President Obama and Rush Limbaugh do not agree on much, but they share at least one thing: Both wish to see Rush anointed as the leader of the Republican party. Here’s Rahm Emanuel on Face the Nation yesterday: “the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican party.”
What a great endorsement for Rush! (And we know Rush is fond of compliments – listen to his loving account in his CPAC speech of the birthday lunch given him by President Bush just before Inauguration Day.)
But what about the rest of the party? Here’s the duel that Obama and Limbaugh are jointly arranging:
On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of “responsibility,” and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him.
And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as “losers.” With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence – exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we’re cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush’s every rancorous word – we’ll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.
Rush knows what he is doing. The worse conservatives do, the more important Rush becomes as leader of the ardent remnant. The better conservatives succeed, the more we become a broad national governing coalition, the more Rush will be sidelined.
But do the rest of us understand what we are doing to ourselves by accepting this leadership? Rush is to the Republicanism of the 2000s what Jesse Jackson was to the Democratic party in the 1980s. He plays an important role in our coalition, and of course he and his supporters have to be treated with respect. But he cannot be allowed to be the public face of the enterprise – and we have to find ways of assuring the public that he is just one Republican voice among many, and very far from the most important.
199 responses so far
1 InTheMiddle12 // Mar 2, 2009 at 7:27 am
David: the comparison to Jessie Jackson circa 1980s is perfect. That’s exactly who Rush is and why it is so dangerous for him to be in the position he is. And you’re right, President Obama would like nothing more than to have him as the opposition. And by the way, you left out the years he was on welfare.
2 SallyVee // Mar 2, 2009 at 7:27 am
Oh dear. You are eggs-actly right, sad to say. Rush = free marketing for the Dems and yes he does know what he is doing and it is self-centered in the extreme. He only speaks for a small percentage of Republicans but he has the biggest microphone in town and it’s easy to proclaim him the poster boy for the GOP. FoxNews is a willing accomplice in this endeavor and is marginalizing itself along with Limbaugh & the rest of the Caustic Cons.
Let’s face it, it is smart for Dems to focus on Rush — doesn’t cost them a dime and every time Rush blows his mouth off, somewhere a reasonable Republican is ignored.
This is not going to change in the near future. The truth may start to sink in around Jan. 20, 2012 when Barack Obama is sworn in for the second time.
3 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 7:40 am
Confession time. I became a conservative because of Rush Limbaugh in 1995. During the OJ trial, I stated listening to a lot of talk radio. I didn’t like Rush and my opinion was based on what the media and literati said about him. Once I actually listened to what he had to say, I became a conservative. I hope all this publicity will result in more and more people listening to his show so that we will get some new converts to conservatism. God knows nobody else has stepped up to make the case of conservatism!
4 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 7:53 am
David, why are you so concerned with Rush’s personal life. It is none of your business how many times he has been married. You keep complaining about the “anti-intellectualism” that has taken hold of the GOP and then used the private failings of an individual to buttress your argument. What’s intellectual about this? I call it a cheap shot. So what if the Dems replay the racous image of the CPAC speech? Are we not free to hear whom we want and cheer? We are a free people! We can hear and cheer whomever we want. Rush can say whatever he wants. Instead of your knee jerk attack on conservatives, why don’t you ridicule the Dems for spending so much time attacking a talk show host while the Dow is dipping below 7,000 and people’s retirement funds and college savings are fading away with each downtick?!
5 krove // Mar 2, 2009 at 8:08 am
Yay, Rush has become the leader and voice of conservatism. He is filling a vacuum left by the paucity of any other credible voice in the party. From a Liberal point of view it’s fine by me. I think the Dems are playing the situation like a Stradivaris fine violin. And judging by the coverage today so far it’s working a treat. The answer to the problem is to put up someone who can bring solutions to the table. All people are hearing at present from the right is a confused babble of “No” and nothing positive, forward thinking or solutions based. Until they hear anything different they will be with the President. The market is still overvalued that’s why it’s still dropping. Until the financial stocks are at pennies instead of dollars it’s still overvalued. Expect it to be 5000 in a month. 2000 is about what it’s actually worth right now.
6 InTheMiddle12 // Mar 2, 2009 at 8:14 am
Chekote: Rush’s personal life is fair game considering the Conservatives run on morality and ’social issues.’ If you want to represent people who consider themselves righteous and are anti-choice, anti-gay-marriage, etc., then you better expect that those who represent that position are fair game. The funny thing is I don’t consider Rush a true conservative. I think he’s a free market self-promoting businessman. True conservatives have higher values than Rush has ever lived or spoken of.
7 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 8:28 am
krove is right. Since the election, who has stepped up on the conservative side? Nobody! Rush is filling a vacuum. Again, Frum and company are falling for the traps laid by the Dems. I mean look at the Dow and the Obama administration and the media are wasting time talking about a talk show host! As Clinton said, is attacking a talk show host going to feed a hungry child?
8 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 8:32 am
InTheMiddle. You pointed out just how much harm the constant moralizing by the religious right has done to the conservative movement. Also, my point was about whether it is an intellectual exercise to attack the personal failings of an individual. Not about whether it was fair game or not.
9 gblittle // Mar 2, 2009 at 8:32 am
The only ones wanting Rush to be anointed leader of the GOP are Democrats and liberal MSM. I have never heard him desire to become leader of the Republican Party. That being said I believe he loves being a CONSERVATIVE! Obama and his political hack Rahm Emanuel have gone after Rush because (1) no one elected official in the GOP has stepped forward to confront Obama and the Democrats and truly rally the base and (2) using Rush as a diversion to their god awful approach to Change America. The more they can talk about Rush, the less time they have to defend their policies. And Mr. Frum, you describe Obama as a god life creature in your fourth paragraph perfect by any means. Rush on the other hand a flawed human being. Im sorry but Ill take a flawed Rush any day of the week to a perfect, flawless person such as Obama now or ever. Yes Rush knows what he is doing. I only wish the GOP would know what they were doing instead of wandering aimlessly with no clear objectives, cohesiveness or moral guidance. This is not Rushs fault. The comment about the President invoking the language of responsibility is just plain campaign talk akin to the phrase I feel your pain empty hollow words. Rush talks about responsibility with conviction and emotion each and every day about using an individuals god given talent to improve themselves instead of living like a victim. Rush is not running for office nor has he campaigned to be the face of the party. If some want to make that case, like the Democrats, you bought their talking points hook line and sinker. (InTheMiddle12 – Rush has always talked about his personal life in a frank and matter of fact way. Refreshing, since our own President played dumb on the issue)
10 SallyVee // Mar 2, 2009 at 8:42 am
I say this as a former, long time fan of Rush. I listened to him nearly every day for 12+ years. I owe him big time for clarifying a number of things and inspiring me to pay attention. To me, Rush’s personal life isn’t a matter of me judging him a sinner or a failure. What I know and what I’ve seen/heard over the years is that his personal life is most of all a matter of great disappointment and unhappiness to himself. It is evident in many ways. Excruciatingly so, now that I’ve been away from the EIB and only catch brief snatches here and there. I’d say the exact same thing about Ann Coulter. Rush doesn’t even realize how isolated and disontented he is, how much it affects his outlook, or how offputting he is to regular people, because he must keep up the bluster. It is all he knows. I give Rush his due but his time has passed. Shades of Norma Desmond I fear. And CPAC-ers/FoxNews are playing the part of Norma’s ex, keeping the illusion going right up until the cops show up with a straight jacket.
11 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 8:45 am
gblittle. You can always count on Frum to take the bait.
12 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 8:48 am
Bulldog. I have been saying for years and posted several times that the moralizing hurt the party. But everytime I say that, I get the speech on why we can’t afford to lose the SoCons. Also, my point was about whether attacking personal failings was an intellectual exercise. Read before you respond.
13 dlssmith // Mar 2, 2009 at 8:52 am
It’s not a good idea to buy into Obama’s fantasy of a Rush Limbaugh controlled republican party, and fortunately, thinking conservatives probably won’t. Like any of us, Rush is capable of formulating good policy ideas, and is worth listening to at least for a short while each week. His 15 or 20 million listeners, though, are not “the” party; we need many more warm bodies on our side to ward off the socialist tendancies of the left. And thus, other ideas and pundits are needed – and just as much as Rush. But the caution statement issued by Frum about Rush is potent, and appreciated.
14 fact based // Mar 2, 2009 at 8:53 am
you only wish your problem was just Rush. The airwaves are bursting with Rush wannabes led by Sean, Glenn Beck, Oreilly, Mark Levin, Scarborough (caught he recently saying he bows before rush and I thought he was reasonable. What folk dont realize is these guys first and foremost want RATINGS. Rush himself called himself an entertainer, Coulter is the conservo Don Rickles. The more they are outrageous, the more book$ and rating$. If they take your party down with sarah and joe the plumber they couldnt care less. Their worst nightmare is a repub party that would have to make real world decisions. Meanwhile the WSJ editorial board types are laughing all the way to the bank as their agenda of financial deregulation and tax cuts to the rich gets implemented at the expense of the joe the plumbers.
btw I loved it when Alexndra Pelosi offered to do a film on Sean and Sean replied “I dont do interviews” why should he ? he would have to actually defend his bombast.
go for it guys ride the right wing blogosphere fox and talk radio into the abyss.
note that obama by contrast hasnt invited the kosites in for a consultation
15 sinz54 // Mar 2, 2009 at 8:59 am
If Limbaugh were to retire next week (say for some personal reason), who would be the new de facto spokesperson for conservatives? I fear that without Limbaugh, the conservative movement would be rudderless. The fact that conservatives don’t have a spokesperson who has any chance of being elected President, tells you how much trouble we’re in. A poll taken at CPAC showed that Mitt Romney was the most favored to be the GOP nominee in 2012. Could Romney fill Limbaugh’s shoes? Would the conservative base out there in the heartland cheer and rally to Romney, the way they did to Limbaugh? I doubt it.
16 Bulldoglover100 // Mar 2, 2009 at 8:59 am
I do read and amazingly I deal in facts. As for your point regarding attacking personal failings? It isn’t an intellectual exercise! It is dealing in facts! The facts remain that if some in this party do not stand up and say we do not accept lying worthless people who are only striving for their own personal gain, and taking this party down the drain with them, we will never gain our position back in my lifetime. If we care about this party? We would all want to be associated with people who have the ability to have cognitive thought, be able to assimulate the basics of our party and ONLY support those who are capable of representing them! When we push people who are morally repugnant to the front, such as Rush and Palin, we deserve the term hypocrite……as for Frum taking the bait? Go read Red State and many other right wing blogs out there before YOU spout off without reading all the facts avaliable.
17 dlssmith // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:01 am
It does beg to wonder how democratic leaders projection of Limbaugh as a leader of the republican party or conservative movement reflects their perception that no one else is actually leading? Is anyone leading?
Check out the NYTimes magazine article on Newt this weekend, speaking of republican leadership. Where is it?
18 Bulldoglover100 // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:03 am
Sinz54…what about pulling in, and back, Republicans and Independents do you not understand? People such as yourself are so busy trying to hold onto the so called “base” that your willing to sink the party to do so. Rush and people like him will never bring people back or new people in. The majority of people in this country spoke in November and they spoke loudly if you were listening. They will not support a Palin or a Rush and if the “base” refuses to deal with those facts? Then we need to form a new base and at least start a trek out of the woods.
19 gblittle // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:03 am
Bulldog, there’s a big difference between Obama, Bill and Hillary. They deny. Rush talks about his flaws and problems. And Rush a racist? You’ve got to be kidding. The only racists have been the elected Democrats who have for decades kept the poor and minorities where they want them – poor and uneducated with no future. And Bulldog, thanks for the insults. It just makes us more determined.
20 sinz54 // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:05 am
fact based: Now that the stock market has declined over 50% since last August, and Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns have collapsed, the Wall Street Journal and nearly every stock market investor have stopped laughing.
21 Bulldoglover100 // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:06 am
dissmith….I think that many are afraid of trying to lead at this point. Why bother or why wind up on the front page and all blogs because someone like Rush has called your out for being honest? Eric Cantor has tried to lead and had his butt handed to him today over at Red State for speaking out and against Rush. Right now? those who would love to lead are waiting it out to see how long, and how low, people like Rush and Palin will take us.
22 sinz54 // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:09 am
Buldoglover100: You got me all wrong. I have been constantly saying that the GOP needs to expand beyond its base. But that doesn’t change my basic point: Right now, Limbaugh is the de facto spokesperson and face of the conservative movement. A more thoughtful spokesperson, Romney perhaps, might be able to do a better job of reaching out to non-conservatives. (How else could he have been elected governor of Massachusetts, perhaps the most liberal state in the Union?) But the conservative base would not follow him. What conservatives have forgotten is how their movement got started in the first place. It was through the intellectualism of William F. Buckley, and the thoughtful articles in National Review, that Americans first saw that conservatives had real ideas, they weren’t just a bunch of crazies. Now the conservative movement is happy to have the crazies without the intellectuals. That’s why it’s failing.
23 Yuri // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:10 am
I’m calling on Mr. Frum for a do-over. His post reads like an anonymous comment on the Huffington Post! His response to an hour long speech on Conservatism consists of nothing more than insults and ridicule. This seems like a perfect opportunity for Mr. Frum to quote something Rush actually said and counter it with something that the devotees of the New Majority philosophy believe.
I’m having a hard time figuring out what this site believes Conservatism should look like. All I see are examples of what it should not be. I’d really be interested in the names of people in politics today that exemplify the political acumen that David Frum endorses.
24 Bulldoglover100 // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:10 am
gblittle…as for insults? people like you insult the party when you defend the actions of someone who has the morals of an alley cat and the biggest problem with the truth since time began. You go right ahead and stand firm though…you lost in 2006 & 2008 and people such as yourself will cost us the 2010 elections too. Hider and watch…..30% will never win a National election.
25 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:11 am
“But the caution statement issued by Frum about Rush is potent, and appreciated.” Give me a break! He is basically calling the Rush fans stupid and destructive. This we need to tear down Rush and yet be respectful of his listeners is too clever by half.
26 Bulldoglover100 // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:11 am
sizn54….I agree but still believe we need to leave that “base” behind us and move forward. We are never going to win if stay with them!
27 sinz54 // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:19 am
BullDogLover100: RedState.com is one of those groups of conservatives that is going around trying to purge “RINOs”–and anybody who disagrees with RedState.com on anything is a “RINO” to them. If you think their attacks on Cantor were something, you should have read the stuff a few days ago when they were attacking anybody who thought that Ann Coulter was too extreme. They really think we’re in a civil war, and that the entire Democratic Party is the “enemy of America” (their words, not mine). They love Ann Coulter over there. They love Michelle Malkin too (she’s frequently cited approvingly). And me? I got banned from RedState when I dared to disagree with some of the positions being taken over there. David Frum wouldn’t last a day on RedState.com, with the stuff he’s advocating.
28 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:19 am
Bulldog. When has Rush lied? So now people are not allowed to say that a lifelong marriage between a man and a woman who love each is not an ideal worth pursuing unless you have a sparkling perfect personal life? I guess If a former drug addicts or alcoholics tell us about the harm drugs and alcohol can do, we should not listening to them because they failed at some point in their lives? Are they lyers too? As far as Joe the Plumber, I don’t understand this constant attack on everyday working Americans. He didn’t have an Ivy League education and yet was able to get Obama to spell out his “share the wealth” philosophy while all the illiterati were too enamored with Obama’s style to ask him any revealing questions.
29 sinz54 // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:23 am
Yuri: I’ll be happy to tell you what I think conservatism should look like. First, it should dump the anger and bitterness, and become lively, upbeat and optimistic, as Reagan was. We should create and publish our vision of
“Conservative America in the year 2025″ and explain how much better it will be then than things are now. Second, conservatives should stand for economic conservatism and for an assertive foreign policy abroad. Third, conservatives should relegate all that “culture war” stuff to the back burner. That means welcoming anyone to the movement who agrees with the economic and foreign policy stands. Even if they’re gay. Even if they’re single moms who gave birth out of wedlock. Even if they smoke marijuana on weekends–and say so publicly. And I don’t just mean putting a few tokens on the aisles of the GOP convention to catch the cameras. I mean welcoming them to the Republican National Committee as well.
30 krove // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:25 am
Can we burst the Rush has 20 million listeners bubble here? He has 3-4 million average listeners per day. They get the 20 million figure by extrapolating that to a weeks listeners.http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2008/07/rush-limbaugh-4.html. So he does not have 20 million unique listeners he has 3 million listeners who probably tune in every day. And he should be a target on a personal level, he has been elevated to that position by being a speaker at CPAC. His drug use, abuse and other issues are fair game as he is a political figure. Hypocrisy abounds at present both in a moral and fiscal sense right of the spectrum So Rush’s hypocrisy is fair game.
31 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:25 am
“A more thoughtful spokesperson, Romney perhaps, might be able to do a better job of reaching out to non-conservatives.” Romney comes across as a phoney. He would have been more effective if he had not changed all his social positions to appease the Iowa caucus crowd.
32 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:29 am
krove. So now nobody is allowed to talk about what would be ideal unless they have a perfect personal life? I love the way the list of things people are allowed to say or not say keeps growing every day. I thought we were a free country. Soon Obama will announce the Speech Czar.
33 mpolito // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:31 am
Yuri- this site seems to hope that the GOP will become like Arlen Specter and Co. Why even have an opposition if you’re going to roll over? The Left did not roll over under Bush; why on Earth should we roll over now?
As for Rush, of course his fans should be respected (after all, 20 million listeners = 33% of McCain’s 59 million voters) but obviously people need to realize that there is more to the party than all that. The problem is, as Rush often says, no GOPer has the guts to take a principled, public stand! In fact, the most prominent GOPers are those who roll over (Specter, Snowe, Collins, etc).
Of course Rush is polarizing, but so is any prominent, principled political person. He is no more polarizing than Obama, Reid, Pelosi or Rahm Emanuel.
Finally, remember that the its not as if the conservative loud-mouth radio talker may soon be in the US Senate (see soon-to-be Sen. Al Franken, D-MN).
34 Yuri // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:32 am
Cherkote. Good point. I find the tactic of comparing the physical qualities of people especially specious. Using Mr. Frum’s reasoning, if you changed around a few words in his post, he would be arguing that Neville Chamberlain was a better leader than Winston Churchill!
35 sinz54 // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:33 am
Chekote: I agree that the personal attacks on Limbaugh are out of line. I never liked the personal attacks on the Clintons either. But that’s not what bothers me about Limbaugh. I’ve already said what bothers me: Right now, the conservative movement has leaders who are talk-show hosts and have no hope of running for President. It’s also got Romney and Jindal, who are thoughtful and competent and could be good Presidents, but who so far have not shown the ability to inspire, which is crucial to winning nationally. It’s got Sarah Palin, who can be inspiring but hasn’t shown the command of the issues to be President. It’s got some unknowns like Sanford. Have I missed anybody?
36 krove // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:39 am
Again Rush does NOT have 20 million unique listeners he has 3-4 million individual listeners, please get real. Chekote, the Dow was at 14,000 in June 2007. When Obama took over January 21 it was 8200. So it lost nearly half it’s value BEFORE Obama took over. Since then the economy both in the USA and worldwide has tanked. There is nothing the Obama administration can do to prevent the DOW drifting down to where is should be at this point. We agreed in an earlier thread that the zombie banks should be allowed to fail. That would drive the DOW to 2000. Would you still then be blaming Obama for an indicator that he has little if any control over . The DOW is not the economy it is a sophisticated Casino.
37 dlssmith // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:40 am
Cantor should have plenty to talk about without worrying about Rush and his doings. Rush does what he does and makes no bones about it. He calls himself an entertainer and commentator, and that’s what it is. If anyone wants to construe that as leadership, well so be it. I for one, was converted to the conservative cause mainly by Rush. But ultimately that conversion lead me to other sources – and now I read a lot – liberal blogs and all – because I want to know what everyone is thinking. Rush says constantly that he won’t tell you what to think, but how to think.
On another note, I’d like some one to give me an example of something Rush has said that identifies him as a racist. Call me blind, but I don’t see it.
38 fact based // Mar 2, 2009 at 10:06 am
rush and his wannabes: beck, hannity, levin, oreilly etc etc
coulter and the other flame throwers care about one thing rating$ and book sale$ They have no program just rants I loved Hannity the other day who told a guest “I dont do interviews” any guesses why ?
Meanwhile the wsj types are laughing all the way to the bank as they get their financial deregulation and capital gains tax cuts while shafting the joe the plumbers of the country
yes they will lead you into the abyss along with the rest of the talk radio crew, foxies and assorted bloggers
39 Yuri // Mar 2, 2009 at 10:10 am
sinz54. I can’t really disagree with your post. However I think Reagan was quite the culture warrior in his day. We also need to hold onto the socons somehow. They want a strong economy and robust foreign policy too. It would be interesting to see how a Conservative candidate who was also pro marijuana reform would fare. Too incompatible?
40 krove // Mar 2, 2009 at 10:13 am
Chekote, you rail gainst Daschle and Gietner as tax cheats and then talk about Rush’s personal foibles being off limits. You need to apply your values to yourself. As for Joe the Plumber. Please get real. He is Neither “Joe” or a plumber. He is a huckster pure and simple and another fraud raised up by the right as a symbol.
41 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 10:17 am
“you rail gainst Daschle and Gietner as tax cheats and then talk about Rush’s personal foibles being off limits” Rush was not nominated to run the IRS, the tax collecting agency. And Rush is not an and was not an elected official with the power to implement tax policy. Rush is a private citizen.
42 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 10:19 am
krove. The dow has been falling at a more rapid rate ever since Obama announced his plans to revive the economy. His policies are making things worse. I think the moment we announce a specific, viable plan that addresses our financial system, watch the market take off. Geithner has been a disaster. Why did anybody expect anything different? He was right there with Paulson divising all our previous “rescue” efforts.
43 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 10:21 am
“Cantor should have plenty to talk about without worrying about Rush and his doings.” One would think so.
44 HollywoodBill // Mar 2, 2009 at 10:40 am
Reagan as a culture warrior in his day? Please. Maybe in some parallel universe, but not here. Reagan had no use for the religious whack jobs who were oozing into the Republican Party except for giving them a seat at the table so to speak. And that turned out to be a huge mistake. Reagan signed the most liberal abortion law in the nation BEFORE Roe v Wade. While he claimed it was mistake he never did anything to repeal it. And even in an age of some technology, Reagan would only send a tape,audio no less to their annual snake handling convention. Reagan was probably the largest force in defeating Prop22, the Briggs Initiative which would have fired anyy teachers within CA in 1978, He wrote an editorial in LA that is credited with the largest turnaround in recent history of any initiative. He took the social conservatives on because it was the right thing to do. And he would need their support for the Presidency the next year. But he wouldn’t buckle to the Bible Thumpers.
45 empirical // Mar 2, 2009 at 10:41 am
“A more thoughtful spokesperson, Romney perhaps, might be able to do a better job of reaching out to non-conservatives.” Romney comes across as a phoney. He would have been more effective if he had not changed all his social positions to appease the Iowa caucus crowd.
Well, if Romney is a phoney sic, I will take the phony over an inspiring speaker or dim witted Gov.any day out of the week. Romney has actually proven himself many times over in the private sector where rhetoric doesn’t pay the bills or create returns.
46 krove // Mar 2, 2009 at 10:46 am
Whoops! Steele just threw Limbaug under a very large bus! In an interview on CNN with D.L. Hughley, Steele assured that he, not Limbaugh, was in charge of the party before saying that he wanted to put the right-wing talker into context.
Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, Steele said. Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes its incendiary, yes its ugly.
Steeles comments, first noticed by NBC producer Chris Donovan, are sure to rankle Limbaugh in part because they validate the liberal critique of the conservative force: that hes merely an entertainer.
47 krove // Mar 2, 2009 at 10:50 am
Guess Steele will be groveling on his show by weeks end.
48 mpolito // Mar 2, 2009 at 10:55 am
Cforchange- You attack conservatives for going after Specter. Can you tell me what principles Specter has? Can you tell me why its even worth having someone with an R next to their name if they are going to vote with the Democrats? He is a joke, and he’ll probably be tossed in the GOP primary. Will we lose that seat to the Dems? Probably. But what will the difference in voting be?
Krove- Rush’s listeners are at least 14.25 million: http://talkers.com/online/?p=71
HollywoodBill- If the national GOP becomes like the CA GOP, then the USA will end up like CA. CA is currently a national joke, run by a phony, incompetent non-conservative governor. Reagan could not have won without social conservatives, and if such voters are ditched today, the GOP is done. This just in: socially liberal economically conservative voters do not exist in any real numbers. As Kate O’Beirne of NR has put it, they are the “jackalopes of American politics.”
49 HollywoodBill // Mar 2, 2009 at 11:02 am
The social conservatives have this tendency to overinflate their self worh. Reagan could very easily have won in 1980. He won 489 to 49. And since the socons tend to be congregated in Dixie, the entire region could have voted for the home boy Carter and Reagan still would have won. As for California, we haven’t elected a social consevative statewide since1986 and that trend isn’t going to change. At least Howard Dean had the brains to realize that the Dems had to be at least competitive in all 50 states. The GOP is going to throw someone off the island by2012. And ultimately, the socons have nowhere to go. And even fewer will take them in.
50 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 11:07 am
Reagan would not make it through today’s GOP primaries. Look up Briggs initiative. Enough said.
51 Stewardship // Mar 2, 2009 at 11:13 am
Rush is not a conservative. He isn’t within a country mile of Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, or Richard Weaver–the fathers of conservatism.
Yet, his microphone has allowed him to change the definition of what it means to be a conservative to fit his own beliefs. Someone, somewhere, somehow has to take back the definition of “conservative.”
52 krove // Mar 2, 2009 at 11:15 am
mpolito. That as the site says is a WEEKLY CUMULATIVE figure. What don’t you understand about that. His actual listener-ship on a daily basis is 3 million and that is being generous. Please deal with facts.
53 dendup // Mar 2, 2009 at 11:56 am
There’s a lot of discussion about who is & isn’t conservative, what real consevatiism is etc. As with any social phenonomen, conservatism is what people who describe themselves as conservatives do. Positing principals, making lists and generally deconstructing is certianly worthwhile in developing characterizations, but the data set is the behavior of self described conservatives. Repubs used this approach to their atvantage in the 70’s and 80’s and now are experincing life on the other side. Bush and the Repub Congresses were conservatives because they said they were and so their behavior set the definition for that period. Such definitions change and evolve accordig to the behavior of the adherents.
54 oodoodanoo // Mar 2, 2009 at 12:54 pm
There’s a lot of ingratitude being thrown at Rush and his supporters. No one complained when he was the “Voice of America” during the Clinton years. No one complained when we got the House and Senate back. No one complained when we got the White House for eight glorious years.
………………………………………..
What happened? Do we treat ideas as fashion? If so, then exactly what makes us conservatives? And what happened to his supporters? Did we just disappear or die? I for one feel very much among the living, and I don’t appreciate David Frum suggesting that I’m something he can dispose of.
55 oodoodanoo // Mar 2, 2009 at 1:05 pm
There’s a lot of ingratitude being thrown at Rush and his supporters. No one complained when he was the “Voice of America” during the Clinton years. No one complained when we got the House and Senate back. No one complained when we got the White House for eight glorious years. What happened? Do we treat ideas as fashion? If so, then exactly what makes us conservatives? And what happened to his supporters? Did we just disappear or die? I for one feel very much among the living, and I don’t appreciate David Frum suggesting that I’m something he can dispose of.
56 krove // Mar 2, 2009 at 1:34 pm
oodoodanoo Quote “No one complained when we got the White House for eight glorious years.” HA.HA.HA, pray tell me about the glory of these past eight years, you are too funny. I seem to have lived a different experience then you. Perhaps you live in an alternate universe?
57 A.B. // Mar 2, 2009 at 1:41 pm
As to the length of the performance, and whether it indicates “talent,” I would remind people that Comrade Zinoviev once spoke for over four hours to a Comintern audience, in German.
58 mpolito // Mar 2, 2009 at 1:43 pm
A few points. First of all, Rush is pro-life. Secondly, “cume” means, in broadcast terms, the number of unique listeners over a period of time. In the case of the 14.25 million figure, that is the “minimum weekly cume”: in other words, at least 14.25 million different people tune in to Rush during a given week. They are not all conservatives, of course, but most are. In any case, I do not want people to think that I believe everything Rush says or want him to be the face of the GOP (for example, I am at odds with Rush on meat-eating, because I am a vegan and animal-rights person). Nevertheless, I fail to see any other publice and articulate defender of conservative principles. Would I like to see one emerge? Yes! But I am still waiting.
59 celtoid2 // Mar 2, 2009 at 1:57 pm
I have admired David Frum for many years, but I am very disappointed in his statements regarding Rush. To point out his personal “failings,’ I say, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!” And should we not admire Rush’s RECOVERY from prescription pill addicition.
Rush is a highly intelligent person who enunciates conservative principles better than any other conservative spokesperson. I truly think is is a falsehood to say that Rush is only self-interested in wanting to ruin the conservative movement.
Unfortunately, Mr Frum himself is playing into the Democrats’ hands by his priggish and nasty comments.
60 fact based // Mar 2, 2009 at 2:28 pm
the clock is ticking on Steele’s groveling reply I give it 24 hrs at most
Steele said, Lets put it into context here. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Yes, its incendiary. Yes, its ugly.
Limbaugh responded today with an on-air diatribe against the new party chairman that ran nearly 20 minutes, alleging that Steele is more interested in being a talking head on television than leading the party to electoral success.
I hope the RNC chairman realizes hes not a talking head pundit, Limbaugh said. Its time, Mr. Steele, for you to go behind the scenes and start doing the work that you were elected to do, instead of trying to be some talking head media star, which youre having a tough time pulling off.
Limbaugh then accused the RNC chair of being disloyal, after having appeared as a guest on Limbaughs show during his failed 2006 run for the Senate in Maryland.
My parents taught me when I was growing up that you always stood behind people who defended you, that you never abandon people who stood up for you and defended you against assault, Limbaugh said.
Limbaugh said at the time Steele thanked him for coming to his defense, after Democratic party operatives illegally obtained and leaked elements of Steeles credit report and Michael J. Fox appeared in campaign ads attacking Steele for his opposition to embryonic stem cell research.
Somethings happened. Now Im just an entertainer and now Im ugly and my program is incendiary, Limbaugh said.
Why are you running the Republican Party? Limbaugh openly asked Steele. Why do you claim you lead the Republican Party, when you seem obsessed with seeing to it that President Obama succeeds? I, frankly, am stunned that the chairman of the Republican National Committee endorses such an agenda. I have to assume that he does because he attacks me for wanting it to fail.
61 krove // Mar 2, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Break out the popcorn!!! Rusbo responds to Steele. “Yes, said Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Im incendiary, and yes, its ugly. Michael Steele, you are head of the RNC. You are not head of the Republican Party. Tens of millions of conservatives and Republicans have nothing to do with the RNC and right now they want nothing to do with it, and when you call them, asking them for money, they hang up on you. I hope that changes. I hope the RNC will get its act together
It seems to me that its Michael Steele who is off to a shaky start.
Now, Mr. Steele, if it is your position as the chairman of the Republican National Committee that you want a left wing Democrat president and a left wing Democrat Congress to succeed in advancing their agenda, if its your position that you want President Obama and Speaker Pelosi and Senate leader Harry Reid to succeed with their massive spending and taxing and nationalization plans, I think you have some explaining to do.
Why are you running the Republican Party? Why do you claim you lead the Republican Party when you seem obsessed with seeing to it that President Obama succeeds? I frankly am stunned that the chairman of the Republican National Committee endorses such an agenda “
62 sinz54 // Mar 2, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Yuri claims: “Reagan was quite the culture warrior in his day.” Oh, really? Here’s Reagan’s acceptance speech from the 1980 GOP convention: http://tinyurl.com/ao6thc; and here is Reagan’s First Inaugural Address in January 1981: http://tinyurl.com/tx0s Can you find much “culture war” stuff in them? And as I recall, in all of President Reagan’s prime-time addresses to the nation, he never mentioned the “culture war” stuff even once.
63 BigMac44 // Mar 2, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Congratulations David for your rationality in the midst of a bunch of idealogical hypocracy.
mpolito: how can Rush be pro life when he wants to save embryos but as soon as they are born and grow a bit he would send them to Iraq to die or kill Iraquis?
64 fact based // Mar 2, 2009 at 2:48 pm
it didnt take too long to find this on a “mainstream respected conservo blog” and the bloggers have (surprise) a talk radio show too. These guys are ivy educated attorneys. Powerline blog. Keep it up guys….into the abyss. Think folk looking at their 401k and 10% unemploymen want the Pres to fail ?
The cluelessness revealed by Steele’s comments is so manifold that it’s hard to know where to begin. Apparently, like Rush’s liberal critics, Steele has never actually listened to Rush. Otherwise, it would never occur to him to call Rush’s program “ugly.” What most distinguishes Rush, I think, is the sense of joy you get from him: joy at being an American, at being a free man who was able to succeed, entirely through his own efforts, almost beyond imagining, joy at being able to connect with millions of listeners and play a part in history. Nor is Rush a mere entertainer, although he can be hilariously funny. Mostly, I think, he is a teacher.
These qualities were on display in Rush’s CPAC speech, which reminded us again why he is one of the most respected, and loved, figures on the right. (I say this even though I disagree with some of the views Rush expressed, e.g., that “all we need is to nominate the right candidate.”) One wonders: even if Steele himself doesn’t listen to Rush’s show, he must understand that millions of Republicans do. So how could he have thought that insulting Rush could possibly be a good idea? By demonizing Rush, he insulted the party that he purports to lead.
If Steele suffers from a myopic inability to distinguish his friends from his enemies, the Democrats are under no such disability. Hence their attack against Limbaugh, which continued today in White House press secretary Bob Gibbs’ news briefing:
65 sinz54 // Mar 2, 2009 at 2:50 pm
chekote: “I think the moment we announce a specific, viable plan that addresses our financial system, watch the market take off. ” That certainly wasn’t the case with the Reagan Administration. Reagan *did* present a specific economic plan in his 1980 campaign, very favorable to business; and after he got inaugurated President in January 1981, he asked Congress to implement it. But the stock market kept falling from 1981 to a low in mid-1982, and the unemployment rate kept rising to hit a 15 year high in 1982, because the economy was already in such bad shape that dismal corporate earnings reports continued to discourage investors. The stock market follows *earnings* above all else; you should know that. It was in mid-1982, a year and a half after Reagan took office, that Reagan’s plan first began to bite, and the stock market started to soar. But unemployment, being a lagging indicator, remained high throughout most of Reagan’s term. We’re in the same situation now. Right now, the stock market is being driven downward by a succession of dismal earnings reports and threatened bankruptcies. That’s still fallout from the financial collapse in mid 2008. So it’s unfair to criticize Obama in a childish tone of “Are we there yet?” Any economic plan will take time to work. Even if Obama enacted an economic plan that you and I would love, it still wouldn’t begin to bite for a year or two. In the meantime, things will continue to look dismal.
66 sinz54 // Mar 2, 2009 at 2:53 pm
BigMac44: For your information, we now have an all-volunteer army. No one is forced to join the armed forces if they don’t want to. The fetus, however, is helpless, obviously unable to judge for itself, or to defend itself. To compare a fetus to an 18 year old legal adult, deciding whether to join the armed forces, is absurd. And I can say that as a fellow who is actually pro-choice in the first trimester at least. Your comparison is absurd.
67 sinz54 // Mar 2, 2009 at 3:07 pm
oodoodanoo: I don’t want to denounce Limbaugh, I don’t want to criticize his supporters. I just want the main public face of the conservative movement to be somebody else. Limbaugh has peaked; he cannot appeal to non-conservatives when he calls for President Obama to fail. I know of no historical example where the Government failed but the country prospered. It certainly didn’t happen with Herbert Hoover’s presidency or Jimmy Carter’s presidency. What Limbaugh seems to be asking for is a kind of Ayn Rand nihilism: Let Obama’s failures drag the country down to ruins, and then we conservatives will come back triumphantly to rebuild the nation. I heard this same nihilist theme during the congressional debate over TARP: From some Republican congressmen and from Michelle Malkin we heard that if we need TARP to save the economy, it’s too great a price to pay. Let the economy burn, if that’s what it takes to preserve a free market! We conservatives will sweep back into power and fix the economy later! “Atlas Shrugged” was an entertaining novel. But nobody wants to live through that scenario for real.
68 BigMac44 // Mar 2, 2009 at 3:17 pm
sinz54. Were all the Iraqi citizens who have died 18 year old legal adults who were able to defend themselves against our billions of dollars worth of military might?
69 OBXartist // Mar 2, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Well, good luck with keeping Rush “in his place”, guys. Rush has his own media bullhorn, his own built-in unquestioning audience, he talks louder than anyone else (I guess that proves he’s right? Or maybe he’s just a blowhard?), and he browbeats anyone who disagrees with him. Who among the conservatives is going to pop his bubble? Every time one of you guys says anything remotely critical about Rush, you come groveling back to him in matter of days whining about how your remarks were misinterpreted or you were taken out of context. Having Rush and his acolytes take over the Republican Party will be bad for everyone…everyone…because he lowers the level of discourse to irrational rightwing propaganda.
70 mernah // Mar 2, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Rush has always stated that he’s an entertainer, or at least at one time he did. Frum is totally right on this, conservatives and Republicans come off as total hypocrites. How can they now claim to be fiscally conservative when they fed at government troth for the last eight years? How can they claim to be true conservatives with foreign policy when we’ve very deliberately engaged in nation building in Iraq? How can they claim family values when so many of them have failed in their own personal lives? Newt anyone? Conservatives=self-indulgent fat cats in the minds of most of the American public. Very sad state of affairs for libertarian minded Republicans like myself.
71 jjv // Mar 2, 2009 at 4:29 pm
mernah, now that we know what the Democrats want we can again claim to be fiscally conservative in comparison. 300 billion deficit while prosecuting a war v. 1.3 trillion deficit while backing out of one. I feel like GWB was Scrooge McDuck compared to the Obamaites.
72 oodoodanoo // Mar 2, 2009 at 4:32 pm
krove: You are a self-described liberal, so I do not expect you to understand what it meant to have a president who stood for lower taxes, respect for life, stronger defense, and pride in faith. sinz54: I respect your views, and I understand where you’re coming from. I come from an economically depressed part of the country where jobs are getting shipped overseas. I definitely don’t want more people here to lose their jobs! But playing ball with a secularist, socialist president is not the answer. First of all, I doubt Obama can deliver the goods. And second, if we give up our principles in times of trouble, did we really value them at all?
73 Will B // Mar 2, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Im reminded of Shakespeares Richard III when I consider Rush “And thus I clothe my naked villainy, with odd old ends stolen out of holy writ, and seem a saint, when most I play the devil.” But Rush also reminds me of Falstaff, something to do with his intemperate temperament and corpulent visage.
As you well know, the future of the GOP rests in the hands of moderates and their future rests in the hands of Rush…what an irony. Poor party. Whatever happened to the honorable and rationale opposition the William F. Buckley’s, Eisenhowers and Goldwaters? Oh yes, theyve moved on, unfortunately. Well your party needs to replace them. Mr. Frum is a good first step, as is David Brooks and Andrew Sullivan (if his name is even allowed on GOP websites).
The zeitgeist has swung in a different direction, and the rational moderates of your party understand that fact. The freak show on the CPAC right is an embarrassment to practical American good sense. As a moderate Democrat and member of that party, I request that my moderate Republican counterparts muster forces to create a loyal opposition party worth fighting. Get some stomach and persuade those conservative Americans among you who are subject to rational modern reason to oust those pundit demagogs and either take control of your party, or leave it. Go ahead and become independent, or a Democrat, or some other party for Heavens sake. Let that decaying fruit of the far right rot on the vine….Its actually possible to build a better country by having two civilized and modern partys debate using in an actual dialogue over shared FACTS. This is possible if luck and God’s grace remains in our favor.
74 krove // Mar 2, 2009 at 4:57 pm
BINGO!!! more popcorn please. It took less than 3 hours for Steele to walk back and grovel at the feet of the great Rush, the voice of the GOP. Way too funny. I feel the need for champagne.
75 JJWFromME // Mar 2, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Okaaay. Just who runs the Republican party?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19517.html
76 tinare // Mar 2, 2009 at 5:00 pm
This is going to be fun to watch. Rush has a massive, massive ego and the administration is running straight towards it. Obama is the master of the rope-a-dope, and Limbaugh is a HUGE dope. Vanity will not allow him to sidestep the trap. Pass me the popcorn!!!
77 ottovbvs // Mar 2, 2009 at 5:17 pm
“Atlas Shrugged” was an entertaining novel. But nobody wants to live through that scenario for real.”
….Actually it was one of the most tedious novels I’ve ever read in my life…up there with The Napoleon of Notting Hill or Finnegan’s Wake….But no… we don’t want live through it despite the apparent wish of La Malkin for us all to have the experience. It’s funny one seems to encounter the same nihilism on the far left who are in such a tizzy about the bankers they’re quite happy to let AIG for example go down even if it take the entire financial system with it. Apparently we didn’t learn anything from the Lehman experience…..I’ll be quite honest and say I’m very happy Bernanke, Summers and Geithner are handling this because I feel a lot more comfortable with mental image of Bernanke dismantling the bomb than of Rick Santelli or Rush with the screwdriver.
78 krove // Mar 2, 2009 at 5:21 pm
oodoodanoo
wrote 40 minutes ago Quote “krove: You are a self-described liberal, so I do not expect you to understand what it meant to have a president who stood for lower taxes, respect for life, stronger defense, and pride in faith”
Yes lower taxes for the top 2% that did the other 98% a lot of good. No respect for the lives of the 100,000 killed in Iraq or the ones he put to death in Texas, Stronger defence, he was AWOL on 9/11 he ignored the daily briefings for months telling him that we were going to be attacked. He totally distorted the separation of church and state, he was an evil man, God will judge him .Get Real man.
79 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 5:26 pm
While the Dow is tanking and people’s retirement and college savings accounts are fading away, the White House is wasting time picking on a private citizen. Talk about being out of touch. The funny part is watching all those dopes in New York, specifically Wall Street, who supposed this clueless peacock all in the name of making history.
80 Petey // Mar 2, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Mistaking strategy for “principle” — that’s the essential mistake so many conservatives make, from Rush to oodoodanoo below.
Even profound political and economic philosophies (such as unfettered free markets) are, at root, strategies designed to provide We The People better lives. This is what Rush is missing when he says he wants Obama to fail. He can shout out the word “principle” all he wants, but average Americans understand that he’s placing ideological concepts above the nation’s welfare.
Of course it’s fair game to argue the efficacy of any proposed path. But, after losing a battle (such as the last election) it’s simply twisted to hope an opposing strategy fails.
81 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 5:28 pm
krove and other Rush bashers, I rather have Limbaugh speak for me than Frum, Brooks or any of those spineless Republicans who run in fear at the site of poll numbers.
82 Canada Calling // Mar 2, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Surely the GOP doesn’t want another Joe McCarthy repeat and disaster. Whether Commie bashing, or fear mongering or calling for the failure of the President of the United States, said talk was un-American then and it still is now. These demagaogues always collapse in the end in their own pathetic mire of self-pity, as their addictions take hold again and obeisty takes its toll. After that their “hero” is denigrated as are most of their circle and many of their mesmerized lemmings who have followed their “leader”; Joe was and Rush will soon be compared to Fuehrer (leader) Hitler and worse. So those who are true conservatives are best, as history shows, to distance themselves, without delay.
83 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 5:31 pm
“But, after losing a battle (such as the last election) it’s simply twisted to hope an opposing strategy fails.” Did Obama say that he was going to spend a trillion in stimulus, to be followed by another half a trillion in omnibus spending? I don’t recall that.
84 freeta goodholm // Mar 2, 2009 at 5:32 pm
David I bet if you ask the democrats they would let you join the party.
You could be the token moderate go on tv, write blogs,
and not have to hide your true leanings.
85 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Canada. Obama is a lefty. Hell, even Cramer said that Obama gets his economic policies from Lening. I guess Cramer is another demagogue. I just hope that more and more people tune in and actually listen to what Rush has to say instead of getting their information about him from the opposition.
86 Petey // Mar 2, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Chekote, after a long, hard election — despite charges of “socialism” — the people voted to entrust Obama with this nation’s physical and economic security. But you’ve ignored my main point: that whether one agrees or disagrees with our leaders’ strategies, desiring failure on the basis of “principle” is nihilistic, cynical, and, frankly, sick.
87 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 5:41 pm
“As long as Rush is the public face of the Republican Party, the republicans will be in the wildernes!” Hey CalSailor, the GOP landed in the wilderness without Rush being the face of the party. “a rhetoric of divisiveness is only harmful. ” You mean the constant class warfare practiced by the Dems? You mean the constant identify politics practiced by the Dems. I agree. It is divisive.
88 JJWFromME // Mar 2, 2009 at 5:41 pm
I think you should skip Rush Limbaugh and just turn the dials up to 11. Joe the Plumber should be the leader of the Republican Party. Then you’d win every election.
89 Rapunzel46 // Mar 2, 2009 at 5:41 pm
I was expecting this post. Not even a bit of shock from it after the attacks here last month on Palin. Instead of trying to change the GOP into democrat-lite, why not just join the democratic party and let the GOP rebuild it’s Ronald Reagan-like conservative roots.
90 ottovbvs // Mar 2, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Chekote: the market was in the tank today because of (in this order) AIG, the HSBC rights issue, lousy earnings reports from across the spectrum…… And as far as middle America is concerned this is still all down to Bush…..It might have changed in a year or two but as of now the economy and financial system problems are still owned by the Republicans…..Obama is perceived as trying to clean up the mess and keep people in jobs…while Rush is very publicly hoping he fails…that’s the meme out there.
91 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Petey. I want Obama to fail. I hope that conservative Dems block his attempt to undermine our contract law. I hope that the blue dogs stop him from reducing the deduction for charitable contributions. I don’t want the government to pick winner and losers. I want Obama to fail.
92 ottovbvs // Mar 2, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Chekote:
“I just hope that more and more people tune in and actually listen to what Rush has to say instead of getting their information about him from the opposition”
….Well they got plenty of opportunity tonight since it was all over network news….they played the hoping for failure clip…even my local TV station had it in between stories about snowdrifts and lost dogs….Even you have to see this is counter productive.
93 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 5:46 pm
“Obama is perceived as trying to clean up the mess and keep people in jobs” Watch CNBC and see whether they think that Obama is trying to clean up anything. They are continuing the worse of the Bush policies with no new ideas. Geithner (the man who was peddled so uniquely qualified to handle the problem that we needed to overlook who tax cheating) is in over his head. The market is figuring it out and responding accordingly.
94 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 5:48 pm
otto. Everybody boos Simon Cowell but deep inside we all know he is telling the truth. When people tell the truth and stand up for what they believe, the get something better than being liked. They get respect.
95 Petey // Mar 2, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Dear Chekote — I disagreed vehemently with the last President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. I thought it was a huge, arrogant mistake. But once he did it, I wanted him to succeed. Imagine what you would have thought of me if I’d announced that I wanted him to fail! What kind of names would you have called me? Yet, this is exactly what you’re doing now. In this recession/depression, real people are losing homes, losing life savings, losing healthcare, losing lives. Your (and Rush’s) “principled” desire for failure are not just petty, they’re immoral.
96 A.B. // Mar 2, 2009 at 5:51 pm
(Ottovbvs)”Actually it was one of the most tedious novels I’ve ever read in my life…up there with The Napoleon of Notting Hill or Finnegan’s Wake…” Indeed. The sheer stylistic nonsense of FW is well beyond Rand, however. Try “The Age of Longing” by Koestler, if one wants insight into a depraved corner of conservatism.
97 JasonTL // Mar 2, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Ok, if not Rush, then WHO IS the most important voice of the Conservative/Republican party? Because I haven’t been able to find anyone else confident and confrontational enough to be the leader of an Obama-opposing party/movement.
98 Petey // Mar 2, 2009 at 5:56 pm
JasonTL — Barack has changed the culture of politics. The GOP will not succeed until they understand this change. If you think finding the ultimate confrontationalist is the solution… well, good luck.
99 Dantes // Mar 2, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Where to begin? Puerile, juvenile attack on Rush, who is first and foremost a private citizen, who has a real job for a living and pays more in taxes in a year, Frum, than you will for the rest of your life. In Obama’s world, who is worth more?
Rush does not claim to be leader of Republican Party. So Rush had a substance abuse problem and is overweight. What does that have to do with his message. Absolutely zero, zip, nada.
He’s more sarcastic than Obama? Barney Frank? Nancy Pelosi? Rush is not even in the running for their hypocrisy and arrogance. You, on the other hand, think the GOP must become more like them.
I don’t think Rush would argue that he should be sidelined on the political scene. The fact that he is the putative leader of the pack is a reflection of the castrati’s that run the GOP right now, including Steele.
Anyway, I won’t be back to this blog. You have no message for conservatives.
100 JJWFromME // Mar 2, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Once you made the switch to Joe the Plumber as the leader of your party, you could change the symbol from the elephant to a silhouette of a guy with a raised plunger.
101 ottovbvs // Mar 2, 2009 at 6:05 pm
“The sheer stylistic nonsense of FW is well beyond Rand, however.”
….Well lets call it equal opportunity boredom.
…..And Chekote…..the world doesn’t revolve around CNBC which probably has an audience below two million and if you’re happier with the idea of Rush dismantling bombs than Geithner or Bernanke just make sure I’m well away.
102 dragonlady // Mar 2, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Canda Calling: “Surely the GOP doesn’t want another Joe McCarthy repeat and disaster…Joe was and Rush will soon be compared to Fuehrer (leader) Hitler and worse.” Yup, no McCarthy-like attacks here. Glad to see you’re brave enough to speak your mind on American politics, a country where free speech is still cherished. Unlike Canada’s kangroo courts, the Human Rights Commssion, a body that can’t even make public their own trials against what it deems as hate speech.
103 fact based // Mar 2, 2009 at 6:25 pm
I apologize I was wrong about my 24 hr eta for Michael Steele’s grovelling it was about 2 hrs after Rush’s diatribe
check politico.com
arent you guys emabarrassed ? And you guys scream about Kos and Soros controlling the dems !
104 krove // Mar 2, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Steele Grovels at Rushbo’s feetI went back at that tape and I realized words that I said werent what I was thinking, Steele said. “It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and hes not.” I give him a week in the job. If he can’t stand up to a blowhard entertainer than he is toast. He basically acknowledged Rush as the leader of the Party.
105 ottovbvs // Mar 2, 2009 at 6:30 pm
I’ll leave all those who dissent from David’s views with a little mental picture….It’s 7.00 pm after a long hard day in the White House…The president and his buddies Rahm, Gibbs, Axelrod assemble for an end of day beer while watching the evening news on all the networks on multiple screens…big leads on all channels….more snow than in The Call of the Wild….stock market tanking……huge red faced man jumping up and down and ranting to cheering conservative audience about his hopes for the president and his admin to fail…..The boyz chuckle…cans are clinked……Then they get the bonus on the cable shows…..Steele grovelling to his leader….More chuckles….Nice one Rahm.
106 mpolito // Mar 2, 2009 at 6:43 pm
People need to realize what Rush means when he says that he wants Obama to fail. He believes that America’s success depends on either (1) the failure of Obama to implement of his policies, or (2) the failure of these policies such that they are repealed. He does not want America to fail; on the contrary, he believes that if Obama gets what he wants, America will fail. What is wrong with that?
Krove- any party that may soon have Al Franken as a Senator -a Senator- has no right to complain about the clout of a “blowhard” on the radio.
107 dragonlady // Mar 2, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Frum, I have one simple question based on some observations. You clearly do not like the base of the party and will go as far as to personally attack Rush, Palin, and company. But you defend Obama and Pelosi, and insist they are not socialists. What do you want the NewMajority to stand for anyway?
108 petty boozshwa // Mar 2, 2009 at 6:53 pm
I assume my comment from this afternoon was deleted – if so I apologize for my tasteless quotes of Mr. Limbaugh’s on air pronouncements. Reading this thread I am more and more convinced that maybe the concept of political party has to change – maybe we need to be like Germany, where Bavaria has kind of a Mini Me sidekick for the primary conservative party, or maybe factions will break up to be more like Israel’s kaleidoscope with the Blue Dogs and the moderate rump of Yankee Republicans holding the balance of power.
109 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 6:55 pm
‘What do you want the NewMajority to stand for anyway?” Dragonlady. I hope you get an answer to your question. I have been asking the same thing for weeks now and all I got was crickets.
110 InTheMiddle12 // Mar 2, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Chekote: you say:. Everybody boos Simon Cowell but deep inside we all know he is telling the truth. When people tell the truth and stand up for what they believe, the get something better than being liked. They get respect.
Perhaps more accurately this explains President Obama’s 65 plus percentage approval ratings?
111 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 6:57 pm
otto. Why don’t you enlightens us again about how government policy has nothing to do with the housing bubble.
112 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 7:01 pm
“Once you made the switch to Joe the Plumber as the leader of your party, you could change the symbol from the elephant to a silhouette of a guy with a raised plunger.” I just love the way liberal say they stand for working people but have nothing but comtempt for them.
Too funny.
113 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 7:02 pm
InTheMiddle. Is anybody booing Obama? Sorry, he is the Paula Abdul of the group. Telling people what they want to hear.
114 krove // Mar 2, 2009 at 7:06 pm
My intent was not to go after Rush I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh, Steele said in a telephone interview. I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership. So Steele is acknowledging Rushbo as Leader great. and mpolito Franken at least stood for an office let the people judge him and has won a senate seat. Rushbo is scared to death to run for office because he knows he would not get 20% of the vote. In essence he is a coward of the highest order.
115 Michael INdy // Mar 2, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Frum is right, of course – Limbaugh is an unappealing character as “leader” of the GOP. Why would anyone disagree with that? He’s obnoxious, rude, bombastic, sarcastic, etc. On the other hand, he’s the perfect character for his actual role as talk radio host/king. He’s obnoxious, rude, bombastic, sarcastic, etc.
116 uphuffheinz // Mar 2, 2009 at 7:28 pm
“With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history”
What a petty thing to say.
If memory serves, Rush’s influence helped propel the GOP to House and Senate majorities in 1994.
Rush wants to keep the GOP dependent on him? THAT’s his grand goal?
David Frum, I didn’t know you were a conspiracy theorist.
Methinks I detect a fair amount of jealousy in Frum’s tone here.
117 JJWFromME // Mar 2, 2009 at 7:38 pm
“I just love the way liberal say they stand for working people but have nothing but comtempt for them.” I’ve got a carpenter and a licensed electrician in my family. You don’t think plumbers think plungers are funny? They have senses of humor.
118 voice of reason // Mar 2, 2009 at 7:38 pm
ad hominem attacks mean nothing
in rush’s speech at cpac
with which of his point(s) do you disagree?
119 Lady Liberty // Mar 2, 2009 at 7:43 pm
“exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And were cooperating!”
Yes, you are, David. Democrats love to be fooled by appearances. Sounds like you prefer their philosophy. They’re going to need members in the near future. Consider re-upping.
120 Mr.Joe // Mar 2, 2009 at 7:43 pm
David, Rush is not the problem here. Michael Steele created this media storm by being hamfisted. Steele should have treated Rush just like Howard Dean treated Kos. Well, not the part about Howard Dean rushing over in the middle of the night like a homely girl desperate for love every time Kos called, but you get the point. Your former boss, WFB, loved Rush. WFB never had problems criticizing the party, but I think he would lean more to Rush’s side than his own son Christopher Buckley’s.
I do not expect Michael Steele as GOP/RNC Chair to be an outlaw or a hard core conservative. I expect him not to pick fights with Rush Limbaugh.
121 Ella in NM // Mar 2, 2009 at 7:46 pm
David, I don’t see eye-to-eye with you on many issues, but on this one, you are dead, spot on.
If the Republican Party is to survive, it needs to get rid of this “Talk Radio” element as it’s leadership base as soon as possible. Or, maybe the best course of action is to just wait until these clowns have their “15 minutes” and then re-assume the reigns. Until then, most of us will remain “Independents”.
This week, we lost a great spokesperson for traditional Conservatism: Paul Harvey. He’s the man I used to hear outside of the local hot dog stand two or three times a week when my mom would pile all of us into the car to go get our dad from work for his lunch hour. His stories never mocked people who were in pain or tried to prove how bad “the other side is”. Mr. Harvey always made common, decent sense. He never made the kind of unkind and divisive statements we hear coming out of today’s radio big whigs. Instead he used the power of a story or a pause or even humor to allow the listener to come to his own–logical–conclusions about a particular issue. I don’t think I can ever remember him saying the kind of hateful, vulgar and self-serving things I have heard come from the lips of Rush Limbaugh. I, now a progressive/traditional, will miss his contributions to my upbringing. I have yet to see what positive public benefit any of Limbaughs blatherings have had on America.
The Republicans may just need to let the Limbaughs and the Hannity’s and the Coulters have their 15 minute. Because unfiltered, they are such an affront to decent American people (and especially intelligent conservatives) that they will pretty much burn themselves out, making way for a TRUE renewal of decent conservativism. In the meantime, I am turning off my TV.
122 Nick Lento // Mar 2, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Frum is correct. Here’s another smart conservative to whom y’all should be paying attention:
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/feb/23/00006/
Of course, as someone who actually *wants* President Barack Obama to succeed, I have to hope that Frum fails to convince you that having people like Limbaugh and the hard right wing “talkers” like Levine and Savage et al become the leadership/face
of the Republican party will relegate “conservatism” to the proverbial dustbin of history.
There’s nothing objectively conservative about short term killings/profits for the few while the many get screwed. And that’s the business/government model that Limbaugh-ism functionally advocates. It’s all about ego, power and cash for Rush…..and he’s managed to con some rabid followers into making him a very wealthy man. Most decent folk throughout the whole planet and in the USA see Rush for the narcissistic blowhard that he is.
So please, dig in your heels and keep Rush as “your leader”. Make my day.
And if you should see the light and dump Rush as the “heart and soul” of your enterprise….I’ll be happy too! As it would be a step towards a more “perfect union”. Civil-ization is a *good* thing!
Peace be with you!
123 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 8:00 pm
“He is a tax cheating …” That qualifies him for a Cabinet post in the Obama administration. krove. You are the typical liberal filled with vitriol. Why are people like you so unhappy? I mean your party won everything. Yet, you are still angry and unhappy. Be happy, man.
124 Nick Lento // Mar 2, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Ella in NM, you are 100% right about Paul Harvey, may he rest in peace………….
As someone who you would call a “liberal” I must say that I have great admiration/respect for Paul Harvey. He was, above all, a decent caring human being, and that came across in the way he told his stories and in his commentary. He also had a great sense of humor………..it really IS possible to disagree without being disagreeable…….so long as America can continue to produce citizens like Paul Harvey, we’ll do just fine……….if we’re around as a nation in a hundred years (and I pray that we are) the lib v con bs that currently divides us so stupidly will have been completely transcended……they’ll look back at the stuff we’ve been fighting about as inane, insane childish non-sense.
125 realconservativ // Mar 2, 2009 at 8:31 pm
On the other hand, David Frum wants the GOP to morph into Dem Lite.
126 realconservativ // Mar 2, 2009 at 8:37 pm
I just hate it when MSM quotes like Frum, David Brooks, Kathleen Parker or Peggy Noonan and erroneously labels them as “conservative.”
127 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Will B. You are no Dante Alighieri.
128 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 8:46 pm
RealCon. Frum has been going on a lot about the lack of intellectualism in the conservative, yet he resorts to the cheapest of cheap shots by referring to Rush’s weight and personal failings.
129 Will B // Mar 2, 2009 at 8:52 pm
No Chekote, I’m not a dead 13th Century Florentine poet. Are you? Since you’re a conservative, I thought I should ask.
130 coleman // Mar 2, 2009 at 8:55 pm
David is brave and right, a nice combination. Limbaugh is the liberal stereotype of a Republican: Intolerant, smug, greedy, unpatriotic, rude, vulgar, and uncompromising. And who have we marginalized? Colin Powell.
How can this be addressed? We need the Old Guard to step up and speak out, men like Bob Dole, to try their best to muzzle him.
I fear the genie is out of the bottle, Pandora’s Box has been opened. His scorched earth policy, the litmus test being an absolute fealty to his nihilistic views, has turned the word “moderate” into an obscenity.
How ironic that during the Presidential campaign Obama was routinely portrayed as a radical, as a blood brother of Bill Ayers.
Obama has turned out to be the consummate pragmatist, and Limbaugh as a true radical, a rabid ideologue, someone who would see the country burn before admitting political defeat. This bunker mentality has no place in modern America. It’s the psychology of a fanantic, a cult leader, a fascist who demands unyielding loyalty. Who will challenge him?
131 HLLC // Mar 2, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Democrats seem to be unable to learn the lessons of the past. They had better.. and soon. Dismissing Rush Limbaugh with pejoratives about his weight or his love of cigars is not a very smart tact to take, no matter how it plays on the chuckle meter. There is a deep core of respect for Rush among many kinds of conservatives, even if they do not agree with him on every point. That’s because he’s earned it over time. These conservatives aren’t all uneducated hicks or skinheads either. That sort of stereotyping is what allowed Democrats to get wiped out back when the Republicans swept congress. A vast group of Americans see Rush’s detractors as cowardly people with no honor or pride, the last people to fight for anything or to come up with innovative solutions on their own. Simply dismissing Rush and ignoring the fact that he — and the millions upon millions of conservative talk show listeners really, truly despise liberal or progressive ideology and think it is dangerous, then the stage will be set for another November surprise.
It is important for objective observers to understand that not every conservative accepts everything Rush says. But that is not important, because at their core they will continue loving him and spreading the gospel of military strength, personal responsibility, smaller government, and lower taxes. It’s a love that might be compared with the liberal’s love of Ralph Nader. It is true that there are many young, energetic, vibrant conservatives to choose from these days and I am sure Rush would be the first to be thankful for them all. New answers are needed, and everyone understands that. But Rush will still be respected as will an icon of any movement.
Conservatism has not been harmed. It didn’t win the election, but how could it? A bumbling president held in low esteem by even his friends, and a candidate whose last hurrah was eight years ago was all the Republicans could put up against a brilliant speaker who had the novelty of race – deftly handled — as his ace-in-the hole. Even the hardest of hard-core conservative had to admit Obama was formidable, even if his policies were addled. The first step to winning is to admire and understanding your opponents strengths, and give credit where credit is due. That’s what Gladiators did, that’s what modern football players or lawyers do. You can fight with respect, and that’s what Republicans must learn to do or they will be reduced to speaking only to their own kind and nobody else.
Here’s a link to a blog article I wrote entitled “Baracks Honeymoon and What Republicans Would Need to Do”:
http://www.hedgelender.us/wordpress/?p=26
It says it all quite nicely and objectively, I think. Not all conservatives agree with everything Rush says, but most still revere him, and Democrats dismiss him at their own peril.
132 InTheMiddle12 // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Chekote: “Is anybody booing Obama? Sorry, he is the Paula Abdul of the group. Telling people what they want to hear.” Apparently the President isn’t afraid to tell you what you don’t want ot hear.
133 RightWingMama // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Thanks David. Maybe you would feel better if you changed to a different party. I’m a conservative Republican and loving it. El Rushbo is our NYTimes or MSNBC not the head of the Republican Party. Get over it.
134 Bulldoglover100 // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:06 pm
RELIBERTY….what about jail and then drug rehab did you not bother to educate yourself regarding?
WHAT ABOUT THOSE MORALS THAT ALLOWED HIM TO MARRY 3 TIMES AND DIVORCE 3 TIMES?
Facts are there but most of the people who listen to Rush the magic blowhard? can’t read.
135 Mike_D // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:45 pm
All I see in this article is petty jealousy and a sort of elitism I normally see amongst the Left. Those who don’t like Rush
seem to feel that way because he doesn’t pull any punches or capitulate to the RINO’s or the left wing media. The man knows of what he speaks and is able to understand conservatives and give voice to our beliefs. These attacks are based in fear. Fear that Limbaugh will be able to awaken the activists among us and cheer us
on as we shine light on the most corrupt and out of control administration ever to hold power.
All these lame attempts at diminishing Rush will do is
strengthen our resolve to stop this administration and save our representative democracy.
136 Akes // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Mr Frum
I hope that they do continue to to rebroadcast his comments. I for one found them inspiring and on target. You see Mr Limbaugh has a sense of humor that you may lack or not understand. Sarcasum is an art one that Mr Limbaugh is good at. He prides himself in ticking off the so called intelects. I for one Admire him for his self educated style. I to am self educated and take it upon myself to learn all sides of the subject in which I tend to engauge in. It has served me well. I often times find myself in a conversation with a “educated” person about politics and for the most part come out on top of that argument. Wether it is because they under estimate me or (and this is mostly the reason) I have the facts and the knowledge to combat them with. And yes lots of sarcasium. But to say that style over substance is the key to winning the argument is what has gotten us where we are today. The American idol mentality needs to be sqaushed. Not everyone can be prim and propper. The brits during the revolution were quiet prim and proper. And yet Americans still defeated them. By all accounts Ben Franklin and John Adams were often quite brash and plump as well. But there ideas were what founded this country more so than anyone except George Washington. So please get off your high horse. If all you can do is put forth ideas about how somone looks or sounds. Please consider the left they seem to prefer style over substance. And by the way judging by your photo I would not be taking to many shots at someones looks. Just some freindly advice. And also as far as this line goes, On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of responsibility, First the invoking the recession and it’s victims. That is the problem he wants everyone to be the victim so they will depend on the Govt. I say a little tough love never hurt anyone. Most people that don’t give in and fight come out stronger for doing so. And that is exactly what the conservative’s are doing to the Republicans now. And the party will be stronger for it. As for the “responsability” Just look at the stimulis,the omnibus,tarp and his budget and show me where he is showing any sort of responsibillity! He keeps telling us that he inherited this deficet well he also helped create it. Where is his responsability for the deficet? Where is the responsability for the housing crunch that he,Dodd,Frank and countless others were talking down the problem a few years ago? Oh ya he only recieved the second most contributions only behind Dodd. As far as rush needing the conservatives to fail to keep his ratings please. He will always have Pelosi,Reed and the Kenndys. As well as countless other Dems,looney leftist groups and the “educated” as your self to keep him and his listners entertained. Make no mistake about it he is the conservative movent and so am I and thousands of others as well. As George Patton once said “We herd sheep, we drive cattle, we lead people. Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way.” Something you may want to consider.
“Half wits talk much, but say little.”
Benjamin Franklin
137 Akes // Mar 2, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Bulldog lover nice try but we are starting to catch on to you seminar bloggers. It’s not gonna work were not as week minded as you on the left.
138 InTheMiddle12 // Mar 2, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Right Wing Mama: you say: “El Rushbo is our NYTimes or MSNBC not the head of the Republican Party. Get over it.” I think the point Mr. Frum is making is that, as you call him, ‘Rushbo,’ is seen and not being contested as the head of the Republican Party by the majority of the nation. And that, for many, is a serious problem. Most of all the Republican Party.
139 dantana // Mar 2, 2009 at 10:55 pm
This article is moot.
The only thing that will make Limbaugh or the Republicans relevent is the inevitable collapse of US productivity, skyrocketing inflation and an upper middle class drowning in taxation as a result of destructive Democratic Party policies.
Every generation has to learn the hard way.
140 Will B // Mar 2, 2009 at 10:59 pm
A message for some of the conservative bloggers on Americas political right including the ditto-heads, neocons, and those fascist dominionist faux-Christians: You have made a mortal political mistake thinking that Democrats, or liberals lack backbone and are threatened by your constant echo chamber of honor and military strength. Go tell that to the widows and orphans youve made of military families in rural America for nothing but chicken hawk guile, or the countless thousands of dead civilians by your policy and our presence in Iraq all for one “Born Again” Christians vanity? Is that your idea of honor? No, unlike this sorry rightist lot, we Democrats need stiff backs to hold up our large brains. And weve figured you out for the posers you are. Military strength and small government and low taxes! Dont you get the paradox of your oxymoron? This failed logic dooms your meager, small minded 18th Century philosophy and pioneer fantasy. In case your home schooling curriculum overlooked it, were a different country today. The best conservative Republican Ive known draws two government pensions and social security while railing at oversized government and immigrant squatters while the worst Democrat I know pays more in taxes monthly than that Republican pensioner does annually. It may have slipped your attention but conservative states (you know, the Red Ones) get more in federal tax dollar spending per capita than the large and highly taxed Blue states. Hmm, maybe a rebate is necessary? So ditto-heads are all hat and no cattle when it comes to reality. You conservatives have bitten the fruit of hubris for too long – thinking that youre the tough guys. Youve underestimated your opponent and we dare you go ahead, make our day.
141 choccity2005 // Mar 3, 2009 at 12:17 am
Let me tell you the only way to regain the house,senate and presidency is to go the Glenn beck way.Critize the dems when the mess up and critize your PARTY WORSE when they do.40 % of repubs voted for the 410 billion dollar earmark bill.Where is rush’s OUTRAGE!!Why don’t he want those repubs to fail.If Rush says he wants socialism to fail,Then he should of said he wanted bush to fail…Bush grew the government first before obama,bush signed the tarp 1,AIG bailouts,medicare….SO WHY DID HE NOT SAY HE WANTED BUSH TO FAIL!!!RUSH has zero SOCIAL CHARACTER….The man can’t keep a marriage,can’t keep his weight down,isn’t even close to a christian.WE must marginalize this guy.WHy you ASK?Abortion is now a 50/50 issue with americans…30 years ago it was a 80/30 opposed,Blacks are voting 90 percent democratic,hispanics just voted 50 percent for obama.Women are now voting 50 percent for democrats.Republicans are getting killed politically in the North east and midwest.Sooner or later if rush is not silenced meaning moderates turn on him like michael smirconish did……there will be two partys.Liberals and BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS.Remeber jd hayworth,santorum,george allen…..GONE!!Go see who are in thier seats…..conservative democrats like jim webb and bob casey(a pro life democrat).They have figured out how to defeat conservatism….put up thier own.Yet we are destroying liberal republicans like swarzenegger,guliani,collins,spector.Did any democrat attack the ones that did not vote for obama’s bill?Hollywood,the MSM,and the blogs are mostly LEFT.The top 3 conservative talk show hosts are limbaugh,hannity and savage.The left loves this….cause it’s so easy to paint us as The rich white men party.While the speaker of the house is a woman,the president is black,head of Homeland security is a woman,secretary of state a woman,health and human services a woman now,Mayor of los angelos hispanic democrat who is going to run for governor.Do you see what the DEMS are doing…..they have been doing it for years now….The party of WOMEN,BLACKS,HISPANICS,IDEAS,The POOR,SCIENCE VS the PARTY of RICH OLD WHITE MEN stuck in the past.MICHAEL STEELE/sarah palin and JINDAL ARE OUR ONLY HOPE…….YOU LET RUSH WIN and WE ARE OVER!!!
142 dantana // Mar 3, 2009 at 12:28 am
Choccity (Seminar Democratic poster)
The debt and disaster are now owned by Obama, Pelosi and the Democratic Party.
Enjoy.
Dan
143 choccity2005 // Mar 3, 2009 at 12:33 am
Thank you david frum,i’ve followed your career for a while now.Loved you on politicallly incorrect or whatever maher ’s show is called.
You ,krauthammer,kristol,Michael steele,buchanan,gingrichband BECk are what we need in this party……intelect,leadership,solutions,opinions and some self examination and self critisizing
144 Ricky // Mar 3, 2009 at 1:22 am
This so called argument by Frum is a joke. A fifth grader could eviscerate it. One example : He describes Obama as someone “physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette”, yet describes Rush as someone who has a private plane, cigars and a history of drug dependence. I guess Frum forgot Obama’s “past” pot and cocaine use. It’s interesting that he included one’s past failings and not the other. It’s just too easy David.
145 janderson // Mar 3, 2009 at 5:06 am
David Frum is one of those “conservatives” that Rush warned about, he’s one of the ones who want to remake conservatism.
He sold us out to Obama during the election.
Hope your conscience was worth it David. You sold out a party of Ideals for a man that gives good speeches, you picked form over substance. You must sleep so well at night.
Like Christopher Buckley, Kathleen Parker, and Peggy Noonan you have betrayed us. Why in thel would I listen to you anymore?
He’s trying to pull the wool over your eyes folks, dont listen to him. He wants to water down conservatism by bringing into the party people who dont believe in conservative principles.
Thats his idea of how to “fix” conservatism.
146 neil // Mar 3, 2009 at 5:29 am
As a “new independent”, David is right. Also, as a person who voted Republican until this election, It’s nice to see a reasoned, intellectual conservative who is willing to step back and make logical assessments.
His assertion is proven by reading the comments on this board. Take a few minutes and read a page or two and you’ll see a perfect micro model of the Republican party as a whole, except I don’t see two fissures: “right” and “far-right”, I see four: “right”, “far-right”, “neo-con”, and “apologetic”.
Hanging on to Rush’s every word in a cult like setting may seem to be wise from within his sphere of influence, but from the outside looking in, its sheer laughable and appears as fanatical ignorance.
147 Eugene C // Mar 3, 2009 at 5:30 am
Maybe we should think of the GOP at this time as a large open ‘Townhall’ meeting, with many diverse strands of thinking about how conservative principles, fiscal, economic, social, etc, should be applied. No ones hould be obliged to check in their views at the door, neither Limbaugh nor Coulter, or Frum, Brooks, etc. So there will be a lot of racaus hollering, and maybe the occassional punch-up (Steeele and Limbaugh). So what? That is the sign of a party that is alive and well.
148 InTheMiddle12 // Mar 3, 2009 at 5:35 am
janderson: It’s also very possible Mr. Frum, Mr. Buckley, Ms Parker and Ms Noon, in fact, were saying something needing to be heard by the party. The evidence seems to point to that more than what you’re saying. This current battle is a lose-lose for the conservative party. I don’t understand why it continues as the country sinks deeper into a recession, and possible depression, that was ushered in by 8 years of a conservative president.
149 KB // Mar 3, 2009 at 5:53 am
Rush advocates the true constitutional America of opportunity for all to achieve and succeed. Not a country of whining looters. Obama’s entire documented history shows a radical communist at heart joined with the same self serving Pelosi and Reid. A large number of Americans are sick of Dimocrat lite the GOP represents. Maybe it’s time to replace the GOP (Gutless Ol Party) with a party representing conservatives. Oops, I forgot the great Republican and perpetual candidate Senator McCain, along with Dimocrat Senator Feingold made it impossible for any new party to be legally funded. Leaves conservatives few options because of politics own self perpetuity.
150 roco // Mar 3, 2009 at 6:24 am
Maybe Rush is the sore loser?
151 hbeeinc // Mar 3, 2009 at 6:42 am
The fact is that Rush does nothing. Nor does Medved. Nor does Randi Rhodes. Nor do ANY talk show host. If you want to hold up Limbaugh as the savior of the right then elect him president. If you believe he’s right on every issue and that only he can save America then it is your duty as an America to do so. Not to take this action proves that you hate your country…or you don’t have the courage of your convictions. It’s a simple as that. If Limbaugh refuses to run then he is a coward. If he refuses to run then he is admitting that he is, for lack of a better phrase, “all talk and no action”. That goes for all talk show hosts. It’s the easiest thing in the world to make up insults like “Hitlery” and “Feminazi”. You cannot govern with those words, though. Governing takes intellect and tact. Limbaugh has none of those. Instead, he is the middle school football dad kicking the crap out of a referee because he knows more than the ref but is too unstable and lazy to do the job himself. You may hate Al Franken but he had the guts to get out from behind the mike and put his words (faith?) into action. Limbaugh can’t and won’t. In the real world, you can’t scream insults into the face of world leader and expect to get your way. It’s time to put away childish things and one of those things is Limbaugh.
152 jlalvis // Mar 3, 2009 at 8:01 am
Obama was not a drug addict and Rush is… anyway who cares. “Conservatives” became hijacked by religious zealotry and bombasticism (its a word now) first when they mistook an actor (as a “man’s man (Reagan)) and again when they sat an impish bozo business failure on the throne. It only makes since that next up will be a moral free bag of air. Sorry David, you are too smart for your own party anymore. Always loved you on Bill Maher. You are a thinking Conservative, not a Republican.
153 palomino70 // Mar 3, 2009 at 8:40 am
Defending Rush by suggesting some moral equivalency between his failings and Obama’s simply underscores the serious denial of today’s right. No one really cares about recreational drug use in HS/college; if they did, Clinton and Bush never would have been elected. Habitual illegal drug use as a middle-aged man is another matter entirely, as are being thrice married and divorced and morbidly obese.
Conservatives seem intent on purging moderates like Frum, Brooks, Noonan et al., while elevating Rush to de facto head of the party; this is a recipe for disaster. How on earth can the GOP grow, a necessity for regaining a majority, if this strategy is followed? I’m sure the Dems are delighted to make this a personality contest between youthful likeable Obama and combative unappetizing Rush, who’s had 20+ years in the spotlight and is still only highly regarded by those on the far right.
154 hbeeinc // Mar 3, 2009 at 8:59 am
Obama never said, as Limbaugh did – “What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we’re not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too.”
Obama admitted his drug use. Limbaugh hid his drug addiction while condemning those who did as he did. How anyone defends that kind of behavior is completely beyond me. It is blatant hypocrisy. Again – the left is guilty of the same thing. BOTH sides need to clean house or stop laying claim to being the party of “morality”.
155 Mr.Conservative // Mar 3, 2009 at 10:11 am
David, I have been a big fan of your writing for a long time (since I read the Bush book about 3 or 4 years ago) but this column exposes our HUGE differences.
I like Rush and can appreciate his talent and substance (yes, I do think he has a lot of substance) while also acknowledging his personal failings as well as occasional policy differences I have with him.
But, this piece, David, makes it look like style (or even personal morality) is all that matters and that there are did not exist economic laws or political principles that can only be ignored at one’s (and the nation’s) peril.
Reagan obviously had martial and family problems especially compared to smiling, born-again, Habitat-building, personally compassionate Carter, but his POLICIES hurt many more people that they helped. Reagan’s rising tide did lift many boats including my family’s.
Churchill was pretty much a drunkard and a prideful lout especially compared to the fastidious and well-heeled Chamberlain but who was RIGHT on policy David?
David, I am afraid you have become like those people who say, “I will only vote for a born-again Christian.” Not me (although I am one). I would rather count myself with John Calvin who famously remarked that it is better to be governed by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian (or, in this case, a foolish, although well-honed, self-disciplined, family-loving, articulate, intelligent Christian).
156 Will B // Mar 3, 2009 at 10:39 am
I need to point something out to conservatives here, moderates and, well those on the far right who can think independently. As our new National Security Advisor and retired 4-star Marine general, James Jones, testified two weeks ago, the world’s shrinking economies are the top national security threat. Here we are with the Dow at 6700, two wars, a GOP Administration national debt of over $6 TT which Barack inherited, a complete failure of private equity, bankrupt investment banks, and major re-insurer bailouts all at the heart of capitalism. Then we have an 8.5% official unemployment rate which is rising daily, a flailing housing and commercial real estate market, record foreclosures, depressed spending and horrible corporate balance sheets all resulting in dismal public confidence in our future. All of these factors will continue to spin together feeding on each other in a downward spiral of another Greater Depression. And you conservatives waste you energy and distract critical public dialogue that may help fix this disaster with nonsense about deficit spending. You fool heartedly disparage and imperfect stimulus package pasted together to quickly address this rapidly descending downward economic cycle. Then your pundits falsely claim that FDR’s big federal government spending in the 1930s did nothing to end the first Great Depression, rather ascribing that fix to WW II. Have you ever considered what entity spent the money during that war and who the soldiers worked for??? Hmmm, – ever?? Get rid of the failed lassie fare ‘-ologies” which created this mess in the first place. For whom the bell tolls? – my friends the Bell Tolls for You! AND STOP WANTING THE PRESIDENT TO FAIL IN THIS MISSION to fix the economy. The dittoheads who think this way must all be retired with guarenteed pensions. Those of us who support those pensions would like to retire one day too.
157 Mr.Conservative // Mar 3, 2009 at 11:06 am
choccity:
I guess my difference with your point is one of nuance–if Obama is driving the car off the cliff, NO, I do not want him to “succeed.” If he changes his path, gets the the car back on the road, i.e. obeys the laws of economics, then heck yes, we want him to succeed. This is not a partiasan wish as in “I cannot stomach a Democrat succeeding.” This is more a fundamental difference, “I cannot stomach a socialist (of any party) who is leading a governmental power grab of private sector assets and freedoms suceeding.”
158 dantana // Mar 3, 2009 at 11:16 am
WillB-
the debt is Obama’s and the Democratic Party’s.
They own it.
the market is tanking and Obama is now going to implement a new Social Security tax across the board.
He can not succeed without destroying wealth and incentive.
he must fail.
159 RightofCenter // Mar 3, 2009 at 11:20 am
I’d be interested to know what percentage of Rush’s fan base is under 35. He’s a relic from the “Me Decade” and not the voice for the new direction of the Republican Party. I’m hard-pressed to find any fellow Conservative/Republican under-35ers who take Rush seriously or as gospel. He just blows a lot of hot air.
160 Will B // Mar 3, 2009 at 12:16 pm
No Dantana, as expected – you’re wrong. The debt and wars your votes created belong to our children and grandchildren. Yours is a toddler’s logic and like all the immature your comment reminds me of the kid with his fingers in mom’s freshly baked cake confidently responding when caught: “No ma, I’m not eating desert” – crass, impetuous and evidently wrong. Very sad.
161 sculham // Mar 3, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Obama invokes the “language” of responsibility…yes, he was responsible for the vetters, and those they vetters…he was responsible for his associations with wright, ayers, his typical white grandmother…he was responsible for his financial dealings with tony rezko…he was responsible for being financially supported by raines et al…stepped right up on scrubbing signatures on opponents’ petitions…
stick with it…
162 bruno10 // Mar 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm
David: If I read you correctly, you appear to be swayed like Peggy Noonan and Sean Penn by the President’s elegance. I see absolutely no substance though. Where is the intellectual seriousness in your argument? Our government is expanding at a rate well-beyond any previous time in our 200+ year history, and fundamental changes are taking place, but you seem content because our President is articulate and smooth.
163 Martian // Mar 3, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Writing as a … young Democrat, I guess…I’m in a bit of hostile territory. However, I was directed to this article, and I can’t agree with it more. As our system essentially necessitates two parties (through the Electoral System, and the threat of spoilers), everyone has an interest in a resilient minority. Rush Limbaugh, however, is not making anyone stronger except himself. Every time his name comes up in the news, its a victory for us, for the Democrats, because it allows for the portrayal of the Republicans as one man – one man who wants our President to fail, one man who seems out of contact with the reality of life for most people, one man who seems entirely irrelevant, and is only growing moreso by the day. Limbaugh is not the future. I hope for all our sakes, someone recognizes that.
164 Sophie Amrain // Mar 4, 2009 at 6:36 am
With exception of your last paragraph I could not agree more with your analysis, David. And I predict that you will have to search for another intellectual home before long, because it is rather likely that things will not shape out as you want them to be in your last paragraph. Somebody who can see nuances and not reflexively downplay everything on the opponents side will soon no longer be welcome in the Republican party. On the other hand, Obama is trying his best to increase such abilities on the Democratic side – success on that endeavour will be harder to achieve though.
165 Oneon1isto // Mar 4, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Dang, so late to the hyperventilation party. So we have a leadership vacuum is the consensus–sort of. I would argue there’s a leadership vacuum of the kind of leaders that a large % of what’s left of the GOP actually WANT.
So they don’t want Steele, they want Rush. My feeling is, give him to them. If they want someone full of rhetoric (and they’ve been claiming that’s all Obama is) let them choose a leader who is only rhetoric, a radio personality who’s job it is to spout daily on random topicry. Let him lead with his words. Force him to stand behind his words once he starts to have to lead on policy. Bring it on.
166 Oneon1isto // Mar 4, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Also, the market is not an accurate measure of A) our economy, B) the government, and C) relative performance. I saw that mentioned a lot on the thread below. Stop it. It’s intellectually dishonest and not at all in touch with reality. The market, at best right now, is a measurement of fear. Right now people are afraid and uncertain. The market doesn’t even correlate well with obvious Presidential decisions and announcements, so please, stop acting like it does.
167 cck // Mar 4, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Rush Limbaugh makes sense if the Republican party wishes to be a regional party with little input into national affairs. The CPAC crowd who support him know that he plays well in their districts and being on “his team” is vital to their re-election efforts. However, he and his supporters bring absolutely nothing of substance to the table. I am a center left Democrat but I would more than welcome an opposition party that came to the table with substantive, well-reasoned ideas about how we address our nation’s problems. In fact, I believe that the best solutions come from respectful, rational back and forth debates between opponents where each side understands that it will not get everything it wants. The goal should be solving problems. Period. A “Rush Limbaugh” party could never participate in such a debate. The GOP must find leaders who get that simply being the party of “no” means a marginalized, irrelevant party.
168 John_K // Mar 4, 2009 at 6:47 pm
You are wrong David. Limbaugh speaks my language. I don’t think you get it. You are seemingly preoccuipied with figuring out how to acquire votes which I think is rather narrow minded. It implies that to you power is more important than principle. Establish principles as Limbaugh says, and the policies fall into place. I believe Americans are tired of hearing “policies” that supposedly cater to their interests. They know that virtually all politicians lie so what difference does it make what policies they propose? Michale Steele (and you) say we must reach out to minorities. Wrong David. We should reach out to nobody special, but rather treat all people the same. To do otherwise is to propose preferred treatment for some, and for what purpose David, just to get their vote for the sake of attaining power?
Michale Steele is the wrong guy to lead the Republican party. I saw him here in Maryland when he was running for Lt Governor. Did you happen to notice how he did among Blacks here? Michael Steele is a basically a RINO. He favors affirmative action, and I will not support anyone who promotes affirmative action as it is not a conservative principle. You can keep trying to establish a “new majority,” but the only party I’ll support is one founded on true conservative principles, as Limbaugh promotes. You blueblood Republicans gave us McCain thorugh the bogus primary system you established. I held my nose and supported Mccain, but I will never do such again. You want to expand the party? Then adapt to us true conservatives, and don’t ask us to adapt to you because it ain’t going to work. We have principles so it’s not a matter of price.
169 RonReagan // Mar 4, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Ironic, David…. I just had to agree to NewMajority.com’s rules to be able to register to respond to you… Here is part of that rule.
“By posting here, you agree to the NewMajority.com terms of service. You agree to keep your comments on topic, respectful and free of gratuitous profanity…..
“… comments that are abusive, engage in personal attacks, contain …slurs, express hatred, … use excessive foul language, or include any other type of ad hominem attacks …will be subject to removal.”
Seems to me that your article “Rush Limbaugh at CPAC” explicitly violates NewMajority.com’s rules and should be removed.
170 homeschoolmama // Mar 4, 2009 at 9:06 pm
I am a woman who loves Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin. I listen to both of them daily. (And, yes, I am a soccer mom.) They are real men who talk like MEN — true conservative men. That is VERY appealing. I don’t buy this garbage that women don’t like Rush. I know plenty of women who listen to Rush everyday and love him, just as I do. So, you say if Republicans would act like Democrats they would be back in power??? Hey, isn’t that what Republicans have been doing? Hmmm…how’s that working for us? A true conservative — Sarah Palin — energized our party. Let’s learn from that. Republicans who act like Democrats get nowhere. Republicans who act like true conservatives motivate our party.
171 vegas // Mar 4, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Mr. Frum, Your lack of character on the Mark Levin show today showed your true objective; to inject some life into your failed career by drawing attention to yourself. Rush has not changed over his 20-years on the radio, so why write this dribble now. Why because he is on the national stage, and you saw an opportunity to “cash-in”. Well, the only thing you did for the conserative movement was to make yourself more irrelivent. Ron Reagan is right you should be banned from this forum. Good day to you Sir.
172 bubbauno // Mar 4, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Oh please! What bothers me the most is not your ad hominem attacks on Rush. More troubling is the fact that you attribute petty motives to him, i.e., “the worse conservatives do, the more important Rush becomes…” Besides being slanderous, this is a Democrat talking point.
The appropriate conservative response to the Dems’ focus on Rush is to ridicule it. “The best you Dems can do is to attack a radio guy!?!”
Oh my, that applies to you also Mr. Frum.
173 Advocate123 // Mar 4, 2009 at 9:38 pm
You missed the boat David!
My 70 year-old hardcore leftist cousin thought Rush gave a great speech even though he “hates” Rush.
174 voice of reason // Mar 5, 2009 at 1:10 am
The more people that listen to rush…
The more information about conservatism will be heard…
Most of his critics have never heard more than a soundbite from his show…
And most likely in a pejorative context…
He is entertaining, informative, and ultimately BO’s agendas worst enemy…
The failure of BO’s redistributive policies will be good for the country.
175 intermatrixnaut // Mar 5, 2009 at 7:53 am
Very Simple,
Influence.
Begin yours, we’ll show you ours, and I agree a blog is an opinion piece, but you aren’t very “Constructive” by these Labels you use.
Instead of attacking, try instead of using your wit and intellect to construct a bulletin list of principles, like your punchline “bottom line” on Marks’ show last night. Good Try, by the way.
Bring it.
Let’s Roll.
176 Emma McD // Mar 5, 2009 at 8:54 am
I don’t trust this president. And I’m positive his “worst vice an occasional cigarette” is far from the truth. What about his drug use? What about his questionable relationships? What about his plans to socialize this great country and throw out the Constitution? I consider those far worse than a cigarette.
I am a thirty-something, hispanic, colleged educated female, and a fan of Rush, Mark Levin, and Sean Hannity because I believe they have it right. The Republican party needs to get back to our true Conservative roots not do Conservatism light. I believe there are more like me than you’re willing to admit.
In regards to your article, it’s evident to me which man you seem to admire. Why such negative words when discussing Rush? You could have made your point without the attack. Your statements are “ugly and incendiary” not Rush’s. You, sir, are the true entertainer here.
177 infinitewisdom // Mar 5, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Consider this, last week Obama starts his speech at a Marine base at 12:06, over 20 minutes late, at the same time Rush starts his show. This is a “soft-spoken and conciliatory” President?! He uses the office of the Presidency to bully citizens of the US while others with glazed eyes and frothing mouths stammer on about how wonderful BO is and how is only vice is an occasional cigarette. These people are clueless.
Conservatism should not be watered down or apologized for. Rush is a conservative and IS the most visable promoter of conservatism. That does not mean he wishes he was the leader of conservatism and he certainly does not want to be the leader of the Republican party.
Would it make a difference if the Republican politicians were leaders of conservatism? You bet. They did it before.
178 Citizen K. // Mar 5, 2009 at 2:56 pm
You can agree or disagree with Mr. Frum’s characterizations of President Obama and Rush Limbaugh. I think he would agree with me that that is beside the point. I understand him to mean that — like it or not — these are the public faces of the two and that this is a development welcomed by Democrats.
To a point. The partisan in me welcomes this development. I’m no more “aghast” (to quote Jonah Goldberg) than I am frightened by the possibility of Palin candidacy in 2012. In the partisan sense, Limbaugh as the face of conservatism and Palin as the leader of the Republican party are welcome developments that portend a replay of the 1936 presidential election.
The citizen in me, though, thinks that Limbaugh has no place in the public discourse. He’s shrill and bombastic and permits no deviation from his definition of political correctness. There is literally zero intellectual content to his diatribes. If he is the true face of today’s conservatism, well, I wonder what happened to their ideas.
In an intellectual sense, it is hard to take seriously a political movement that doubts the reality of evolution, that pushes the energy expertise of Sarah Palin, that touts the crackpot notion that the President of the United States is not an American citizen, and whose resentment is so great that it actually believes Democrats wanted President Bush to fail. (I’d like to see a single example of this.)
BTW, for anyone who doubts President Obama’s skills, I hope you tuned into the today’s health care summit.
179 pianoguy // Mar 5, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Brave post, Mr. Frum. I urge conservatives to study the case of Colorado. Judging from the 2008 election, it’s still a solidly conservative state – all leftist ballot initiatives got hammered, and one anti-union ballot initiative passed even though its sponsors didn’t campaign for it. But meanwhile the government turned even bluer, and now the governor, a majority in both state houses, both senators, and five of seven representatives are Democrats. The reason lies with our Republican party: Moderate Republicans can’t get nominated, and far-right Republicans can’t get elected. If the Republicans would bend a little, they’d own the state, and there would be nothing Democrats could do about it. As it is, Colorado will be blue as long as the Democrats don’t overreach.
Parties such as the Greens and the Libertarians can afford to be ideologically pure. They don’t actually have to win elections or govern. But any party that aspires to national relevance is necessarily going to be a coalition of people who have somewhat different interests.
I am, btw, a liberal Democrat, so take my advice with a grain of salt. But I also love my country, and I believe it needs a vital and effective Republican party to keep my guys honest. I’m totally with you that power corrupts!
180 Elirc34 // Mar 6, 2009 at 1:47 am
Why not just throw in with Obama?
Are you so eager to embrace the killing fields of Cambodia?
Comparing Rush to Jesse Jackson?
Please put down the crack pipe.
Shame on you.
Take a good hard look at yourself, Mr Frum…or just get out.
Your post here isn’t brave. It’s cruel and evil. It hurts us all.
Rush is a vanguard for sanity in truly insane times.
Rather than root for Obama’s socialism indirectly you’d help the cause much more by openly campaigning for him.
(Let me give you a primer “yes we can! yes we can! change, change, change!” rinse and repeat.)
Whether you realize it or not, you are now squarely part of the problem, and you’ll have to change your ways to be part of the solution.
But rest assured. You can feel free to ignore my post, as you’ll most assuradly ignore so many others, drunk on your false sense of self worth.
It’s easy! It’s just like ignoring the daily gyrations of the stock market, as your worth goes down, and down and…
Oops! It’s all gone!
Good bye!
181 burron // Mar 6, 2009 at 4:54 am
rush,levin,hannity and many more our soprano of liberty………amennnnnnn…
182 M. Fleischmann // Mar 6, 2009 at 9:41 am
Your the kind of sell out that sold California down the river over the last two decades. I bet you got into politics as a way to compensate for a small appendage between your legs and to further grow your ego maniac personality. I think you should do some soul searching and realize that the Republican Party needs to beat the Democrats on the one thing they can, Philosophy! Like the conservative philosophy of Mark Levin, Larry Elder, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Thomas Sowell, the Great Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, and the rest of them. You know who I’m speaking of. Those free thinking guys that have talent and are extrememly smart. The guy you really want to be like but cannot, because you take the easy way out. Way to strive for the top you creep. Thanks to guys like you who compromise til the cows come home, America is in a very shaky position.
183 donnarooty // Mar 6, 2009 at 2:13 pm
You joined the bandwagon of Obama by playing into his hype of trying to marginalize not just Rush, but all of conservative talk radio and its listeners.
Let me tell you something, you RINO. I am a conservative FIRST, not a mind-numbed robot who takes marching and talking orders like the liberals do. I, and many other conservatives, do not follow the drumbeat of any ‘figurehead’. The media and Obama henchmen are the ones appointing us a ‘leader’.
We make up our own minds and make our own decisions. It is the same media and government complaining about Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, Levin etc that have made our relationship possible. There is nowhere else for us to turn to hear about OUR way of life and to hear about OUR beliefs. But especially to hear the TRUTH. The media threw us overboard years ago and these personalities picked up where liberals were afraid to tread.
So keep up the good work and be the mouthpiece for ABC, CBS, CNN, B.O., Air America, etc. . They will love you forever. That is, until you step on the wrong toes, then they will throw you overboard like yesterdays unreported news. But you better make sure you have no skeletons in your closet first. Because they don’t just let their enemies walk away unscathed. They will first sic the IRS on you, then publicly humiliate you. That is their motus operandus you know. Oh, but you wouldn’t know that, would you. You listen to and watch mainstream media.
184 jimjim // Mar 6, 2009 at 3:25 pm
I’m not going to say much here because others have said a lot. But your point that Rush will be sidelined when conservatives succeed is rediculous. Do you honestly want to be taken seriously? Can you not remember 1994? Rush was an honorary member of the freshman house members and his listenership grew tremendously during those years. Face it. Your guys lost. Republicans are not as good at being idiots as the Democrats are so we should focus on being what we are. Conservative. You only wish you have the impact that Rush does.
185 crimsonking // Mar 6, 2009 at 4:03 pm
We have to stop the internecine b.s. Rush is not the “leader” of anything except Rush, EIB, and the “dittoheads.” He is a smart guy whose heart is more or less in the right place and whose vision for America is a pretty good vision. Chris Buckley bristles, understandably, at Rush trying to carve out some WFB like role — that’s absurd on so many levels I won’t waste space here, but it would also be absurd for Bill Buckley to try to be Rush (not that he ever would have wanted to try). We’re a team, or need to be. There’s room on the team for the erudite, the elite, the old money, the blue bloods…the neocons, reformed neocons…the Jews (like Frum, like me)…the brown guys…the WASPs, everyone who prefers Locke to Rousseau, smaller to larger government, freedom to un-freedom. OK? Rush swings a big bat and he should be encouraged to swing it. The ivy league intellectual wing of the party/movement needs to defend him AS WHAT HE IS, not navel-gaze or chatter about what’s not. Rush is lovable and offensive to many. Emanuel was a brilliant manipulator by uttering a single sentence. But even having the debate is adding fuel to the fire. I’m from the over-educated, Northeast, so-articulate-my-relatives-from-Michigan-don’t-know-what-the-hell-I-just said wing. I could drop clever cultural references in here. The attacks on Rush from transparent propagandists like Egan at the NYT are pathetic. He’s fat, he’s a drug abuser, he’s struck out at marriage three times. How intellectual of you to notice. And? And he has 20 million listeners a week, is usually pretty thoughtful about actual matters of actual substance, and he should be simply defended by people who have an interest in steering the country in the right (both senses) direction. If I can defend Rush in the circles in which I travel, so can any of you. No dittos. Just common sense.
186 crimsonking // Mar 6, 2009 at 4:15 pm
The bigger issue, I forgot to suggest, is that we have an image problem. Things like Rush @ CPAC add to that image problem. But, does the content of Rush’s speech come out as a net gain versus the “do we want to be the party of self-promoting mafia-looking fat guys?” Not sure. I cringed at a lot of the footage, especially with Rush jumping up and down leading a cheer for himself, which has given the Countdown crowd plenty of amusement. But, I did get behind the majority of what the guy actually said. So we need to figure out how to use technology, talk to young people, talk to babes, talk to women who don’t want to be called babes, and get people to look past the jowls and jocularity and see what the point is…we need the Professor AND Captain AND Gilligan. You sort out who is who!
187 earnhardt727 // Mar 7, 2009 at 10:49 am
sir,i usually dont address things like this,but i read your piece and then listened to you on mark levin,where do you get off calling yourself a conservative,your description of obama tells me you are already one of his,his policies,his actions are all anti-consevative,but you annoint him like a greek god,you are a pretender sir,you are no conservative and i hope you arent a republician,if you are,then i already know the rest of the story.
188 FairWitness // Mar 7, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Mr Frum, My apologies that the Kool-aid drinkers have swarmed on your post missing the most important points therein.
I suppose this means the irony of their criticism is lost.
At any rate, you’ve hit it out of the park on this one. You’re spot-on.
189 C Archer // Mar 7, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Principles. Limbaugh espouses them eloquently and they resonate. THAT is why he is a target. Fear. You Mr. Frum exhibit that and it has clouded your judgment.
190 BrianTheRight // Mar 7, 2009 at 8:50 pm
I almost do not want to comment on this article because it might give this mental midget encouragement to write more hit pieces on Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, and others of the right who are not willing to give up our principles. The Republican Party does not need to mold itself to be acceptable to more, it needs to revert to it core principles that made it the landslide party of the 80’s. It is people like David Frum, not Rush Limbaugh that are destroying the party. Mr. Frum obviously has issues with Rush Limbaugh and what appears to be a school girl crush on the president. I do not want to get into personal attacks, but the man on Mark Levin did sound a little light in the loafers. I know Mark mentioned he has a 15 year old son. Anyway, Mr. Frum if you do not like the conservatives in the republican party and if you want to strap us with another moderate looser like Bob Dole or John McCain, go join another party, The Libertarians lose a lot, go join them, LEAVE MY PARTY ALONE!
191 THX 1138 // Mar 8, 2009 at 10:34 am
How can we count the ways?
1. The cover matters more than the content. Obama looks cool and Limbaugh bothers Miss Frum.
2. People in flyover country are beneath contempt. Rush is akin to Jesse Jackson, in that he articulates a point of view offensive to an effete corps of impudent snobs.
3. Important Republicans like John “Amnestia” McCain are better spokesmen for the way we can “do the same, but less,” and therefore awaken the spirit of small government and individual responsibility America desperately needs to stave off Obama’s Fabian socialism.
4, Right has no coalition with wrong. Mr. Frum, it’s better to admit you have no truck with the Republican party than to pretend you speak for its principles. You are the Paul Krugman of Republican strategy, the Henry Kissinger negotiating the terms of surrender to our enemy.
192 WilliamBrown // Mar 8, 2009 at 9:42 pm
“Hey, Frum: you’re a putz”! I could not have said it better. I listened to you on Levin’s show and you’re a typical Eastern establishment loser RINO. You have nothing to offer the conservative movement but divisive remarks about people who have carried the Republican Party’s water long before you came on the scene. I want you to fail! what do you think about that, you putz?
193 rightsusan // Mar 16, 2009 at 7:32 am
If one assumes that perhaps 95% of Republicans are Christians then it would follow that about 20 million of them (Baugh’s declared audience/supporters) are not Christian at all, or they are hypocrites for failing to “love thy neighbour” and “do unto others… etc”.
194 blackjack // Apr 3, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Excellant! Frum you hit it on the head. As long as the Republican party is chained to Rush and his Ditto head legions they will never REPEAT never gain power. THe democratic party resembles the american population in demographic. What the republicans have to understand is that are doing this to themselves. Their party is restricted to white older chirstians. Hardly a formula for building a coalition to regain power
195 ertdfg // May 13, 2009 at 10:04 am
Brilliant.
To get a Republican majority, only one step is necessary. Give up all principles, positions, stances, and beliefs.
Abortion? Works for me. Gay marriage? Why not. Polygamy? Sure, what’s the problem. Spending trillions of dollars we don’t have? Sweet idea. Abandon our allies around the world? Who cares, we’re getting a majority here. Government tracking people without warrants? “Yes we can”.
Soon we’ll have a majority of big tax, pro-choice big spending, government increasing politicians with the magic (R) after their names and we’ll “win”. Sure it will be exactly the same as it is now; but it’ll be our side spending the money we don’t have, driving the economy off a cliff and pushing for less morality… won’t that be better?
See instead of letting the Democrats wreck things, we’ll be wrecking things in exactly the same way. That’s what Frum calls “winning”.
Of course if you actually have principles you believe in and won’t throw away, or actually hold beliefs for more than just political gain, and don’t hold the Republican name as the only good in the nation… this is actually a lot like “losing”.
But surely people with principles, beliefs, standards, and morals are few and far between. We can probably win a majority of the vote without those people. At least that would be Frum’s bet.
196 FRANKCOLLATT // Jun 12, 2009 at 8:52 am
Here David Frum goes again, just like a little sissy crying because someone stole his lollipop. David Frum, what kind of a background do you have? Are you gay? Are you straight? Do you do drugs? Alcohol? Do you crave power? Recognition? Appreciation? David Frum, you are typical of the Disoriented and Lost Liberal, Left-Wing Radicalized Democrat. You really don’t offer anything but criticism that serves no purpose other than to degrade, and do harm. David Frum, you never offer any solutions because you have none. I have read the majority of your postings Frum, and when I was finished, I had a feeling that I just wasted time out of my life for nothing. I was not educated, enlightened, nor did I gain any knowledge. What I experienced was the babbling reduced to words of a cynic, a simpleton, that does have anything to offer his readers…… You are a loser David Frum, a miscreant, devoid of intelligence, or value. A waste of energy utilized by your parents in pro-creating…..
197 Where is the Republican party heading? // Aug 7, 2009 at 4:35 am
[...] who have been stating the same exact thing. David Frum, former George W. Bush speechwriter, had this to say about Limbaugh: [...]
198 Advice Worth Every Penny Paid For It « Taxes, Stupidity, and Death // Nov 8, 2009 at 12:12 am
[...] advisors are left leaning pundits, still too giddy from the Obama debacle to see it for what it is, or those who label themselves as Republicans who are frustrated with the party’s current situation and view the remedy as a shift to the [...]
199 Modère la formation encore plus hors de propos | Blog Ultralibéral // Jan 7, 2010 at 8:08 am
[...] sur Obama évité, se modère continuent à agir comme les boucliers pour protéger Obama de ceux qui critiquent sa présidence. Ceux-ci se modèrent se hérissera, grognera, ricanera ou partira d’un gros éclat de rire [...]
You must log in to post a comment.