democrats despite their attempts to say they were “duped” into supporting it as the war became unpopular. I didn’t vote to send troops to Iraq…..politicians did, including the Democrats that you vote for, so if I’m a “chicken-hawk”, so are you, and especially your Democrat leaders.

  The funny thing is Frum supports the most unpopular aspect of the Bush adminstration, the Iraq war, yet he wants the GOP to abandon the social conservativism and tax cuts that are political winners. Polls have also shown global warming to be one of the least important things to voters, but Frum is a global warming nut.

  I’d like to hear how Frum plans to attract Obama voters to vote for the GOP. They don’t oppose big spending nor or they for a tough realistic approach to foreign policy and national security. Those are the only two issues that Frum is remotely conservative.

  Leftwingers are always going to depict their conservative critics of wildly polarized rhetoric. But again, as I have pointed out, who did a hit piece on who? I think it was David Frum that did an ad hominem column in the left wing rag on Limbaugh, attacking his weight, marital history, and past drug addiction? What does that have to do with Limbaugh’s ideas? Why must we accept this premise that Limbaugh must be perfect, and if he is not perfect, we must not listen to him? That’s Frum’s logic, but it can also be used against himself, as he is not perfect, and futhermore, he has consistently shown that nobody is all that interested in what he has to say.

  Not one conservative publication has run his anti-Rush and Levin diatribes. They’ve come down on the side of Rush and conservative talk radio, and they have essentially shunned and ignored Frum. ]

  The question really is this: What has Frum done to attract moderate voters to the GOP by simply beating up on popular conservative radio talk show hosts? The majority right now is held by the Obama-led Democrats, and he does not make much of a case against the present majority and Obama…he’s more interested in personal attacks on Limbaugh and Levin and others are not in the political majority at the moment. It would seem that a new majority would have to first make the case against the present majority, which is the Obama-bots. I see Limbaugh and Levin doing that, but not Frum.

• 73 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 5:15 am

  Palin is easily more qualified than Obama and Biden combined. Obama had no executive experience, and his associations with racist hatemongers and former unrepetent terrorists would have ended his campaign if he was a white Republican without a sympathetic whitewashing apologist liberal media on his side.

  Biden is a buffoon, and even most liberals don’t deny that. Palin destroyed him, and Obama, in her convention speech. And she can talk off teleprompter, unlike Obama, who even uses one at a party!

• 74 krove // May 30, 2009 at 5:19 am

  From Noonan.

  Republicans, Lets Play Grown-Up

  Lets play grown-up. When I was a child, thats what we said when we ran out of things to do like playing potsie or throwing rocks in the vacant lot. Youd go in and take your fathers hat and your mothers purse and walk around saying, Would you like tea? In retrospect we werent imitating our parents but parents on TV, who wore pearls and suits. But the point is we amused ourselves trying to be little adults.

  And thats what the GOP should do right now: play grown-up.

  Plenty of childish thinking on display here especially from Tesla.

• 75 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 5:23 am

  Rush was around when Republicans took back over the house in 1994, first time in years they did that. He was around when the first Bush beat Dukasis. He was around when Dubya, Frum’s fomer boss that Frum saw fit to dump all over for personal profit in a book, won two elections.

  To suggest Rush is so polarizing to the point that Republicans cannot win elections is laughable. He’s not polarizing in my view to anybody but a true liberal. If you have an open mind and a sense of humor, you will like Rush, if you don’t have any particular political convictions.

  Polls have shown Obama to be the most polarizing president in the past 100 years. Polls consisently showed HIllary to be a polarizing figure. That didn’t stop Democrats from running them as candidates, nor are they dumping on Obama for his polarizing idealogy.

  If you have strong convictions about anything, it’s going to “polarize” those that have the opposite convictions. So to suggest we throw Rush and Levin under the bus simply because leftists find him “polarizing” is laughable. He’s no more polarizing than Bill Maher, who wished Cheney would be killed when he was over in Iraq. Keith Olberrman is polarizing. Al Franken the same. Most Democrat leaders like Ted Kennedy are polarizing. That doesn’t seem to stop your precious “moderates” from voting Democrat, which undermines your entire theory that “polarizing” figures in the Republican party are the reason why “moderates” voted for Obama.

• 76 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 5:27 am

  Conservatives don’t care about Noonan. She was a speechwriter, just like Frum, except she was one for Reagan. Neither has done either for the conservative movement, and Noonan’s columns are all fluff and no substance. She thinks she is this beautiful writer, and maybe she is to some people, but she little grasp of economics and foreign policy and other matters of importance, which is why her columns are typically rambling and pointless…she’s an airhead trying to fill up space on a piece of paper.

  Palin’s done a hell of a lot more in her life than has Noonan.

• 77 ChristianMiller // May 30, 2009 at 6:08 am

  Noonan can be a good writer in terms of putting nice phrases and sentences together but she’s not substantive. As Tesla says, an airhead. She is far too emotional. Often she is downright maudlin, and is still clinging to her Irish schoolgirl idealism and naivete.

  And these nanny lectures from women as though we are their schoolchildren and they are so very mature and sophisticated wear thin. Why doesn’t she lecture Democrats? They won’t listen to her, but a few silly Republicans will.

• 78 Dustin Ferrell // May 30, 2009 at 6:20 am

  Tesla – you should use your real name in case your neighbors have yet to realize what a bigot you are.

  And you keep referring to a heated exchange during Buckley’s debate with Gore Vidal, which says nothing of his 50 books, thrice-weekly column, etc. and thus doesn’t have a whole lot to counter David’s point. You are as dismissive as Mark Levin, and as personal in your attacks.

  And this all dodges the point that the response to Crystal was inappropriate. I don’t think “the left is mean, too” or “I’m right, so I can be mean” are good defenses.

• 79 sinz54 // May 30, 2009 at 6:36 am

  Geministorm claims: “Look at the recession of 81, or even the dot com bust, conditions were worse then.”

  That’s absolutely false.

  In 2008, the global derivatives market was on the verge of collapse. That market was estimated to be about $40 trillion, which is triple the yearly GDP of the United States. It threatened to drag the entire world into a depression.

  As it is, you will notice how many other countries, particularly in Europe and the Pacific Rim, are having to take measures to stem off major recessions. That was not true in those earlier periods you cited, in which it was primarily the U.S. alone that was suffering.

  Besides, the credit markets were also threatened with collapse. If that had happened, the U.S. economy would have seized up: Your ATM machines wouldn’t work. Companies that use commercial paper to meet temporary expenses like payrolls wouldn’t have been able to. And so on.

  We came within an inch of a depression–not as bad as the 1930s, but bad enough. It was only because of government intervention (not just in America but in other countries too) that this was staved off.

• 80 sinz54 // May 30, 2009 at 6:37 am

  ottovbvs: You didn’t read my other posts, in which I showed just how ineffectual Carter had been throughout his term. With him, it was always too little, too late–and when he took an action, it was frequently contradicted or abandoned just months later.

• 81 sinz54 // May 30, 2009 at 6:43 am

  ottovbs writes: ‘The Americans were nowhere to be seen and there was no way Britain and France could win a war against greater Germany alone.”

  Nonsense.
  Even Adolf Hitler admitted to his cronies that if the French had marched into the Rhineland, “we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs.” And military historians agree with him. When it came to occupying the Rhineland, or negotiating with Chamberlain over the Sudetenland, Britain and France had military superiority over Germany. A victory by them would have ruined Hitler’s aura of inevitability.

  What France and Britain did not have, was the will to use military force when their populations had been sickened by war.

  Is all your knowledge of history this faulty?

• 82 sinz54 // May 30, 2009 at 6:49 am

  Dr Tesla sez: “Frum’s ‘pragmatic’ plan for conservativism is to tell social conservatives to go f—- themselves, which instantly puts all southern and midwestern states in play for the Democrats.”

  WRONG.
  Frum has NEVER said that social conservatives should get out of either the conservative movement or the political party.

  What Frum wants, and what I want, is for social conservatives to be part of a broad coalition, as was the case in the late 1970s. But that means they have to *compromise* on issues with other parts of that coalition.

  I am an economic conservative. I do *not* want a Human Life Amendment or a Marriage Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. I do *not* believe that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protections.

  Look at the 1980 GOP Platform. Those things were NOT in there. Yet social conservatives worked tirelessly to help the GOP win–and to help Reagan win.

  The 1980 Platform, not the 2004 Platform, should be our model for the future. It was inclusive and forward looking, without looking like the Religious Right wrote the whole thing. And it was a winning platform.

• 83 sinz54 // May 30, 2009 at 6:54 am

  Dr. Tesla claims: “So, what does he do when a brilliant, youthful woman joined the ticket”

  What *evidence* is there that Sarah Palin is “brilliant”???

  In her one-on-one interviews, she displayed a stunning ignorance of issues beyond Alaska. I could answer those questions much better than she could.

  And in her debate with Biden, she actually admitted that she couldn’t give a relevant answer to a straight question and would instead use the questions to spew forth canned talking-points. And she did.

  Sarah Palin was simply not ready for national office. But then, neither was Harry Truman when FDR picked him. That’s why Sarah Palin didn’t enter into my decision as to whom to vote for. If McCain had won, she could have learned on the job. But that would take time.

• 84 ChristianMiller // May 30, 2009 at 6:59 am

  Well, at least Crystal is ahead of Colin Powell and Bruce Bartlett in discovering Obama’s true nature or maybe she has no chance of a job in the administration or the media.

  You know, the media bribes people like Frum. Attention is a currency and those like Frum and Powell are nothing without the platform of the statist media. They can put up a web site, but that isn’t enough obviously. Judging by the number of writers who post here vs comments, it’s not a high-traffic site. Then, when you consider the comments and break them down politically at best 1/3 of them agree essentially with Frum, 1/3 are voyeuristic Democrats like Krove and the other 1/3 are those like Tesla Barker and myself who disagree and are conservative.

  There is only one way for those like Frum or Powell to get attention and that is to bash Republicans and conservatives. David Gergen went to work for Clinton and then was given lifetime tenure on CNN. It is a particularly despicable how this type allows themselves to be used. They provide the fake balance – the palatable balance the left leaning producers want to present. They provide credibility, “See, even the Republican guy thinks this is wrong…” The media desperately need these types because Democrats can always be counted on to disparage in any way all things remotely conservative or Republican to the point where they have little or no credibility they are so predictable. Enter the magic Republican, the “reasonable” Republican who provides a modicum of perspective but never violates the central tenet of debate in the MSM which is: Thou shalt not challenge the assumptions of the hosts and the producers.

  All they do is confirm for committed Democrats that their world-view is right, nothing more.

  And they don’t convince moderates or independents that Republicans are reasonable and open-minded because they are forever pointing out how horrible right-wing Republicans are (which is the very reason they are on air) and that if only these right-wingers didn’t exist, or would shut up and go away, then moderates would feel able to vote Republican. It is a complete hypothetical and false choice. There will always be a right wing of the party, Limbaugh isn’t going to abandon his 20 million audience to follow Frum’s advice and everyone knows it. The conservatives are not going away, so all the Frum’s of the world are perpetually complaining in public about their own supposed party not being accessible to everyone is the message people hear over and over and it becomes a self-perpetuated meme. It is in fact CREATED and perpetuated by Frum.

  No one is saying Powell can’t be a Republican. No one is saying Crystal here is not allowed to vote R in the next election. No one is keeping Frum from voting for the GOP. I hope lots more people do but don’t lecture us that you voted for a left-winger because you are upset over the direction of the GOP. That doesn’t make sense. You should be triply upset at the direction of the Democrat party. Adding yourselves to their ledger, to their “landslide” as they would like to pretend, to their majority to use for propaganda purposes is not inspiring to those of us who really ARE on the battlefield.

• 85 ChristianMiller // May 30, 2009 at 7:05 am

  Part of what is happening here is that those who have no principles want those who do to abandon their principles.

  “See, it’s not difficult, you just put your principles on hold for the sake of winning, it’s easy, we do it all the time.”

• 86 ChristianMiller // May 30, 2009 at 7:08 am

  And because the lefty media doesn’t play fair and keeps one entire and crucial perspective from the debate, is the VERY REASON Talk Radio exists and is popular!

• 87 sinz54 // May 30, 2009 at 7:38 am

  Franco sez: “There will always be a right wing of the party”

  Will there also be a moderate wing? How about a left wing? And will the right wing always be dictating policy?

  When I was a kid, the GOP had actual liberals like NY Senator Jacob Javits and Massachusetts Senator Ed Brooke (who was black, incidentally). If they were alive today, Javits and Brooke would have been angrily chased out of the party by all the right-wing “RINO-hunters.”

• 88 sinz54 // May 30, 2009 at 7:43 am

  Franco sez: “Part of what is happening here is that those who have no principles “

  See, there you go again.

  You’re trying to define away anybody who disagrees with you, by claiming they are unprincipled.

  Here’s a clue: MODERATION is a principle. It’s a recognition that at this stage in human civilization, no political doctrine is 100% perfect or 100% ideal. Hence you always run into issues for which no political doctrine has perfect answers; and hence following any political doctrine to the letter can often create more problems than it solves.

  PRAGMATISM is also a principle. It evaluates political systems and doctrines by utilitarianism: Will you be better off following them than you were? (Notice how close this is to that famous line Reagan used in his debate with Carter)

  SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE is a principle. It says that for a government (as opposed to a church), whether a fetus is a person is a *personal value*, not a timeless absolute. And hence the Human Life Amendment is wrong.

  See, moderates have principles too.

• 89 sinz54 // May 30, 2009 at 7:47 am

  Franco sez: “No one is saying Powell can’t be a Republican. No one is saying Crystal here is not allowed to vote R in the next election. No one is keeping Frum from voting for the GOP.”

  You left out a very important caveat: To you, they can vote GOP– *provided* they don’t attempt to alter the GOP’s platform, or its candidates, in any way. IOW, all they can do is stand back and do nothing until they march into the voting booth on Election Day. You’re basically giving them an ultimatum: “This is *my* GOP–love it or leave it.”

  NO!
  We don’t just want to “vote Republican.” We want to help define what Republicans should stand for in this era.

  If there’s a right-wing of the GOP, we want to be part of the *other* wing.

• 90 sinz54 // May 30, 2009 at 7:50 am

  David Frum sez: “New contributor Crystal Wright yesterday posted a debut piece here at NM explaining why she now regrets her vote for Barack Obama in November 2008.”

  Ms. Wright never explained exactly *why* she voted for Obama. Could we please get her to come back to NM and explain her reasons?

• 91 R.E. Munn // May 30, 2009 at 8:00 am

  While I agree that we should welcome all comers to the conservative fold, doing so cannot require that we redefine, or conceal, what is at the core of our beliefs. Therefore, I do say “Welcome Crystal”, but at the same time I doubt her self-identification as a “moderate conservative” My doubt is simple: No informed conservative, moderate or otherwise, could have voted for Barack Obama, period, full stop.
  I am constrained also to reiterate that David Frum should shed his tendency to argue from the particular to the general, or, in his case, perhaps more precisely, from the personal to the general. David is a very smart guy, and his opinion is always to be considered, but he is not infallible. And, in this matter of the proper timbre to be struck by conservatives he is wrong. That does not mean that we conservatives simply should adopt the slash and burn rhetoric and comportment, but we can counterbalance those who do employ these tactics without denying the truth in what they say.
  One other thing that often annoys me is that people frequently assume that neoconservatives are conservatives, when it is clear that they are not.

• 92 WINDe // May 30, 2009 at 8:08 am

  Re: Tesla

  You continue presenting arguments with more vitriol than empirical or logical support. You are one among many (lib and con) who have not earned the certainty and unilateralist posture with which they espouse their beliefs.
  To earn certainty one must engage in rational, logical thought, must evaluate ideas based solely on the merits of the statement.

  Fuzzy, non-functional statements such as:
  -”Palin’s done a hell of a lot more in her life than has Noonan.”
  -”To suggest Rush is so polarizing to the point that Republicans cannot win elections is laughable. He’s not polarizing in my view to anybody but a true liberal.”
  -”Not one conservative publication has run his anti-Rush and Levin diatribes. They’ve come down on the side of Rush and conservative talk radio, and they have essentially shunned and ignored Frum.”

  These are ridiculously flimsy statements. Textbook examples of rhetorical device implemented to the exclusion of logic, empirical support, your statements don’t even conform to basic semantic structure. In short, much of the lengthy posts you put up here are useless fluff.

  p.s. What is the sudden predilection for estimating site traffic by way of the comment section? If we don’t maintain a productive discourse why should we expect anyone to post here?

• 93 raphael a // May 30, 2009 at 8:22 am

  This is the tragedy of conservatism, a political movement that correctly understands the government’s primary role to protect its citizens: It is no fun. The majority of comments are by people more concerned with winning arguments than winning over voters. After reading a few it’s hard not fall asleep. People are taking at each other and scoring debate points, as in “Ms. Wright may not technically be a moderate conservative!” Bo-ring.
  Meanwhile, promiscuous slut liberals keep winning over voters with their play-now, pay-later schemes.
  They only sober up when things hit rock bottom, like post Dinkins New York or post 9-11 America, and only temporarily so before they go back to their bankrupting ways.
  Conservatives need to loosen up and take the cork out of their ass.
  Welcome to the club, Ms Wright.
  And PS, I think you’re hot.
  dailyraphirmations.com

• 94 nwahs // May 30, 2009 at 8:25 am

  Franco, do you even think and consider what you are writing before you post, or do go strictly on anger level?

  You posted this:
  “You know, the media bribes people like Frum. Attention is a currency and those like Frum and Powell are nothing without the platform of the statist media. They can put up a web site, but that isn’t enough obviously. “

  Before posting, did you even give Frum’s bio a cursory look? Do you honestly believe Frum is engaging in this debate for narcissistic reasons? I would venture to say Frum has accomplished more in his life thus far than 99.9% of people in this country, ever will. And yet the childish, schoolyard bully rhetoric is so ingrained in you, this drivel flows from keyboard as if it were reason. Its not. Do you know the difference between reason and bad behavior? Are you so programmed by radio conservatism that you can’t have an adult level conversation?

  I mean, enough already.

• 95 Shootist // May 30, 2009 at 8:51 am

  Ah, the egregious Frum who read out of the Conservative movement all those who did not support the new neocon Imperialism

  Humbug.

• 96 Shootist // May 30, 2009 at 9:37 am

  Dang hard to be heard through the noise but I’m going to try.

  I admire WFB, but WFB like Reagan, was a democrat who disagreed with how their party wanted to wage the Cold War. They, both of them, became Republicans because of this. They were the REAL neo-cons or New Conservatives (and bear little resembalence to the in-aptly named, current crop of “neocons”).

  But neither were Conservative. Buckley fit in well with the Blue-blooded Country Club Republicans (he never drove his own car and had a chauffeur his entire life) and Reagan, while less liberal than Pat Brown, was Liberal enough to be elected Gov of California. And Liberal enough to gather a winning coalition in ‘80 and ‘84.

  Reagan supported the Brady Bill and Law. No conservative would EVER support such a thing. But Reagan did and I will never forgive him for that.

• 97 Shootist // May 30, 2009 at 9:43 am

  Dang hard to be heard through the noise but I’m going to try.

  I admire WFB, but WFB like Reagan, was a democrat who disagreed with how their party wanted to wage the Cold War. They, both of them, became Republicans because of this. They were the REAL neo-cons or New Conservatives (and bear little resembalence to the in-aptly named, current crop of “neocons”).

  But neither were Conservative. Buckley fit in well with the Blue-blooded Country Club Republicans (he never drove his own car and had a chauffeur his entire life) and Reagan, while less liberal than Pat Brown, was Liberal enough to be elected Gov of California. And Liberal enough to gather a winning coalition in ‘80 and ‘84.

  Reagan supported the Brady Bill and Law. No conservative would EVER support such a thing. But Reagan did and I will never forgive him for that.

• 98 raphael a // May 30, 2009 at 10:24 am

  I fail to understand the productivity behind these Republican purity tests, as opposed to leaving food for thought at liberal sites or op-ed pieces. Not that getting sucked into an angry person’s orbit on a sunny weekend morning isn’t great fun.

  If memory serves correct, Alito and Roberts were confirmed with the help of the 4-5 RINOS in the Senate, whereas committed intellectual conservative Justice Douglas Ginsburg was not even brought to a vote, because uber-conservative Strom Thurmond objected to his experimenting with marijuana as an undergrad. That’s what purity tests will yield. (The DA in South Carolina threatened to arrest Michael Phelps over a bong hit, which would have certainly helped the U.S. swim team get the gold in 2012.)
  South Carolina governor Mark Sanford is working with – black LIBERAL DEMOCRATS such as Harold Ford- to try and become the first state that permeates charter schools and vouchers.
  That’s what coalition building yields. And no one is asking anyone to forgo their principles. I may not agree with Paul Gigot on immigration policy, but I’d still rather have him in office minding the store than any Democrat.

  dailyraphirmations.com

• 99 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 11:09 am

  The problem with leftwing blowhards liek WINDE is that they, like David Frum, want to define what is “productive” debate and what is not.

  There’s a website that I have seen that shows how much traffic that this website gets. It is almost nothing compared to other political websites. I’ll try to find that website earlier that has the comparison but I don’t care if you believe or not. I think the fact that Frum sold few of his books kind of indicates he’s failed utterly to convince most Republican voters that the party should flip off the conservative base and become leftwing on most issues. What’s the point of a conservative voting for a Republican party that is in agreement with Democrats on 90% of the issues, as David Frum is? I vote for principles, not party. I don’t apologize to the liberal Republicans in here for that. You guys need to go join the Democrat party and moderate it. Good luck with that.

• 100 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 11:13 am

  I don’t think anybody is suggesting that people who support the Republican party have to support every aspect of traditional conservatism. But if you support 80-90% of liberalilsm as Frum clearly does, it’s logical to conclude that he needs to find a new party rather than attention whore and lecture the majority of the Republican party, the conservative base, on how it can win elections. His strategy for winning elections is incredibly shortsighted. He’s a Canadian with no understanding of United States voting demographics. Flipping off social conservatives and support of tax hikes as Frum proclaims the GOP should embrace will only put all 50 states into play for the Democrats. Democrats don’t win VA, NC, FL, OH if a conservative Republican is at the top of the ticket, especially to a rookie community organizer with radical assocations.

• 101 ModerateGal // May 30, 2009 at 1:06 pm

  Why is it that Democrats can welcome moderate liberals, but Republicans can’t welcome moderate Republicans?

  It seems to me that Republicans need to welcome some folks who voted for Obama last time without saying “I told you so” or “How dumb were you to have voted for Obama?” It just doesn’t seem like a good way to win friends and influence people. Isn’t that David Frum’s point with this website?

• 102 ModerateGal // May 30, 2009 at 1:23 pm

  Why is it that Democrats can welcome moderate liberals, but Republicans can’t welcome moderate Republicans?

  It seems to me that Republicans need to welcome some folks who voted for Obama last time without saying “I told you so” or “How dumb were you to have voted for Obama?” It just doesn’t seem like a good way to win friends and influence people. Isn’t that David Frum’s point with this website?

• 103 greg_barton // May 30, 2009 at 1:39 pm

  Just reading over the comments here it kind of makes me sad. I loved political environment of the Clinton years, mainly because there was a dynamic balance: Democrat in the white house, republicans ruling the house. I firmly believe this is why we had such economic good times. Yes, I’m a liberal Democrat, but I recognize the value of the opposition. The current situation is OK in my opinion, but balance needs to be reinstated eventually. It’s my firm hope that the Republicans can take back the house, but I don’t see that happening with their current trajectory. It’s a shame.

• 104 WINDe // May 30, 2009 at 1:57 pm

  greg-barton

  what “current trajectory”? highly subjective.
  you’re smirking as you bow, and it’s only been 5

• 105 WINDe // May 30, 2009 at 2:06 pm

  greg-barton

  what “current trajectory”? highly subjective.
  you’re smirking as you bow, and it’s only been 5

• 106 sinz54 // May 30, 2009 at 5:03 pm

  ModerateGal: The youthful “netroots” in the Dem Party have been hostile to Dem moderates. Perhaps you’ve forgotten how they tried to destroy Joe Lieberman, by running an antiwar candidate, Lamont, against him in the Connecticut Dem primaries? And the main reason why Hillary didn’t get the nomination was that the “netroots” perceived her as insufficiently antiwar.

  Going further back in time, an earlier bunch of left-wing ideologues had seized control of the Dem Party in the 1970s and 1980s. They gave us candidates like McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis.

  When any political party suffers a string of defeats, the true believers can’t accept that their ideas could possibly be wrong. Hence they jump to the conclusion that the reason they lost was that they just didn’t articulate their ideas forcefully enough.

  The GOP has no monopoly on such fallacies.

  The hardest thing of all is to look in the mirror and ask yourself “Could I be wrong about some of my most cherished assumptions?”

• 107 Chrisc23 // May 30, 2009 at 6:44 pm

  The Republican party will win again when they start talking about individual responsibility and personal liberty again. If the Republican party would stand up against the “nanny” state we will win. Otherwise we are no better than the Democrats.

• 108 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 7:04 pm

  I think the money question is what is David Frum’s end game…what has he gained by attacking Limbaugh, Levin, and conservative talk radio?

  Has it stopped people from listening to conservative talk radio? Hell no. Rush’s numbers are way up since Obama started attacking him.

  Have conservative publications to include National Review, Human Events, etc, embraced David Frum’s view? Nope.

  Has Frum made a persuasive case for his belief that the Republican party become Democrat-lite? I see no evidence of that…the majority of people, even people interested in politics, still don’t know who David Frum is.

  Does personally attacking Rush and Levin help Frum make the case for his own views? I don’t see how.

  Who has Frum brought to the Republican party? I hear former liberals call in Rush’s show all the time and tell him that he converted them.

  How can you bring people to the REpublican party if you yourself do not hold most of it’s beliefs?

  That’s why it’s twilight zone when Frum and Colin Powell are lecturing the conservative base on what the Republican party needs to do, and they even suggest the GOP has gone hard right, when it fact the party has been going left for a long time. Bush’s support of out of control spending, amnensty, his silence on abortion, etc were hardly that of “hard right” Republican. Anybody with intellectual honesty knows that McCain was a liberal except on national security and a few other issues (although he never spoke up for his pro-life views). The GOP right now seems closer to what Frum wants than what Rush or Levin wants, and it just lost big to McCain. And Frum suggests it go futhur to the left, raise taxes and flip off social conservatives, and it can be viable? This is just sloppy thinking.

• 109 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 7:15 pm

  Moderate Gal,

  What liberal Democrat welcomes a pro-lifer? I don’t see that one. What liberal welcomes a moderate that supports lower taxes? Don’t see any evidence of that.

  I don’t oppose some “moderate” voting for the REpublican party for any reason. We’d love to have their votes even if they don’t agree with us.

  The fact is most moderates are either liberals or they just vote for whichever candidate they like the most, like it’s American Idol or something.

  Why should the majority of the Republican party welcome Frum and Colin Powell and others who constantly attack what we believe? We have no obligation to become more liberal like them. They are a tiny minority, and Powell, in my view, has always been a leftist. The man supports affirmative action and racial quotas, and anybody that says “the majority of the American people want big government” and votes for Obama is not a Republican….it’s simply smarmy for Powell to assert this.

  .

• 110 ModerateGal // May 30, 2009 at 9:32 pm

  Sinz and Tesla, maybe the two of you should get out more.

  Sinz, Connecticut is one anecdote in one tiny state, and you are wrong in thinking Hillary didn’t get the nomination because she wasn’t seen as insufficiently antiwar. It was because they had seen the writing on the wall and knew that there was enough hate out there for her that she wasn’t ever going to be a winner. Running Hillary would have absolutely gotten the opposition riled to kick her butt.

  Tesla, There were a lot of pro-lifers who voted for Obama this time. They were able to see that the Republican party has done nothing for them and that the Democratic party actually wants to lessen the number of abortions by increasing education and lessening the need for abortions. And those who are pro-choice welcomed those who see that they aren’t pro-abortion (which is just an incredibly ignorant way for anyone to ever refer to them), but that they really have the same goal but just see a different way to obtain it.

  Whether you can see it or not, the Obama campaign worked hard to reach across to those who would otherwise have voted for McCain.

  And why does everyone here continually describe every Democrat as a “liberal Democrat”. I find that they cover a lot of ground and not everyone is hard left.

  And Tesla, your statement, “We’d love to have their votes even if they don’t agree with us” has got to be one of the dumbest things ever written.

  The perfect word for the current Republican party and a number of posters here is OBTUSE.

• 111 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 9:40 pm

  Moderate Gal,

  You seem to be the token uptight militant feminist that votes Democrat. Good luck with that.

  You asserted that Republicans don’t want the moderate vote. That was the stupid assertion. Sure we want your vote, even if you don’t agree with us on anything.

  What exactly are you moderate on? Most people that describe themselves as moderates are just insecure liberals. What positions do you take on issues would be considered the conservative position? Enlighten us.

• 112 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 9:43 pm

  The Republicans Who Really Matter
  By Robert Stacy McCain on 5.18.09 @ 6:08AM

  Should my advice be solicited by any ambition young writer seeking the quickest path to wealth and fame, I would outline a strategy like this:

  Establish yourself early as a “promising conservative intellectual” — Become the token conservative columnist for your college newspaper, get into a Republican youth leadership summer program, do an internship at National Review or a GOP-leaning non-profit.

  Aggressively suck up to Republican politicians — Try to land a speechwriting or “policy advisor” gig for a senator or governor who is seen as a prospect in the next presidential campaign.

  Once you’ve made a name for yourself, go “rogue” — That is to say, after leaving your job as a Republican staffer, think-tank analyst or conservative journalist, do everything possible to sabotage GOP prospects.

  Followed carefully, this plan will land you a book deal before you’re 30, a regular spot as a panelist on a Sunday network news show, and a twice-weekly op-ed column in an influential newspaper.

  Important magazines will devote their covers to a 5,000-word excerpt from your latest book, which must bear a provocative title like, Lose One for the Gipper: How Evangelical Extremists Hijacked the Reagan Legacy. CNN will offer you a lucrative contract as a “conservative analyst” for their coverage of GOP national convention, and you’ll be invited to all the right cocktail parties in Georgetown.

• 113 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 9:44 pm

  Previous column, continued:

  In your meteoric ascent through the ranks of the punditocracy, be sure to choose as your friends only those who are important enough to be helpful in your career. Take care never to stake yourself too clearly to any policy position that might be unfashionable with the producers of “Nightline,” and avoid directly denouncing any Democrat named Kennedy.

  This way, no matter which party is in power, you’ll never be out of work and you’ll always be invited to the White House Correspondents Dinner because, after all, you’re so gosh-darn influential. In short, you will be one of The Republicans Who Really Matter.

  Such prestige is never attained by anyone who is a straight-forward, down-the-line conservative, because the arbitrators of Republican prestige are not conservative. You’re not going to get favorable treatment from, say, “60 Minutes” by being a dependable voice for the grassroots GOP. Nor will any out-and-out conservative be cited as an authoritative source in the latest iteration of the twice-yearly Time magazine feature on Republican Party infighting. (Sample cover blurb: “Right-Wing Insurgency: Threat or Menace?”)

  The Republicans Who Really Matter can be relied on to reinforce liberal stereotypes of the GOP, and to pen op-ed columns offering “helpful” advice to the Republican Party which, if followed, would lead to certain electoral disaster.

  During the Cold War, such people always counseled friendship with the Soviet Union. They spent the 1990s alternately advocating “moderate” gun control and defending “sensible” tax increases. No Republican pundit is ever going to become influential by buddying up to Wayne LaPierre or right-to-lifers; make favorable mention of environmentalism, however, and MSNBC producers will flood your inbox with e-mail invitations to a 10-minute guest segment on “Hardball.”

  One reliable method for advancing to the pinnacle as a Republican commentator is to argue that the party is badly divided, and to blame this fragmentation on some constituency universally loathed by liberals. Relentlessly criticize “Corporate America” and Rush Limbaugh, but never say a bad word about Olympia Snowe, nor write anything flattering about any Republican from Mississippi.

  Another tried-and-true stratagem for the conservative craving publication on the front of the “Outlook” section of Sunday’s Washington Post: “The Conservative Case for [Insert Pet Liberal Cause Here].”

  Fifty-two weeks a year, the editors of liberal newspapers are seeking thoughtful Sunday commentaries making the case for why Republicans should support late-term abortion, unrestricted immigration, tax increases, or draconian measures to limit carbon emissions. The ambitious young GOP pundit who plays his cards just right can rotate his Sundays between the op-ed pages of the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, and so forth.

  Of course, it goes without saying that any liberal who tries to reverse-engineer this formula will soon find himself ostracized from polite society. Fame and fortune await the Weekly Standard staffer who denounces fellow conservatives as mean-spirited bigots; poverty and obscurity is the fate of the Nation columnist who loses faith in feminism or gay rights.

  No, only GOP quislings and conservative turncoats can enhance their social status by plunging knives into the backs of their alleged ideological allies and partisan friends. Somewhere out there at this very moment is the Kathleen Parker of tomorrow, the future David Gergen biding his time while waiting for the opportune moment to strike.

  Today, our ambitious young assassin is just another political operative, an obscure think-tank wonk. But tomorrow — or whenever the time arrives to blame GOP woes on hateful “extremists” — he’ll be celebrated as the newest member of that elite crowd, The Republicans Who Really Matter.

• 114 WINDe // May 30, 2009 at 10:05 pm

  Dr. Tesla. You’re still at it.

  None of what you say has any basis. I can’t believe you keep this up.

  What you are doing amounts to hijacking this forum.

  -”What liberal Democrat welcomes a pro-lifer? I don’t see that one. What liberal welcomes a moderate that supports lower taxes? Don’t see any evidence of that.”

  -”Who has Frum brought to the Republican party? I hear former liberals call in Rush’s show all the time and tell him that he converted them.”

  These statements are based on nothing, more malevolent stream of consciousness than debate or discourse. Are you on painkillers?? Your thoughts have no substance; reading your prose is like being pushed through an acidic raincloud.

  Please, something substantial, anything. and also, stop pasting whole articles by other people in a comment section.

• 115 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 10:08 pm

  All you do is ad hominem attack me, guy.

  If by merely posting in this forum, I’ve also hijacked it, can I not accuse you of the same thing?

  What liberal Democrat is a fan of a pro-life Democrat? The Democrats threw Joe Lieberman under the bus simply for supporting the Iraq war, despite the fact Lieberman votes liberal on 99.99% of the issues.

  Your pretentious lecturing of me is amusing.

• 116 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 10:11 pm

  Have not liberal Democrats asserted that conservatives do not want the moderate vote, ie we do not welcome them?

  I simply slapped down that silly premise….I’m all about this woman voting for the Republican party, if the REpublican party is a conservative party. I’m fairly confidents she’s not all that conservative if she voted for Obama, but if she wants to vote for a conservative Republican party, I’m all for it.

• 117 WINDe // May 30, 2009 at 10:13 pm

  I’m not your guy, pal.

  Tesla,

  You are spam posting noxious, baseless drivel. Posting Whole articles by other people in a comment section. That “amounts to hijacking it”, I didn’t say you were quote unquote hijacking it, I said you may as well be.

  Now, your next point. What liberal? I quote ModerateGal, in her response on this topic to you hours ago:

  “Tesla, There were a lot of pro-lifers who voted for Obama this time. They were able to see that the Republican party has done nothing for them and that the Democratic party actually wants to lessen the number of abortions by increasing education and lessening the need for abortions. And those who are pro-choice welcomed those who see that they aren’t pro-abortion (which is just an incredibly ignorant way for anyone to ever refer to them), but that they really have the same goal but just see a different way to obtain it.”

  Your pretentious, precious and cliche use of the term “amusing” to condescend to someone you can’t defeat Amuses me.

• 118 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 10:22 pm

  There was not much posting going on in here so I don’t see how my posting an entire article disrupted much. Stop whining, guy. There are kids with cancer who don’t whine, yet you whine about what I post on some obscure website. Man up.

  No true pro-lifer voted for Obama. The guy supports partial birth abortion and voted for 3 infanticide bills that would allow a doctor to “finish the job” outside the womb if the baby survived the abortion. I kind of think the baby has kind of earned the right to live he or she survives an abortion, no? You aren’t pro-life if you are willing to vote for someone that radical on abortion.

  If you are are not opposed to abortion be banned, you are for abortion. TO suggest you are “personally” opposed to abortion but oppose it being banned is just not logical….it would be like saying you are opposed to slavery, rape, theft, murder, etc but oppose it being banned. Why would you be personally against abortion if there’s nothing unethical about it? Why not support more abortion if there’s no ethical problems with it?

• 119 WINDe // May 30, 2009 at 10:28 pm

  ok, good.

  No true pro-lifer voted for Obama. The guy supports partial birth abortion and voted for 3 infanticide bills that would allow a doctor to “finish the job” outside the womb if the baby survived the abortion. I kind of think the baby has kind of earned the right to live he or she survives an abortion, no? You aren’t pro-life if you are willing to vote for someone that radical on abortion.

  good point.

  does Obama’s record project to reflect the pattern you cite in his past? Does he even have the political wiggle room to.. do what, what is it you think he might do?

  Your next point:
  Opposing the banning of abortion is much more complicated than being “For abortion”.
  -banning abortion is an invasion of personal freedom. It just is. It’s invasive in a way that many other issues of personal liberty are not. It’s not a perfect point of argument, but it counts for something.
  -It doesn’t seem like Obama plans anything drastic with the issue, he has been approaching it from the more political savvy direction of prevention and education as policy, effectively a null action.
  -banning abortion isn’t likely to bring the practice of it to a complete halt. It should be a state right to determine such policy, is that your viewpoint?

• 120 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 10:32 pm

  As you can see in my previous post, the case against abortion is a persausive one and liberals have no logical defense for abortion. If you note that the majority of younger women vote for the Democrat party primarily for that one reason, it makes sense to me to make the case against abortion. I believe that we can persuade a good number of young women to flip on abortion, and thus they will also become open minded to other conservative positions. Single issue voters like women who only vote Democrat for abortion are easy targets to convert in my view.

• 121 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 10:40 pm

  What’s amusing to me is how leftwing Obama supporters try to make him out as a centrist on abortion. Only a political hack would assert something that absurd…Obama is easily the most radical left politician and president on abortion our country has seen.

• 122 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 10:42 pm

  Prediction:

  Crystal Wright votes for Obama in 2012.

• 123 WINDe // May 30, 2009 at 10:43 pm

  Yes, I understand the case against abortion.

  Can you understand the case for personal rights? The case for keeping the Federal Government’s hands out of my wife?

  The case for it’s a political anathema issue, even Bush only paid lip service to the issue, that’s why, as ModerateGal pointed out, many pro-lifers voted for Obama.

  You haven’t addressed all of my points. And I think you’re picking and choosing because you know the abortion issue is unwinnable.

  Confronted on a broad, general face, you retreat to abortion, an unwinnable issue.

  Be a sport. Address my points one by one, as I address yours.

• 124 WINDe // May 30, 2009 at 10:47 pm

  “What’s amusing to me is how leftwing Obama supporters try to make him out as a centrist on abortion. Only a political hack would assert something that absurd…Obama is easily the most radical left politician and president on abortion our country has seen.”

  Got any evidence to support that? Some links? What exactly do you expect him TO DO?

• 125 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 10:48 pm

  As I pointed out, if you are truly pro-life, you could not have voted for Obama. That’s just not logical, as he is the most radical pro-abortion politician we’ve seen.

  Can you understand that something is not a right if it violates another right, the right to life? I don’t think your wife gets to decide the fate of the fetus simply because the fetus is inside of her.

  I’ve agreed that Bush never spoke up much against abortion, which is why I find it amusing that Frum and others assert the Republican party has taken a hard line on social issues like abortion. It seems to me both parties want to run away from the issue of abortion.

  The fact of the mattter is you would support abortion no matter what…you are not interested in whether the fetus is alive or not, only the woman’s right to chose to get rid of it.

• 126 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 10:52 pm

  For starters, he could not allow tax revenue to be used to fund abortions. That’s radical on abortion.

  He could have not supported bills for partial birth abortion ,and 3 bills supporting infanticide (even barbara boxer didn’t vote for the infanticide bills).

  I propose that he see the light on abortion, admit he was wrong on the issue, and advocate a law should be passed in Congress that any physician that performs an abortion will be stripped of his right to practice medicine.

  Do you think he will do all that?

• 127 WINDe // May 30, 2009 at 11:00 pm

  Tesla: “I propose that he see the light on abortion, admit he was wrong on the issue, and advocate a law should be passed in Congress that any physician that performs an abortion will be stripped of his right to practice medicine.

  Do you think he will do all that? ”

  No, I don’t think he will do all that. Did Bush? Has anyone in the political area even proposed such policy?

  Is it even possible?
  Do the majority if pro-lifers advocate such an unrealistic outcome?

• 128 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 11:03 pm

  There’s not much middle ground on abortion. I would allow exceptions for rape and potential death to the mother in childbirth, but in general, you are for abortion, or you are against it. It’s not a position that has a middle ground…you are essentially trying to split a bicycle and half a bicycle is of no use.

  Nothing that I have said is hateful. I’m sure it’s polarizing to an abortion zealot like you, but that doesn’t make it hateful.

  I think it’s unethical to terminate a fetus’s life simply because all the woman wanted was an orgasm. That just doesn’t fly with me. If you can prove to me that a fetus has no life, I’d be on your side. You want to glide over the core of the abortion debate and make it about women’s rights. But if it’s a woman’s right, why are so many women, especially mothers, opposed to abortion? I don’t see these same women opposed to the right to vote, etc.

• 129 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 11:05 pm

  WINDe

  You asked me what I thought he should do on abortion. I told you…it’s what I think all politicians should do. I’m not all that concerned if it’s “realistic” or not. It could be realistic if politicians and other people starting making the case against abortion. As I have shown here, it’s an easy debate for conservatives to win….thanks for helping me demonstrate that today.

  Insulting me won’t make you right on this issue.

• 130 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 11:13 pm

  Let me throw this out..it’s not an angle on the abortion issue that you see…I’m the only one to use it, and I think it’s very insightful.

  Imagine that it was men that had the babies, rather than women, but everything else about men and women remained the same….men were in general physically stronger than women, and women were more “emotional” than men. (This is not a criticism of women, just an observation that in general men and women are different).

  Do you think most women would support abortion if it was men that got pregnant and were aborting the fetuses? I personally think most of the women that are abortion zealots now would be opposed to abortion if it was men that got pregnant and performed the act. OUr society has no problem with accusing men of acting like barbarians when they act like barbarians. It’s my belief that men feel uncomfortable opposing abortion because they don’t wish to accuse women of being barbarians even if they believe the act of of abortion to be barbaric. There’s just a different standard for men and women, and society seems to go a little easier on women than it does for men. I think there is no doubt abortion would be illegal if men were the ones that got pregnant but everything else about men and women stayed the same. Nearly all women would oppose it.

• 131 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 11:21 pm

  No worries…..conservatives have won the debate on abortion on the merits…it’s just a matter of winning the political battle. When liberal Democrats state they are “personally” against abortion and that abortions should be “rare” but legal, they indirectly admit that abortion is unethical because there is no reason for abortions to be rare or for them to be personally opposed to abortion if the act of abortion is not unethical.

• 132 WINDe // May 30, 2009 at 11:21 pm

  Your pregnant man proposition is a joke. The dynamic of culpability and personal liberty is identical, gender irrelevant.

• 133 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 11:22 pm

  I could argue that you use women as a shield like Saddam does (although Saddam is dead).

• 134 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 11:24 pm

  Maybe so….we, obviously, will never know. But I know women, and I know if they weren’t the ones that got pregnant, most of them would be opposed to abortion.

• 135 WINDe // May 30, 2009 at 11:25 pm

  No, I do not. In this case, whether it is a woman or a man (as you propose) who is pregnant, they are entitled to rights, just as the child is. It is a difficult issue. But it hasn’t been “won”, by conservatives or anyone.

• 136 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 11:27 pm

  On the merits, conservatives have won the debate…the abortionists like you are the ones on the defensive.

  I don’t see how a woman’s selfish interests could logically override the right to life of an unborn child.

• 137 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 11:31 pm

  One of the beautiful things about abortion is that does bring the militant feminists and the male pigs together on an issue. Both want to avoid personal responsiblity.

• 138 WINDe // May 30, 2009 at 11:32 pm

  I can’t believe you use smiley faces so much.

  It’s perfect.

• 139 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 11:33 pm

  I don’t listen or watch Beck. I’m a Rush fan, and I like Levin but he comes on later at night when I”m up to other stuff.

  Beck does get emotional, but I don’t think it’s an act as angry leftists try to make it out. Nothing wrong with a man being in touch with his feminine side.

• 140 WINDe // May 30, 2009 at 11:40 pm

  WINDe
  wrote 49 minutes ago

  Yes, I understand the case against abortion.

  Can you understand the case for personal rights? The case for keeping the Federal Government’s hands out of my wife?

  The case for it’s a political anathema issue, even Bush only paid lip service to the issue, that’s why, as ModerateGal pointed out, many pro-lifers voted for Obama.

  You haven’t addressed all of my points. And I think you’re picking and choosing because you know the abortion issue is unwinnable.

  Confronted on a broad, general face, you retreat to abortion, an unwinnable issue.

  Be a sport. Address my points one by one, as I address yours.

• 141 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 11:45 pm

  I think that I have addressed your points. You just chose to ignore my rebuttal. You can say over and over that it’s a woman’s right to choose, but that does not make it true and rather glosses over what is controversial about the abortion issue in general. If a woman wanted to “abort” her pancreas, I would think it odd, but I wouldn’t be all that concerned other than maybe suggest she get some pyschiatric help. The baby is not her body, and that is why abortion is controversial. To suggest that people who oppose abortion are against women rights and just want to oppress women is a bit smarmy.

• 142 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 11:49 pm

  Imagine men, if they were the ones that got pregnant but everything else about men and women stayed the same, trying to justify abortion on the basis of men rights.

  Smirk.

• 143 Dr. Tesla // May 30, 2009 at 11:52 pm

  You know what just struck me. Frum is using this Crystal babe as the poster child of a new moderate GOP voter, while at the same time he is telling us Rush and Levin are driving away the moderates like Crystal.

  Kind of seems like a contradiction, but I don’t think Frum is much of a thinker.

• 144 Bedtime4Bonzo // May 31, 2009 at 12:22 am

  Dr. Tesla
  wrote 48 minutes ago

  I don’t listen or watch Beck. I’m a Rush fan, and I like Levin but he comes on later at night when I”m up to other stuff.

  wow… gross again.. what other stuff

• 145 sinz54 // May 31, 2009 at 6:43 am

  Dr. Tesla claims: “There’s not much middle ground on abortion.”

  Sure there is.

  Abortion is inextricably bound up with the question of “What is a person?”

  Personhood has no scientific definition, only a sociological one. We can assign it at any point in the development of a fertilized egg. Pro-lifers generally assign it at the very start of fertilization; pro-choicers somewhere later down the line. I happen to assign it to the point at which the fetal brain has developed to the point that it is generating “human” brain waves. That is somewhere in the second trimester.

  Society makes these arbitrary distinctions all the time. What is an “adult”? A 13 year old (say the Jews with Bar Mitzvah)? A 16 year old? An 18 year old? If the legal age of consent for sex is 16, does that mean that one hour before the child’s 16th birthday, he’s violating the law by having sex?

  We want only adults to vote, get drunk, have sex, or enlist in the military. Yet societies often have different minimum ages for all of these. And those ages are often set in ways that conflict with what science tells us about human biological development.

  BTW, our laws currently define a “person” as only of the species Homo Sapiens. If E.T., or some other intelligent space alien, ever came to Earth and visited the United States, he would NOT be considered a “person” under our laws, and he would NOT receive Constitutional protections like freedom of speech. The best legal protections he could get would be our laws against cruelty to animals.

• 146 sinz54 // May 31, 2009 at 6:47 am

  Dr. Tesla sez: “I’m all about this woman voting for the Republican party, if the REpublican party is a conservative party.”

  I see. We can all vote for the Republican party, as long as we have no voice within the party, and as long as we don’t mind having our views ignored within the party. What a deal.

  That’s the same deal that the Soviet Communist Party gave the citizens of the U.S.S.R. for some 70 years: You vote for us, but it’s our ideas that run the show, and we don’t care what you think.

• 147 Chekote // May 31, 2009 at 8:44 am

  Sinz

  The hardcore conservative base represented by Rush is convinced that the solution to the party’s problem will be resolved by insisting for purity on all issues. A candidate must pass all 12 or 15 or however many litmus tests they decide they need to pass. Social moderates like you and me are welcome to vote for the party but we are not allowed to have a voice in the leadership or direction of the party. That’s the reality of today’s GOP. I am so sick of fighting with them over social issues that I am at the point of not caring anymore. Let them lose many more elections until they learn their lessons. Besides, since when is conservative to get the government involved in people’s private lives? They have highjacked the plane and all we can do is get off and watch it crash.

• 148 Dr. Tesla // May 31, 2009 at 9:09 am

  sinz,

  They didn’t hold elections in the Soviet Union…if they did, it was only for show.

  I’m quite sure how you can assert that is analogous to moderates “having no voice” in the Conservative Party.

  The Conservative Party can’t be all things to everybody. It just needs to appeal to enough people to win a majority in an election. If the GOP continues to pander to liberal moderates like you and Frum, it will continue to lose elections, because a Party that tries to please everybody ends up pleasing nobody.

  As far as abortion goes, slavery use to be legal too…doesn’t mean it was right or ethical. I would think your Soviet Union analogy would more applicable to people like you who give unborn children no voice or choice in the matter.

  If there were these “purity tests” to be a Republican, how the hell was McCain our nominee?

  I’m not sure opposing abortion is invading your personal life than opposing rape is.

  I think it’s funny how so hard left these “moderates” are on social conservatives that they actually think the current GOP is hard right on social issues. Both parties run away from the social issues.

• 149 teddyeugenicist // May 31, 2009 at 9:11 am

  sinz54
  6:43 AM

  Abortion is inextricably bound up with the question of “What is a person?”

  Personhood has no scientific definition, only a sociological one. We can assign it at any point in the development of a fertilized egg. Pro-lifers generally assign it at the very start of fertilization; pro-choicers somewhere later down the line. I happen to assign it to the point at which the fetal brain has developed to the point that it is generating “human” brain waves. That is somewhere in the second trimester.

  Ah, a classic arbitrary line, much like the line we ascribe to marriage, and as you mentioned, adulthood. If the line for personhood is in fact arbitrary, then we could really move it anywhere we wished, right? Maybe it could even be after birth? I prefer a scientific solution, when one has developed the human genome.

• 150 teddyeugenicist // May 31, 2009 at 9:13 am

  http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/retrospectives.pdf

• 151 teddyeugenicist // May 31, 2009 at 9:22 am

  As a side note, conservatism (note, not neo-fake-conservatism) has been winning the day on some important issues lately. Barack Obama has had to moderate his tone on terror issues drastically from his campaign promises. He is finding it is not so easy a thing after all I suspect. It helps that there is one voice out there arguing a good case. I guess someone finally found a backbone, too bad that never happens while they are in office.

• 152 Chekote // May 31, 2009 at 10:40 am

  A recent poll showed that 68% of American voters oppose reversing Roe v. Wade. This is a loser issue since no matter how Americans may feel about the morality of it they reject the idea of having government getting involved during the early stages. We have been arguing about this for 40 years. We can argue for another 40 and must people will not agree that Americans don’t have a right to privacy.

• 153 Chekote // May 31, 2009 at 10:45 am

  “I prefer a scientific solution, when one has developed the human genome.”

  What makes humans different from animals is their spiritual dimension. Call it soul. Call it self-consciouness. Science cannot address the spiritual nature of man.

• 154 Dr. Tesla // May 31, 2009 at 10:51 am

  It’s funny how Chekote asserts what most people think.

  Abortion was illegal in most states prior to Roe Vs. Wade, was it not? Did not unelected judges decide the matter of abortion, and not the people or their elected representatives?

  Let’s have a referendum on abortion, and we can decide the issue like a democracy should. Liberals should have nothing to worry about if most people are for the legalization of abortion.

  As far as “right” to privacy goes, how does the government get away with knowing how much income you make and then confiscating large portions of it? That seems like a huge invasion of privacy to me. I never see leftwingers making the case against the income tax on the basis of privacy.

  I don’t see many of them making a case for legalizing prostitituion as well, and there seems to be a “right to privacy” issue there as well.

• 155 Dr. Tesla // May 31, 2009 at 10:56 am

  I noticed that Chekote refers to Rush as shrill for calling the judge that Obama has nominated a racist, despite the fact that her statement was racist.

  So now the moderates tell us to object to racism is to be shrill. To object to having woman that is not color blind or gender blind on the Supreme Court is shrill.

• 156 Dr. Tesla // May 31, 2009 at 12:43 pm

  Regarding the phone call on Levin’s show that Frum find so “offensive”, One thing that Frum chose to gloss over is that the woman caller asserted that Obama can do whatever the hell he wants to include bringing jihadists at Club Gitmo to the United States. This was after Levin pointed out to the woman that if Obama was so smart, why could he not get the Democrat party to support his desire to bring the jihadists to American prisons? The lady said that it didn’t matter and Obama could do it anyway, which would appear to be rather authoritarian and unconstitutional. That is what set Levin off on the lady.

• 157 sinz54 // May 31, 2009 at 1:39 pm

  teddyeugenicist: I doubt that Obama has been listening much to Republicans on war issues.

  Obama has moderated his stance, because that’s been the case throughout recent history: All candidates are forced to moderate their stances, once they get into the White House and have to deal with the cold realities they find there. Reagan too.

  No doubt *President* Obama has been given the dossiers of a number of the terrorists, and he has seen with his own eyes the type of characters he’s forced to protect America from.

• 158 sinz54 // May 31, 2009 at 1:42 pm

  Dr. Tesla: My point was that you seem to be presenting the GOP Platform as a monolith and a given: You can vote for it, but don’t ask to change it. Take it or leave it.

  OK. In that guess, I guess we’ll leave it.

  But just for your own edification, compare the 2004 GOP Platform to the 1976 GOP Platform, and you will see for your own eyes the effect that the Religious Right and the rest of the social conservatives have had on it. (You can find all the past GOP Platforms via Google.)

  I liked the Platform better the way it was in 1980 and before.

• 159 Dr. Tesla // May 31, 2009 at 1:48 pm

  Sinz,

  Go ahead and leave it. You never say anything in here that indicates you are a conservative. Your one vote isn’t goign to swing an election.

  As I said before, a party that panders to everybody cannot win as if you try to please everybody in the end you annoy everybody.

  You hate social conservatives. We get that. Rather than continue to whine about the REpublican party being a majority fo social conservatives, why not go vote for the Democrats or the Liberterian parties. That seems like the common sense thing to do.

  The party doesn’t revolve around minorities liike you and Frum. If you are not on board with conservatisim, that’s cool, but we don’t have to change to accomadate your liberal beliefs. You nor Frum has made any logical case for how flipping off social conservatives and raising taxes and going nutty on environmental issues actually makes the GOP a more viable party. I think it puts all 50 states in play for the Democrats.

• 160 Dr. Tesla // May 31, 2009 at 2:03 pm

  Reagan was much mroe outspoken on social issues, especially abortion, than Bush, McCain and the modern GOP. If you go back and listen to some of Reagan’s speeches, he mentions God much more than Bush or McCain or any GOP politicians these days. I can’t see Frum supporting Reagan given his hatred of social conservatives. I doubt Frum knows this, but it’s my understanding Reagan sent Limbaugh a letter stating that Rush was the leader of the conservative movement after his 2nd term as president. So I continue to smirk at Frum and other liberals that try to pit Reagan and Buckley against Rush…it’s a dishonest little political trick.

  I’m sure you did like the platform of the Republican party prior to Reagan, as that party never won much.

  I’m pretty sure I saw you said you voted for Obama, and anybody that voted for Obama has no crediblity in lecturing Republicans on how to win.

• 161 Dr. Tesla // May 31, 2009 at 2:11 pm

  I’m just curious…what has Obama done so far to make gay marriage legal? It’s my understanding that he shares the same point of view as Miss California on gay marriage….she came under fire from the intolerant left, yet I never here gay activists attack Obama. It was the same way with Clinton…Clinton supported the Defense of Marriage Act which was anti-gay marriage, and I dont’ remember liberal gay activists like Frum attacking Clinton.

• 162 sinz54 // May 31, 2009 at 2:20 pm

  Dr. Tesla: When it comes to abortion, you are so wrong on so many points.

  First of all, the social conservatives in the GOP have long since left the Roe v. Wade issue behind. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, liberal communities like Vermont and Massachusetts and San Francisco would undoubtedly opt to preserve abortion rights, while other, more conservative areas, might ban it.

  But the GOP Platform now calls for a Human Life Amendment that would ban abortion nationwide–even in liberal states like Vermont and Massachusetts that would opt to preserve it. That’s “overturning the will of the people” of liberal states and communities. So when the GOP took that angle of a Human Life Amendment, they forfeited the entire argument about “the will of the people.” They want to replace the monolithic rule of Roe (abortions are OK everywhere) with their own (abortions are OK nowhere).

  As for the income tax, you seem to forget that it was made constitutional by the Sixteenth Amendment. So the income tax is now part of our Constitution.

  As for prostitution, quite a few liberal intellectuals and civil libertarians have argued for the decriminalization of prostitution. The national Dem Party stays away from it, because it’s too controversial politically.

• 163 Dr. Tesla // May 31, 2009 at 2:28 pm

  Sinz,

  Making the income tax constintuional in my view rather undermines your contention that there is the “right to privacy” in the constitution. Your support of abortion is based on a right to privacy that does not exist in the constitution, which was my original point and you just made it again for me indirectly.

  If our elected representatives were successful in overtuning Roe Vs. Wade, that would be more reflective of the will of the people than a few unelected judges deciding the issue for us all. You are putting up a strawman there. I’d prefer to have a referendum on abortion just like we do on gay marriage, and I know that’s a vote that you don’t want to have.

  I would say abortion is more controversial politically than the legalization of prostitution. Nobody’s life is terminated as the result of prostitution, although you do put yourself at risk for a STD.

• 164 Dr. Tesla // May 31, 2009 at 2:34 pm

  In other words, just to make myself clear, if the government has the right to see how much money you earn and then confiscate large amounts of it, there is no such thing as a right to privacy. I don’t even tell my friends how much I earn…it’s nobody’s business but my own, but the government knows.

  So this whole “right to privacy” thing used by the left to support their abortion zealotry is a smokescreen in that what liberal has any problem with the income tax and the invasion of financial privacy that must occur to implent income taxation? The fact that income tax is constitutional does not mean it’s not an invasion of your privacy.

• 165 Hamiltonian // May 31, 2009 at 10:09 pm

  Well said Mr. Frum. Bitterness and vitriol only makes us look desperate and irrelevant, especially when placed next to the smiling and conciliatory progressivism of the Obama-ites.

  I might also add that we should not be afraid to applaud and ally with the President and the Democrats when they are being sensible, as with troop increases in Afghanistan, middle class tax cuts, combatting climate change, and implementing reasonable policies concerning detainees. Despite the stimulus package and the various grandiose plans, Obama has been fairly cautious and conservative, especially given the fact that he could have hit the ground running much farther to the left than he did.

• 166 ChristianMiller // Jun 1, 2009 at 5:13 am

  (continued) “People on the right take an inverse view of the situation. Conservatives believe in individual responsibility. This means, if someone commits murder, he is bad. If someone is poor he has declined to take advantage of opportunities manifest within a free market system. If someone is uneducated, he has not worked hard enough to secure education for himself. This attitude among conservatives means that the perceived solution is not to change society in a general way but to get government out of the business of regulating the people in mass and making them take responsibility for their actions in particular. Social man then is not malleable, but the individual can be guided by market forces.”

  In our Constitution, citizens lend, let me repeat lend, power to their representatives the State, to manage necessary collective affairs.

  You can see this thread running through every issue. The fault lines always fall along these two basic world-views. An intellectually honest person cannot believe in both at the same time.

  Everyone has principles in the sense you are using the word, they just might not be genuine about telling people what they are. Arlen Spector believes in the principle that he is the best possible Senator from Pennsylvania and that his votes are explainable as a grand strategy and pragmatic calculation ; any vote that serves to keep his seat is a vote with an overarching principle behind it – if he were to lose his seat, disaster would ensue for Pennsylvanians. If I say he has no principles I mean in the political philosophy and intellectual honesty domain.

  It is a pretty ridiculous statement saying that because no philosophy is flawless that we have to taint the freest philosophy in the world with heavy doses of totalitarian philosophies because every philosophy has flaws. And don’t forget, we aren’t starting from scratch. It is not as if this is a completely free market capitalist laissez – faire world, and the business of Washington legislators is to make more laws gain more revenue and control more of the citizenrys’ lives. Already starting with a full plate of socialist “moderation” of capitalism at the outset, I find no reason to continue to move in that direction under the banner of moderation.

• 167 ChristianMiller // Jun 1, 2009 at 5:15 am

  Sinz 54 “Here’s a clue: MODERATION is a principle. It’s a recognition that at this stage in human civilization, no political doctrine is 100% perfect or 100% ideal. Hence you always run into issues for which no political doctrine has perfect answers; and hence following any political doctrine to the letter can often create more problems than it solves.”

  Moderation is not a principle. Neither is “centrism”, compromise or pragmatism a principle. All these things are tactics or strategies to get what you want to get your principles passed.

  Political issues don’t arise in a vacuum. Each and every issue has a history and can be traced back to a prevailing world-view and there are basically two world views in American politics.

  “In “A Conflict of Visions”, Thomas Sowell proposed that the fundamental difference between the policies of the left and the right derive from their respective views of human nature.

  The left sees man in general as perfectly malleable. It sees every individual’s problems as being caused by society as a whole. Criminal behavior under this theory is merely a response to injustice; poverty is a condition brought on by greed; depression, drunkenness and illness are all seen as a fault of the medical system or our general “awareness”. Since individual problems are the fault of the whole of society, the solution must be to fix society by massive government intervention.”

  This of course can be seen throughout modern history as grand plans of the Soviet Union, Cuba, GDR, China and many more countries in Africa, Asia and South America. At some point the government turns against anyone who resists this grand plan as being lazy, hoarding food, or destroying the morale of their co-workers or fellow slaves.
  In this system people get their education, sustenance and “rights” from the State. One of the main rationales the Soviets used to keep people forcibly inside the Soviet Union was that the State had already given these intellectuals an education and invested into the person, so it wasn’t fair for this person to leave the motherland and not “give back”. At some point they OWN you. They have given you everything and you have to pay it back with undying loyalty.

• 168 sinz54 // Jun 1, 2009 at 7:13 am

  Franco: It’s a recognition of our human fallibility and lack of omniscience.

  H. L. Mencken once said: “There is always a well-known solution to every human problem–neat, plausible, and wrong.”

  I strongly believe that. Whenever anyone says “It’s very simple. All we gotta do is….” they are very likely to be WRONG.

  No human philosophy is perfect and has all the answers. A philosophy is, at best, a general guideline as to where to start planting one’s spades to look for answers.

  But a truly open mind is willing to listen to proposals from any source, from any philosophy–and evaluate that proposal objectively.

  One idea that came from the Left (starting with Rachel Carson), that turned out to be correct, is that all externalities of a transaction need to be accounted for. You own a polluting factory that makes widgets, I buy the widgets–but who pays for a child’s asthma attack caused by the pollution from your factory?

  Laissez-faire capitalism was an ideal abstraction, like kinetic gas theory that assumes that gas molecules are points of zero size at reasonable temperature and pressures.

  Likewise, laissez-faire capitalism can only work perfectly when the world in which the players operate is infinite: The atmosphere and oceans are infinite, pollution is zero, players are located so far apart that pollution or toxic waste from a factory hurts no one nearby. But it gets into trouble in the real world, where those assumptions do not hold.

  This makes for a difficult calculus, even more difficult than the theory of kinetic gases at extreme temperatures and pressures.

  Even Milton Friedman, who was no left-winger, realized that you have to balance the externalities caused by private enterprise, against the externalities caused by government’s attempt to correct the externalities in the private sector. AFAIK, so far there is no perfect theory as to how to do this–because we’re dealing here with political economy, and the choices society has made about how it wants to live: How much risk from cancer? How much risk from lower standards of living? Not easy.

  We moderates recognize these issues and struggle to provide solutions. Unlike ideologues on BOTH the Left and the Right, who think that the solution is simple: Always either more socialism or more capitalism, respectively.

• 169 sinz54 // Jun 1, 2009 at 7:20 am

  Dr. Tesla: The “right to privacy” didn’t come from Roe v. Wade.

  It came from an earlier Supreme Court ruling, Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). And I *do* AGREE with you, that this was an absolutely ghastly ruling. Ultra-liberal Justice William O. Douglas wanted to give Americans a right to privacy. Period. He had already decided from his ultra-liberalism that he wanted that. And so he and his colleagues authored one of the worst rulings ever, with tortuous reasoning and nonsensical metaphors that could be a self-parody if its consequences weren’t so serious. This is the poster child for judicial activism.

  Go read it sometime.

  The Roe v. Wade ruling in 1970, was that Griswold v. Connecticut had given a woman a right to privacy, and that this should imply her right to terminate a pregnancy. That’s pretty bad reasoning too. But it’s nowhere near as bad as Griswold v. Connecticut.

• 170 sinz54 // Jun 1, 2009 at 7:23 am

  Franco: Whether you want to admit it or not, Powell was wrong and there are a lot more than two views. That’s because there are many, not just one, way to use political power.

  If Powell were right, all nations on earth would have a choice between voting for the Ayn Rand Objectivist Party or the Karl Marx Communist Party. That this choice has NEVER arisen in world history tells you how wrong Powell is.

• 171 sinz54 // Jun 1, 2009 at 7:32 am

  Dr. Tesla: When it comes to gay marriage, you’re wrong about both Obama and Clinton.

  As Mark Steyn and the liberal blogosphere both noted, the Left doesn’t mind Obama saying that marriage should be between a man and a woman, because they know he’s one of them and he probably doesn’t mean it in his heart but is just saying it to get votes.

  They did mind Ms. Prejean saying it, because she’s a devout Christian and they know she really does mean it.

  Bill Clinton, the Left was never sure about, due to his Southern heritage and his moderate track record on social issues when he was governor of Arkansas. His approving of the death penalty for a convict there had signaled to the Left that he wasn’t on board with them. When he signed the Defense of Marriage Act, he was strongly attacked by the Left, and particularly by gay activists.

  And when Clinton signed welfare reform into law, several of his staff members resigned in protest.

  Give the Left *some* credit. They know the difference between a politician who is really on board with them but has to compromise to win elections, versus someone who is really not on board with them.

• 172 sinz54 // Jun 1, 2009 at 7:34 am

  Franco: Oops! In my earlier post about having more than two polar choices, I should have written SOWELL, not POWELL.

• 173 ChristianMiller // Jun 1, 2009 at 8:08 am

  Sinz, I’m sorry but you just aren’t able to grasp the basic organizing principles of philosophy. Vote for whomever you wish but you are completely misguided and unable to digest anything beyond your own dogma. You have a 50% chance of being right using your methods.

  Your logic is shallow every time. You have your beliefs which are that you are superior to all philosophical logistical thought that has come before. You have some very simplistic methods for determining what is the proper course of action. H.L Menkin, H.L Smenkin -irrelevant some cute phrase just closed your easily manipulated mind. Also Friedman in this context is irrelevant. When the fact is that we have a quasi socialist State and at some point we know that socialist states turn into totalitarianism and serial loss of freedom you think you can weigh each case on it’s merits, out of context with the general direction the country is headed.

  You must determine if you want the ship to head east or west based on where it is now. You have to take your bearings and you refuse to do this. You just make blanket statements about no way being 100% right, a couple of clever quotes from wordsmiths as though that is some kind of organizing philosophy.

  Also did misread the man’s name or do you not know who he is? Powell may be your intellectual equal but Sowell is a much smarter person than you (and me) . You just say I have to admit he is wrong because you say so, and you don’t even know who Thomas Sowell is! Hilarious!

  “One idea that came from the Left (starting with Rachel Carson), that turned out to be correct, is that all externalities of a transaction need to be accounted for. You own a polluting factory that makes widgets, I buy the widgets–but who pays for a child’s asthma attack caused by the pollution from your factory?”

  Using your debating methods I could simply say “you have to admit Carlson is wrong” and be done with it, but I’ll act as I would HOPE any rational person would in citing why I believe you and Carlson are misguided.

  Er China? I mean, the widgets now get made in China because of the laws here. We still buy the widgets but they aren’t made here so outasight/ out of mind to you drones. They pollute (much worse BTW) in China and (even more) children die anyway and the pollution eventually comes here too. We will never be able to control the world or the world’s economy. You are a totalitarian by default. You don’t even know it…You will vote us right into slavery thinking you are a nuanced moderate picking and choosing from the smorgasboard loading is up with government.

• 174 teddyeugenicist // Jun 1, 2009 at 8:40 am

  Chekote
  10:45 AM

  “‘I prefer a scientific solution, when one has developed the human genome.’

  What makes humans different from animals is their spiritual dimension. Call it soul. Call it self-consciouness. Science cannot address the spiritual nature of man.”

  Chekote, you know real leftists make no distinction between animal and human don’t you? For heaven sakes, we are but merely and organism which is wreaking havoc on the ecosystem!

  And what of separation of church and state then? Should the government really be involved in matters of spirituality? A good leftist would think not!

  And of science, leftists are required to take science as the answer to all things, why not apply it here? I’ll tell you why, because it makes Pro-Choice a loser issue.

  We almost declared a baby a person when it acquires the human genome in my state, and sure enough there will be a state that will, and it should be interesting to hear arguments about “soul” when it does.

• 175 Bulldoglover100 // Jun 1, 2009 at 3:41 pm

  Teddy……did you REALLY say this? ” real leftists make no distinction between animal and human “…and believe it? LOL Really?
  It is this type of tripe that keeps this party in a down ward spiral. This thought that there is some “evil” difference in the left vs the right. There isn’t. It is a difference of opinion and to insist that the stupidity you spew is “real/true” is harmful to us all.

• 176 sinz54 // Jun 1, 2009 at 5:51 pm

  Franco: With the collapse of the Soviet Communist bloc, and the adoption of market reforms by China and India, the entire world seems to have converged on a mix of public and private elements. IOW, we’re all going to have *mixed economies* going forward. (The exceptions being a few holdouts like North Korea, but they’re clearly not the wave of the future.)

  The big issue is on deciding the proportions of the mix: How much public sector? How much private sector? How much taxation? We’ll just have to deal with it on a case-by-case basis as we go.

  To paraphrase an old saying from my old profession:

  “America is like a software application. We have to debug it as we go along.”

• 177 teddyeugenicist // Jun 4, 2009 at 6:58 am

  I did say that Bulldog, you must not keep up on the goings on of the world very well. Take a look at the roots of the green movement and then tell me what leftists think about humans’ role in the world.

You must log in to post a comment.