Rush: The Birch Is Back

200 responses so far

• 1 krove // May 16, 2009 at 8:08 am

  Keep it up Rush and dittoheads. We Democrats love you and what you are doing for us. Keep up the stupid. Get more unbalanced more fringe, more paranoid.

  Limbaugh/Plin 2012

• 2 Churl // May 16, 2009 at 8:11 am

  It was a howling at the moon, ground-pawing, wild eyed, frothy-mouthed exaggeration to say that Dwight Eisenhower was wrecking the country.

  To say the same about Obama is, presently anyway, a slight overstatement.

• 3 krove // May 16, 2009 at 8:33 am

  Pity from your point of view 81% of country disagrees.

• 4 balconesfault // May 16, 2009 at 8:39 am

  As I’ve said before – Rush sells outrage. If he moderates, he’ll lose listeners. Given the size of his contract, I’d say that his fiduciary responsibility to Clear Channel dictates that he continue to go over the top, as long as his ratings show that’s what keeps the dittoheads coming back.

• 5 Churl // May 16, 2009 at 8:40 am

  krove, it will be interesting to see if and how the numbers change in the future. I have laid in a good supply of popcorn while I still can afford to buy it and before Obama’s food police go from regulating Cheerios to banning popcorn salt.

• 6 hopita // May 16, 2009 at 8:51 am

  I grew up with conservative Republicans, was madly in love with Bill Buckley at 15 and gradually became a leftish democrat once I got out into the world. But I sympathize deeply with David Frum’s efforts to uphold the standards of decency and rational thought once espoused by National Reivew. Keep it up, please, David. We all need a critical voice. Even Howard Dean waxes nostalgic over the loss of a sensible opposition party.

• 7 Chekote // May 16, 2009 at 9:23 am

  I guess Frum is desparate for traffic again. He seems to attack Rush just to get the number of hits up. Must be May sweep for websites.

• 8 sinz54 // May 16, 2009 at 9:35 am

  You say that no respectable liberals accused Bush/Cheney of deliberately harming the nation? WRONG:

  The New Republic suggested that Cheney’s foreign policy was the result of mental illness caused by his cardiac problems:
  http://tinyurl.com/2sv98a

  Here’s a cover from a past issue of Macleans Magazine:
  http://tinyurl.com/ovtml9

  And here’s a Democratic candidate for President in 2004:

  Diane Rehm: “Why do you think he (Bush) is suppressing that (Sept. 11) report?”
  Howard Dean: “I don’t know. There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I’ve heard so far — which is nothing more than a theory, it can’t be proved — is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is?” — “Diane Rehm Show,” NPR, 1 December 2003

  Remember? When that memo, “al-Qaeda Determined To Strike in U.S.,” it created a sensation among Democrats. Mainstream Democrats suggested that Bush had been incompetent. But among the foo-foo liberals of Manhattan and San Francisco, it was taken for granted that Bush had *allowed* 9-11 to happen in order to consolidate his political grip on the U.S.

  Or maybe to build a UNICAL oil pipeline through Afghanistan, as Michael Moore hinted in his movie “Fahrenheit 911.” Have you forgotten “Fahrenheit 911″ already??? It made Michael Moore a true superstar among liberals–the left-wing answer to Rush Limbaugh.

  Reality check: The only President who deliberately allowed America to be attacked was Franklin Roosevelt in 1941. He ordered the U.S. Navy fleet to sail from San Francisco, where it was protected in home waters, to Hawaii, where it would be a sitting duck. And he knew it would be a sitting duck. He was leading with his chin.

• 9 debs // May 16, 2009 at 10:23 am

  You wrong on the particulars in every case, sinz54. Let’s go thru them one by one.

  If TNR is accusing Cheney of suffering from mental illness, that the precise *opposite* of alleging that he is *consciously* and with *volition* seeking to harm the nation.

  Um, Maclean’s is a Canadian magazine.

  The Dean remark is the most fraught and ambiguous. But it could be argued that Dean was merely asserting that Bush was spectacularly incompetent, i.e. having been given due warnings about the attack (at least in this telling), he still was unable to thwart them, or did not even take the warning seriously. That’s still a far cry from claiming that Bush *enabled* the attacks or wished for them in any way. This is a common reading of this remark.

  Your next remark is just your own general, overwrought assertion, buttressed with no evidence whatsoever.

  Moore’s UNICAL assertion, whether true or not, does not make the claim that Bush wished to weaken the country, but, again, rather, that he wished to *strenghten”, albeit it via a imperialist land grab in Central Asia. While many Americans might disagree with this action, the motivation would have been to increase American power, not diminish it.

  Finally, your remarks about FDR and Pearl Harbor have been debunked by every serious scholar of the period. Honesty, only crackpots believe them–the historiography completely dismisses this old wives tale.

  You’re oh for six. The operative comparison with Rush, as David notes, is with the Birchers of the 1950s–hardly a flattering comparison.

  And I guess, as of today, we must assume that Governor Huntsman, the co-chair of the McCain for president campaign, is also a man who wishes to *deliberately* weaken and harm the United States. That’s fortuitous for him and president Obama, in that he’ll be stationed in Beijing and will easily be able to convey our security secrets directly to the Chinese.

• 10 Mike K // May 16, 2009 at 10:45 am

  David, you’re reaching again. No wonder the lefties like krove flock here. The last time I checked, Limbaugh was not elected to anything and the Democrats were the ones making the statement that he was the Republican leader. The problem is not Limbaugh, who does go over the top once in a while, but the lack of leadership in the GOP. I’m glad to see Cheney reemerge and say a few things that need to be said. Obama is doing what he can to revive the Republican Party but we need some political leaders.

  I don’t know if your war with Limbaugh is to draw readers or attention but it only reassures the other side that you are not going to be helpful in reviving the party. You’re too busy tearing it down.

• 11 ireign // May 16, 2009 at 10:49 am

  “But Limbaugh is omnipresent – and now our former vice president has told us he is to be preferred as a party leader to Colin Powell. Powell – the man who could have had our party presidential nomination for the asking in 1996! The man that Cheney’s administration sent to Congress and the United Nations to make the case against Iraq in 2003, because that administration knew that Powell commanded more respect and deference than any other administration member, not excepting the president himself.”

  Funny that you say that about Powell now. You never had anything positive to say about Powell prior to this. Your foreign policy viewpoints were the anithesis of Powell’s.

  What Cheney said is that Powell has left the Republican Party. Assuming Powell was ever a Republican as opposed to someone who found it pragmatic to align himself with Reagan and Bush I who were very fond of him and kept promoting him, it is clear that Powell has very little in common with the Republican Party today. He backed Obama based on social issues and foreign policy. Unlike most disaffected conservatives, he preferred Obama to make Supreme Court appointments. In the past, you could argue that he was a fiscal conservative but now he is arguing for a big government. So on pretty much every issue, he is aligned with the Democrats.

  So when you have a choice as party leader between a blowhard i.e. Limbaugh who still is a fairly loyal Republican and someone who ceased to be a Republican i.e. Powell, obviously most rational people will prefer the person who is actually a Republican. I have never heard of a Democrat advocating Zell Miller as party leader despite his military heroics and by all accounts he is a decent human being similar to Powell in that respect.

  David your arguments are becoming more and more intellectually dishonest. You never thought much of Powell until apparently today…

• 12 ireign // May 16, 2009 at 10:50 am

  Basically this blog seems to be getting little traffic so David keeps up an ongoing fight with Limbaugh to promote his blog. Limbaugh, in turn gets higher ratings by insulting David. Thus, only David and Limbaugh benefit from this feud. The Republican Party needs everyone that it can get.

• 13 ottovbvs // May 16, 2009 at 10:51 am

  Let it also be noted that around this same period McCarthy also accused Dean Acheson and the great General George C. Marshall of being communist fellow travellers who amongst other things “lost” China. Eisenhower when running for president appeared on a platform with McCarthy a day or two after he made his threat to national security claim about Marshall and famously refused to defend his old boss, in fact the man who had made Eisenhower’s military career. So there’s nothing new about this sort of rabid rabble rousing nonsense from far right conservatives. Limbaugh and Cheney and all the smaller fish are just the latest manifestation of it.

• 14 dragonlady // May 16, 2009 at 10:54 am

  Frum–what don’t you understand? Yes, the GOP needs moderates but it will always need the base. Has the Dem base with DailyKos and Moveon moderated their rhetoric in any way? Absolutely not! Rush is engaging in political theater and his audience is his dittoheads. I get that you don’t think its smart for Rush to be the face of the GOP party, and I concede he’s a turn off to moderates. But right now, the leadership of the GOP is weak and ineffectual. Wouldn’t our energies be better spent on figuring out how to counter Obama than attacking our own?

• 15 ottovbvs // May 16, 2009 at 11:00 am

  ireign
  wrote 2 minutes ago

  …..Powell’s situation was exactly analagous to that of Eisenhower. When he was in the military he was apolitical, in fact his career reached its apogee under democratic presidents. When he retired into private life he could opt for which ever party he wanted and he like Powell was courted by both parties but like Powell chose the Republicans. And who is Cheney or you to say Powell has left the Republican party, after all plenty of Republicans voted for Obama. The point is: does one prefer to see Powell as the face of Republicanism or does one prefer to see Limbaugh. Obviously many far right wing Republicans here prefer Limbaugh. Good luck with the choice.

• 16 R.E. Munn // May 16, 2009 at 11:13 am

  Only an elitist (or perhaps a Canadian) would actually believe that Rush Limbaugh has suddenly become the leader of the Republican Party. But such discussion, no matter how pointless, betrays a troubling void in the Party. Amid all of the din, we do need to find a voice. Rush Limbaugh is not that voice, nor do I think he wants to be. But he does fulfill a a basic need for the Right, and that is not easily replaced.

• 17 ottovbvs // May 16, 2009 at 11:23 am

  R.E. Munn
  wrote 5 minutes ago
  “Only an elitist (or perhaps a Canadian) would actually believe that Rush Limbaugh has suddenly become the leader of the Republican Party.”

  …………..Judging by the “elitist” shtick I wonder whether you’re familiar with the latin de facto. Limbaugh may not be de jure leader but he’s effectively the de facto one. It’s totally suicidal as is the attempted reemergence of the other one Cheney but movement conservatives seem to want it that way.

• 18 sinz54 // May 16, 2009 at 11:25 am

  Debs: “I’m wrong”???

  It was commonly believed by liberals on both coasts that Bush deliberately allowed 9-11 to happen.

  And YOU KNOW THAT.

• 19 sinz54 // May 16, 2009 at 11:30 am

  dragonlady asks: “Has the Dem base with DailyKos and Moveon moderated their rhetoric in any way? “

  No, it hasn’t moderated one bit. And the litany is the same: The Bushies were evil, rapacious, imperialist war criminals who dragged America into war to satisfy the insatiable needs of the Pentagon and the insatiable need for oil.

  Why the glee over Obama releasing those memos on Enhanced Interrogation Techniques? Because they are salivating at the prospect of, as they put it, “frog-marching BushCo off to jail.”

  They really think that the Bushies were *war criminals*–and they truly hate their guts.

  So I don’t want anybody trying to claim that liberals didn’t accuse the Bush Administration of deliberately hurting the country. They even accused the Bush Administration of deliberately destroying the PLANET.

  One of them (forgot his name) even said that Bush was *worse* than Hitler, because Hitler really believed that the German people were the salt of the earth and should be triumphant–whereas Bush “doesn’t even mean well,” as he put it.

  They reek of hatred verging on death wishes.

• 20 sinz54 // May 16, 2009 at 11:53 am

  September 11, 2008

  MSNBC host Keith Olbermann perhaps went further than ever before last night in his special comment about the 9/11 anniversary, slamming the Bush administration for their criminal neglect in allowing the attacks to occur and identifying the continued exploitation of 9/11 sociological pornography as the only reason that Bush hasnt been impeached.

  Olbermann said that the anniversary of the September 11 attacks had been turned into a brand name – 9/11 and that such propaganda has sustained a President that long ago should have been dismissed or impeached.

  Olbermann continued, identifying 9/11 has the only thing that has kept (Bush) and his gang of financial and constitutional crooks in office, while they escaped blame for the malfeasance and criminal neglect that allowed the attacks to occur.

  http://tinyurl.com/p358uy

• 21 sinz54 // May 16, 2009 at 11:56 am

  S.F. Attorney: Bush Allowed 9-11 To Happen

  by David Kiefer
  11 June 2002
  San Francisco Examiner

  Stanley Hilton now figures his case is stronger because of a coalition of attorneys, victims’ families and bipartisan legislators who gathered in Washington on Monday to condemn the government’s lack of action in preventing the Sept. 11 attacks.

  Hilton is the San Francisco attorney who filed a $7 billion lawsuit in U.S. District Court on June 3 against President Bush and other government officials for “allowing” the terrorist attacks to occur.

  Among Hilton’s allegations: Bush conspired to create the Sept. 11 attacks for his own political gain and has been using Osama bin Laden as a scapegoat.

  Hilton said he has information that bin Laden died several years ago of kidney failure.

  “I hope it will expose the fact that there are numbers of people in the government, including Bush and his top assistants, who wanted this to happen,” Hilton said.

• 22 sinz54 // May 16, 2009 at 12:01 pm

  Gore Vidal says 9/11 allowed to happen, slams Bush administration coup de ‘tat of American freedom

  October 24, 2006

  Controversial and prolific author, political commentator and essayist Gore Vidal is assured that the military’s growing revulsion at the Bush junta’s policies would ensure they would try and prevent any false flag staged terror attack, while slamming the end of Habeas Corpus and the administration’s coup de ‘tat of America on a nationally syndicated radio broadcast.

  Speaking with the Alex Jones Show, Vidal decried the end of the foundational bedrock of “due process of law,” and expressed his astonishment at the recent loss of Habeas Corpus with the passage of the Military Commissions Act, the most egregious assault on the Constitution since the USA Patriot Act of 2001….

  Labeling the Bush administration’s legacy as a “coup de ‘tat in which we lost the republic,” the literary giant slammed Bush’s claim that he is a “wartime President” and thus has a blank check to run roughshod over the constitution….

  “They’ve got a mantra now which is totally incredible – ‘if we don’t fight them over there, we’ll have to fight them over here’ – well how the hell are they going to get here and to what end? These are questions which you could shut these people up if there was any media to attack or if there was a Congress capable of oversight,” said Vidal, comparing the mantra to the same scare tactics used by Herman Goering to frighten the Germans into submission under the pretext of an impending Soviet invasion.

  http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/241006_vidal.html

• 23 Dr. Tesla // May 16, 2009 at 12:01 pm

  Frum is obessed with Rush Limbaugh….he can’t get any attention at all without mentioning Limbaugh, and he still has trouble, because Frum’s ideas are not popular with most Republicans and conservatives. Frum has failed to sell a significant number of his book, and no conservative publications will run his anti-Rush diatribes, unless Newsweek is conservative now.

  Limbaugh mentioned Frum and Brooks as examples of liberal Republicans who want the GOP to run away from social issues…Frum, of course, takes this as a personal insult, even though it is his position. I listened to the show, and I don’t remember Limbaugh saying anything else about Frum…just threw him out as an example of a liberal Republican who thinks we need to suck up to Obama. This Frum guy does not want to debate and defend his ideas, he just wants to discredit and demonize Limbaugh. The professional jealousy that Frum has of Limbaugh is transparent.

  I kind of remember Al Gore and other prominent Democrats accusing Bush and Republicans of fearmongering the American people over terrorism. Many prominent Democrats did accuse Bush of trampling over the Constitution and abusing civil liberties in the name of national security, which Frum, of course, in his Rush-hate, no doubt knows but chooses to leave out as it doesn’t advance his “Rush is the Devil” jihad.

  Biden, Hillary and other Democrats have accused Limbaugh and conservatives have accused of being unpatriotic for not wating to pay high unfair confiscatory income taxes.

  The notion that Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican party is only a slur if you aren’t a conservative. LImbaugh’s politics are exatly those of Buckley’s and Reagan’s, despite Frum’s pathetic attempt to assert otherwise. Both men liked Rush…I doubt both men would have any use for Frum. Other than being hawkish on national security and ostensibly against big government spending (Frum doesn’t seem to mind Obama’s spending that much…if he did, he wouldn’t be thinking about Rush 24-7).

  Frum is for higher income taxes. Is that a fiscal conservative?
  He is a global warming nut who supports carbon taxes. Is buying into environmental alarmism a conservative position?
  He appears to be pro-choice on abortion and for gay marriage, or doesn’t care about the issues either way.
  Is that a social conservative?

  To me, there’s more to being a conservative than supporting the Iraq war, and since the Iraq War is not all that popular, it’s hilarious that Frum asserts we should listen to him and Colin Powell rather than Limbaugh and Levin and Hannity and Beck.

  Since when has Powell been a conservative? The man is for affirmative action / racial quotas. He’s never been elected to public office as a Republican. He voted for Obama. He has said that the majority of Americans want bitg government. Yet Frum irrationally asserts that Colin Powell should be the kind of person that Republicans embrace as a leader?

  Frum cannot logically defend Obama’s wish to release photos of American soldiers ostensibly “torturing” captured Saddam loyalists and /or Islamic jihadists. What purpose would that serve…what president would even consider that if he understood this would stoke the anti-America sentiments in the Islamic world, and put our soldiers at greater risk?

• 24 sinz54 // May 16, 2009 at 12:05 pm

  Cheney tortured and treasoned to cover up 9/11
  May 15, 2009 (that’s yesterday)

  “I would argue that the Iraq war was simply a diversion to cover up the extreme incompetence that allowed Al Qaeda to successfully attack the US in September 2001….

  “This was a massive failing of the Bush White House. They were scrambling. They needed to distract the very distractible American people from asking the questions about how we let our defenses down. By ginning up a battle that they mistakenly thought could be easily won, they thought they could focus on a “success” rather than their massive failure. The only thing they got right – and it was their main objective – was they distracted the American people from blaming them for allowing 9/11 to occur.

  “What are the other explanations? Retribution for an assassination attempt on George HW Bush? Making lots of money for Halliburton? Strengthening Iran’s position in the region? No, none of these explanations hold water. They were covering their massive failure. Looked at in this light, it does make one wonder about the anthrax attacks as well (OK you can take off your tin foil hat now).”

  http://tinyurl.com/o28bo3

• 25 ottovbvs // May 16, 2009 at 12:13 pm

  sinz54
  wrote 37 minutes agoDebs: “I’m wrong”???

  “It was commonly believed by liberals on both coasts that Bush deliberately allowed 9-11 to happen.”

  …….Ridiculous extrapolation. You take a few fruitcakes and find half the country guilty of something you are projecting.

  ……False equivalence. What you don’t get is that Limbaugh is not Gore Vidal or even Keith Olberman. No one for a nano second suggests Olberman is de facto leader of the Democratic party or the left. The idea is preposterous. However, because of his visibility, influence and a leadership vacuum at the head of the GOP the idea of Limbaugh as essentially the leader of the right and Republicans passes muster with most people. In fact a far right conservative poster acknowledges the fact.
  Viz:

  Dr. Tesla
  wrote 0 minutes ago
  “The notion that Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican party is only a slur if you aren’t a conservative.”

• 26 mlindroo // May 16, 2009 at 12:19 pm

  Good for the Dems that Gore Vidal is not a popular talk show host, obviously!! As for Olbermann, he seems to be saying that Bush and the Republicans tried to politically exploit the War on Terror and that they benefitted politically from doing so for quite a long time.
  —
  Concerning Democratic feelings about the disgraced previous Administration, I get the impression we are increasingly seeing schadenfreude rather than the cold fury of the 2002-06 era.

  MARCU$

• 27 ottovbvs // May 16, 2009 at 12:23 pm

  Unfortunately David your old buddy Bill Kristol seems to be on the same page. As this little homily makes clear he wants the Bush admin kept alive as an issue through the next four years.

  http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000%5C000%5C016%5C503opswv.asp?pg=1

• 28 ottovbvs // May 16, 2009 at 12:28 pm

  mlindroo
  wrote 5 minutes ago
  “As for Olbermann, he seems to be saying that Bush and the Republicans tried to politically exploit the War on Terror and that they benefitted politically from doing so for quite a long time.”

  ……Well they did….You’ve perhaps forgotten Rove was caught on tape saying just this…..Quite apart from that the record is littered with examples starting with the president in fancy dress and “Mission Accomplished.” ……Oh I forgot it was all unauthorized…..those naughty matelots.

• 29 Dr. Tesla // May 16, 2009 at 12:34 pm

  Powell and Frum are alike in the sense that neither has ever constributed to the conservative movement. Both were given jobs by elected Republicans. Powell then basically disses the REpublican party that made him by supporting Obama in the election…Obama had attacked the Iraq war and Bush adminstration with much of the leftwing anger and ad hominem you expect to see on Daily Kos. SInce Powell made the case for the war, it seems rather curious he would support a man for president that demonized the war effort, accused the military of carpet bombing innocent civilians, and also demonized Bush, the man who gave him a job.

  I have never seen much respect for Powell among Democrats….he was called an Uncle Tom by many liberals and they hate his guts for making the case for the war. If Obama was personally opposed to the war, he should have stepped down…nobody forced him to do it, and if he is a man of character and principle, he would have resigned if he thought the Iraq War to be wrong. Bush didn’t hold a gun to his head.

  One reason Frum hates Rush is that Rush called him out for writing a book in which he tossed some petty insults at Bush after he resigned from his big speechwriter gig.

• 30 Dr. Tesla // May 16, 2009 at 12:39 pm

  By William Fisher (from The Public Record)

  The probability that some Guantanamo detainees will soon be released into the U.S. will place the administration of President Barack Obama in the eye of a major political hurricane.

  Republicans and some Democrats in Congress have expressed strong opposition to the administrations reported plan to allow some of the 17 Chinese Uighurs to resettle in the U.S. as part of Obamas pledge to shut down the controversial prison within a year.

  Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has confirmed the plan for the first time, though he added that a final decision had not been made. He said he understood that almost any administration move on Guantanamo was likely to be controversial. Seven has been reported the number of Uighurs the administration wants to release into the U.S.

  But Gates said the Uighurs would face persecution if they were returned to China, as Beijing has demanded. He added, “It’s difficult for the State Department to make the argument to other countries they should take these people that we have deemed in this case not to be dangerous if we won’t take any of them ourselves,” he said.

  There are currently 17 Uighurs who have been imprisoned at Guantanamo for years since they were arrested in Pakistan in 2002. While these Muslim men have been declared to pose no threat to U.S. security and have been cleared for release, they remain at the notorious prison because no other countries have come forth to offer them asylum.

  The Uighurs are primarily from northwestern China. China has been criticized by Washington and others for repressing Uighur religious rights and freedoms.

  Before their capture, the Uighurs had traveled to Afghanistan, where they received firearms training at a camp apparently run by a Uighur separatist.

  There are about 240 inmates at Guantnamo. As many as 60, if freed, cannot go back to their homelands because they could face abuse, imprisonment or death. They are from Azerbaijan, Algeria, Afghanistan, Chad, China, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

  Several European nations, including Portugal and Lithuania, have said they will consider taking such detainees. Some nations, such as Germany, are divided on the issue. France has recently agreed to accept one prisoner and the European Union has said it would consider accepting others. British Justice Secretary Jack Straw said last week that his country would consider taking Guantnamo Bay detainees if the U.S. asks for such help to close the detention center.

  ”We will do our best to help and support the policy of the Obama administration to close Guantnamo Bay,” Straw said. ”If we’re asked, of course we’ll consider” accepting detainees, he said.

  Some European leaders argue that if the detainees are to be released anywhere, it should be in the United States.

• 31 Dr. Tesla // May 16, 2009 at 12:40 pm

  William Fisher’s column, cont’

  But many legal scholars and most human rights advocates are pressing the Obama Administration to accelerate the release of cleared prisoners.

  Professor Francis A. Boyle of the University of Chicago Law School. He told us, Obviously the United States government cannot return them to China, where they will be persecuted, which would violate our obligations under international law. And they certainly cannot be detained indefinitely, which would violate their international human rights, which the Bush administration has already done grievously now for a number of years. The lawful and humanitarian alternative would be to grant them political asylum and admit them into the United States.

  And Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, told us, “It is a violation of basic human rights and our Constitution that the United States is continuing to imprison people, such as the Uighurs, who it acknowledges are innocent and present no danger. These men were swept up by mistake, sold to the U.S. for bounty, and rendered to Guantanamo where they have spent years in prison under often brutal conditions.”

  He added, “If we are to restore the rule of law, the Uighurs must be released in the United States. Keeping innocent people behind bars at an off-shore prison undermines not only our core values but our security as well.”

  Release of cleared prisoners is seen as a crucial step to the Obama Administrations plans to close the prison and relocate the detainees. Administration officials also believe that settling some of them in American communities will set an example, helping to persuade other nations to accept Guantanamo detainees too.

  But the move would also incense Chinese officials, who consider the Uighurs domestic terrorists and want those held at Guantanamo handed over for investigation.

  In captivity, the Uighurs filed suit to win their freedom. A U.S. district court in 2008 ordered their release. The decision, appealed by the Bush administration, was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Lawyers for the Uighurs appealed to the Supreme Court.

  U.S. officials did not detail what supervision the Uighurs might receive once they are living on their own. But they said the Uighurs would be allowed to live freely. Members a Uighur community in Northern Virginia have offered to help the freed detainees to resettle there.

• 32 Dr. Tesla // May 16, 2009 at 12:42 pm

  Does Frum want these detainees released into the United States? That’s the money question.

  Given his harsh criticism of Limbaugh for making this point, you would have to think Frum wouldn’t mind.

• 33 danbmil99 // May 16, 2009 at 12:47 pm

  Having spent most of my life among the far-left liberal base, I can confirm that, just like the ditto-heads, they have no rational ability to ascribe reasonable motives or intentions to the opposition. Like Limbaugh, they mistake a difference of opinion about what is best for America for a treasonous, ego-driven, glory and money-seeking desire for power at all costs.

  My moderate, objective view of the situation is that almost without exception, people get into public service because they honestly believe they can make a difference — a positive one — on the future of the country. Yes, they have egos, and yes, they can be corrupted. I suspect most of the corruption that happens starts as a “means justify ends” slippery slope — take a donation, pay an inconsequential favor, and you get to stay in office to help people. Over time, there does seem to build a sense of entitlement, of being owed for all the sacrifices you have made to the country and your constituency.

  But this constant blathering from the wing-nuts on both sides about conspiracies, Manchurian candidates, cynical acquiescence to disaster for political gain, etc. and so on, is for the most part just babbling madness.

  I put Olberman in the same category as Limbaugh. His position on the Bush administration is every bit as twisted and devoid of objective reasoning. Most of my liberal friends think he’s a moderate, objective reporter with a slightly left-tilting perspective. I kid you not.

  Both sides need to muzzle their fanatic paranoid bases if we’re ever going to have a sane political process again. We’re starting to look and sound like Pakistan.

• 34 Dr. Tesla // May 16, 2009 at 12:55 pm

  I never heard Limbaugh state Obama was guilty of treason.

  He did advance the possiblity that Obama is just incompetent and that it’s possible that Obama doesn’t want what is best for the country.

  Frum’s premise is that all presidents want what is best for their country. That is a rather idealistic and politically correct premise. I’m not comparing Obama to Hilter or Stalin, but if we go by Frum’s premise that all leaders want what is best for their countries, don’t we have to logically conclude that Stalin and Hitler wanted what was best for their country?

  I can’t believe Frum is considered an intelligent guy. Nothing he asserts is reality based…he’s full of hate for Limbaugh that he doesn’t listen to what the man says….Limbaugh dared criticize Frum’s view that the Republican party needs to go liberal! And that is clearly unacceptable to Frum.

  This guy needs to just go join the Democrat party and encourage them to be more hawkish on national security and maybe reduce their spending a little bit.

• 35 Dr. Tesla // May 16, 2009 at 1:03 pm

  Oh, by the way, Obama laughed at jokes by Wanda Sykes accusing Limbaugh of being the 20th 9-11 hijacker, and her “joke” that she hopes Limbaugh gets kidney failure, ie, she wished Limbaugh would die.

  Yet Frum is all worked up his own silly, baseless inference that Limbaugh is calling Obama a traitor.

  Why is so hard for Frum and other leftwing Republicans to believe it possible that Obama, a man that has associated with radicals like J WRight and Bill Ayers, might not want what is best for America? Why is that so kooky to Frum? IT’s just Orwellian how people want to make out Obama as some kind of decent mainstream American simply because he looks harmless.

• 36 Dr. Tesla // May 16, 2009 at 1:10 pm

  I’m not quite sure how you compare Olberman to Limbaugh.

  Limbaugh has a much larger audience, he’s funny as hell, he is much more articulate and persuasive, and he’s not insane. He’s incredibly intelligent, which is why Obama and Bill Clinton wanted to silence him, because his critcisms hit the mark, just as my criticims of Frum destroy him to the point that he would be embarrassed if he had the ability to see himself as others do.

• 37 ottovbvs // May 16, 2009 at 1:11 pm

  danbmil99
  wrote 16 minutes ago
  “Having spent most of my life among the far-left liberal base,”

  ……..The difference is the far left liberal base is not calling the shots in the Democratic party (does anyone ever suggest Olberman is the de facto leader of the Democratic party) but the far right base IS calling the shots in the Republican party. A vital and ultimately destructive distinction. If you want a measure of the problem just read the no doubt sincerely felt postings of Dr Tesla.

• 38 Dr. Tesla // May 16, 2009 at 1:15 pm

  If Rush Limbaugh is calling the shots, how the hell did John McCain get the nomination?

  Why does it seem almost all Republicans are pandering to leftwingers on global warming, and running away from abortion and gay marriage, despite the fact a majority are now against abortion, and gay marriage is voted down in every state.

  The Republican party has lurched to the left, just as Frum wants, and it lost, big time, to a guy that has never done anything of substance in his life, Obama.

  Obama is the far left liberal base. There is no doubt he is the most socialist leftwing radical president in our history, if we are to be intellectually honest.

• 39 balconesfault // May 16, 2009 at 1:16 pm

  “don’t we have to logically conclude that Stalin and Hitler wanted what was best for their country?”

  Both Stalin and Hitler justified what they wanted to do – no matter how illegal or immoral – on the basis that it was what was best for the glory and security of their country.

• 40 Dr. Tesla // May 16, 2009 at 1:17 pm

  Rush Limbaugh is not the leader of the Republican party, John McCain was.

  Limbaugh is obviously the leader of the conservative movement, and the leader of any opposition to Obama in general. Few people want to criticize Obama simply because he has black skin. This is sad, but this is what political correctness is designed to do…give certain people immunity to legit criticism.

• 41 Dr. Tesla // May 16, 2009 at 1:18 pm

  balone,

  I think Obama does the same. I’m not saying he’s like Hitler or Stalin, but he is prettty close to becoming a Hugo Chavez-lite.

• 42 Dr. Tesla // May 16, 2009 at 1:22 pm

  What’s rather hypocritical about Frum is that he has appeared on Bill Maher’s show, the man that wished that Cheney would be killed when he was overseas in Iraq.

  Who is Frum to diss Limbaugh when he would choose to go on Bill Maher’s show?

  Bill Maher, if he’s not an anti-Christian bigot, he’s well on the way. Everytime I see his show, he is ridiculing Christians.

• 43 balconesfault // May 16, 2009 at 1:24 pm

  Tesla – when you have evidence of Obama trampeling the constitution in order to protect America, we can talk.

• 44 ottovbvs // May 16, 2009 at 1:39 pm

  Dr. Tesla
  wrote 21 minutes ago
  “If Rush Limbaugh is calling the shots, how the hell did John McCain get the nomination?”

  …….David and the rest of us speak in the present tense….McCain is ghost of Christmas past……In any event it was fairly obvious McCain was never very popular with the base which is why he had to drag La Palin along to get a decent crowd.

• 45 ottovbvs // May 16, 2009 at 1:42 pm

  Dr. Tesla
  wrote 22 minutes ago”
  Rush Limbaugh is not the leader of the Republican party, John McCain was.

  Limbaugh is obviously the leader of the conservative movement, and the leader of any opposition to Obama in general.”

  ……In short he is the de facto no the de jure leader of the party…..I agree with you entirely as does David……that’s the problem.

• 46 ottovbvs // May 16, 2009 at 1:49 pm

  Dr. Tesla
  wrote 26 minutes ago
  “despite the fact a majority are now against abortion,”

  By 1% and well within the MOE. 75% were however against any legal obstruction to access to abortion. In short we’re all in favor of motherhood and apple pie but wouldn’t favor a legal requirements that all women must become mothers or that the eating of apple pie become compulsory.

• 47 balconesfault // May 16, 2009 at 2:03 pm

  ottovbvs wrote: “…….David and the rest of us speak in the present tense….McCain is ghost of Christmas past…..”

  Well, McCain was also a product of the Republican desire to have a single leader. Thus, winner-take-all-with-a-plurality primaries, and none of the messy “superdelegate” stuff that left the Dem nomination up in the air until well into the summer.

• 48 ottovbvs // May 16, 2009 at 2:22 pm

  balconesfault
  wrote 11 minutes ago

  ….I’m not sure I see the relevance of this comment…..Tesla said Limbaugh wasn’t the dominant voice in the party or how else could McCain have become the presidential candidate……I just pointed out we are speaking of now not six months ago….mind you Tesla contradicted himself moments later and said Limbaugh was de facto leader but I don’t think clarity of thought is his strong point.

• 49 ireign // May 16, 2009 at 2:25 pm

  Ottobs wrote, “And who is Cheney or you to say Powell has left the Republican party, after all plenty of Republicans voted for Obama.”

  Your statement is illogical and irrelevant. You are arguing that since plenty of Republicans voted for Obama that neither me nor Dick Cheney can say that he left the party. Going by your logic no prominent Democrat can say that Zell Miller (who was once very partisan unlike Powell) left the party by publicly endorsing Bush because plenty of Democrats voted for Bush.

  It is clear on every issue that at this point in time that Powell holds viewpoints more aligned with the Democrats. Plenty of Republicans may have voted for Obama but no one who did should be the head of the GOP. Especially one who significantly damaged the Republican nominee by making the endorsement a week or two before the end of the race. I don’t think any Republican would stand for that.

• 50 krove // May 16, 2009 at 2:41 pm

  Balcone said

  “Well, McCain was also a product of the Republican desire to have a single leader. Thus, winner-take-all-with-a-plurality primaries, and none of the messy “superdelegate” stuff that left the Dem nomination up in the air until well into the summer.’

  That late end to the primary was a real blessing to the Dems. It kept up the excitement and made Obama campaign hard in pretty nearly every state in the Union. That introduced him and made a huge difference in the Election as the voter registration drives really added a lot of first time voters to the Dem side. People who will remain politically active into the future.

• 51 ottovbvs // May 16, 2009 at 2:51 pm

  ireign
  wrote 16 minutes ago
  “It is clear on every issue that at this point in time that Powell holds viewpoints more aligned with the Democrats.”

  Actually that’s true of a lot of traditional Republicans from Chris Buckley to Colin Powell who fall into this category. I know lots of them and I’m one myself. We’d say we put country before party. Obviously an alien concept to you to whom party is all. None of this is in the least bit illogical or irrelevant.

• 52 ireign // May 16, 2009 at 3:26 pm

  Ottobs-You are obviously not very intelligent (I would be shocked if you graduated from college) and have difficulty making reasonable arguments. Instead, you try to dishonestly twist what other people say and make unwarranted assumptions. Unlike you have a record of public service to my country and community.

  I am going to try and ignore your future “contributions” to this blog.

• 53 balconesfault // May 16, 2009 at 3:53 pm

  ottovbvs – my comment was pointed at the reality that Republicans, for whatever reason, seem to feel most comfortable identifying themselves behind a leader. This manifests itself in many ways – in how they design their primary system, as I pointed out, to quickly determine a winner/leader. In their willingness to hold their powder on Bush for a long list of things they’d have pilloried a Dem President for. In their projection, imo, that Dems blindly follow Obama, while if you listen to Dem congressmen and read leftwing blogs you’ve seen a lot of very specific criticisms of Obama right out the gate.

  On the Limbaugh front – imagine if while Bush was President people had started labeling any media personality the leader of the Democratic Party. There would have been 100’s of daggers come out almost instantly.

• 54 Dr. Tesla // May 16, 2009 at 3:57 pm

  This is the transcript from Rush’s show. Frum characterizes Limbaugh’s remarks about him and David Brooks as disobliging. Yet, both Frum and Brooks are Obama suckups. Frum throws out the occasional mild rebuke of Obama, but the majority of his posts he’s ranting about Limbaugh or some other conservative that’s popular. I think trying to make Limbaugh and Hannity and Levin out as kooks is laughable given their popularity with the conservative base which is the majority of the REpublican party that Frum pretends to support. I love how he keeps using Buckley as a prop against Limbaugh, although Buckley liked Limbaugh and even discussed on Rush’s show how liberals liked to pit Buckley against Rush. The only conservatives that liberals like Frum like are dead ones.

• 55 Dr. Tesla // May 16, 2009 at 3:58 pm

  RUSH: Yvonne in Tampa, Florida, you’re next on the EIB Network. Hi.

  CALLER: Thanks, Rush. I just had a question. Do you think it’s possible that President Obama came into office with a liberal mind-set that he was fed for years in the academia, no real-world experience, and he comes in with an agenda, and then all of a sudden he’s confronted with the real world, good and evil?

  RUSH: Well, there are two answers to this. Let me answer this as David Brooks, David Frum, or others might answer it. We have to give Obama credit. When he does the right thing, we have to give him credit. This is the absolute right thing to do and we’ve known all along that Obama was not the liberal crazy that everybody thought, he’s a modern centrist governing from the center and therefore, Obama, this is a wonderful and great thing to do. We’ve gotta lead the charge, Obama did the right thing. That’s the pseudo-intellectual conservative view. The truth is he’s incompetent. He is every bit the radical leftist he’s always been. This isn’t changing his mind about anything. What is happening, if anything, is that the import of his job, you know, he’s got a very fine line to walk. I was just talking about this. His base loves anything that inflames anti-American opinion. During the campaign he inflamed anti-American opinion. As a senator he voted to inflame anti-American opinion. In his early days as president he ran around the world apologizing, inflaming and encouraging anti-American opinion.

• 56 Dr. Tesla // May 16, 2009 at 4:02 pm

  You would have thought Limbaugh had ripped Frum a new one on his show, given Frum’s whiny remark about it. This guy is so sensitive to even mild criticism. He’s also pissed that Limbaugh factually pointed out that Frum sold less books than Nancy Pelosi and you got to try to sell that few books.

• 57 Dr. Tesla // May 16, 2009 at 4:05 pm

  Krove,

  It would rather defeat the purpose of a political forum for me to “shut up”. The point is to share your opinion.

• 58 balconesfault // May 16, 2009 at 4:07 pm

  “both Frum and Brooks are Obama suckups”

  Good bye to any credibility Tesla may have still retained.

• 59 ottovbvs // May 16, 2009 at 4:11 pm

  ireign
  wrote 34 minutes agoOttobs-”
  You are obviously not very intelligent (I would be shocked if you graduated from college)”

  Cambridge Tripos in UK and then an MBA in US. Have worked in several different countries in different businesses ultimately running a couple of fair sized companies employing thousands.

  ” I am going to try and ignore your future “contributions” to this blog.”

  ………One must be thankful for small mercies I suppose.

• 60 Dr. Tesla // May 16, 2009 at 4:14 pm

  balcone,

  Have you ever read or listen to David Brooks talk about Obama? That guy sounds like he wants to have sex with Obama….it’s embarrassing. I’m against hero worship of any politician, even the ones I like. I dislike Obama’s followers more than the man himself because there is something cult-like about their support for him, given the fact he’s got a very thin resume. He may be the most unremarkable man to every win any political office in American history.

  Frum’s not quite at David Brook’s level when it comes to gushing over Obama, but he the man is not a conservative, and I think conservatives are tired of the lectures from some insecure liberal like Frum who actually thinks Colin Powell is a true Republican. How you can say that after Powell voted for OBama and said that Americans want big government? I don’t know what Frum is smoking, but it seems to impair his ability to make logical conclusions and assertions.

• 61 ottovbvs // May 16, 2009 at 4:23 pm

  balconesfault
  wrote 18 minutes ago

  …….You’re right Republicans are rather in love with the Fuehrerprinzip…..They are constantly in search of the man on the white horse…..Rudy was a perfect fit in this regard but had too many zipper problems for the Christian right….I actually lived in NYC during his mayoralty which was very successful in it’s first term although with hints of megalomania which were fully realized in his second term….. The Democrats are much more contentious…..Their electoral coalition is broader of course so this creates more centrifugal force in the party…….That said I’d say the coalitions that make up the parties are in much more “natural” alignment than they’ve ever been. The conservative southerners in the conservative party and so on……

• 62 Dr. Tesla // May 16, 2009 at 4:27 pm

  Do Democrats allow pro-lifers in their party? Or people for tax cuts?

  They shunned Lieberman simply because he was a vocal supporter of the Iraq war.

  THe Democrats is not a big tent party. You must be hardcored leftist on both economic and social issues to be welcomed as a Democrat.

• 63 ottovbvs // May 16, 2009 at 4:29 pm

  Dr. Tesla
  wrote 10 minutes ago
  “He may be the most unremarkable man to every win any political office in American history.”

  …….And yet you say he’s assuming iconographic status….He’s without question the most dominating president I can remember outside of Kennedy and early Johnson…..All without talent according to you…..And based the astonishing statement above why should anyone be surprised at the depth of your perception.

• 64 palomino70 // May 16, 2009 at 4:43 pm

  “It was commonly believed by liberals on both coasts that Bush deliberately allowed 9-11 to happen.
  And YOU KNOW THAT.”

  Sinz, you’re constructing a straw man made of tinfoil. Speaking as a liberal from one of the coasts, this was NOT commonly believed, here or in the rest of the country. (What does geography have to do with this anyway?) The 9-11 truthers are nutjobs who have little in common with the millions of “liberals on both coasts.” Lumping us all together is lazy reductiveness in furtherance of your argument, which I notice isn’t backed up by reference to any sources other than the feelings in your gut.

• 65 petty boozshwa // May 16, 2009 at 4:44 pm

  DFrum,

  I agree with your main thrust, but think you have rose colored glasses on about the viciousness of our opposition. Saint Jimminy Carter had Michael Moore sit in his box at the Dem Convention, legitimatizing his argument that Iraq was a kite-flier’s paradise until those diabolical neocons attacked poor misunderstood Saddam. I recall Al Gore bellowing about Bush betraying our country into war. No amount of facts will dissuade the Chris Mathews of the world that the intelligence justifying the war was deliberately cooked. Surely these types of arguments were/are as damaging as anything a blowhard like Rush puts out.

• 66 Dr. Tesla // May 16, 2009 at 4:47 pm

  Frum’s more worried about an opinionated man on the radio that has no power over us than he is the most radical power grabbing president this coutnry has ever seen. He’s a petty man that cannot handle criticism of his positions, and he rather spend his time engaging in ad hominem on Limbaugh rather than criticizing a politician in Obama that does have the power to affect our lives.

• 67 Dr. Tesla // May 16, 2009 at 4:48 pm

  There are a lot of liberals that think Bush was behind 9-11, that he blew up the WTC.

• 68 palomino70 // May 16, 2009 at 5:00 pm

  Sorry, Sinz, but Gore Vidal (of NYC?) and a whack job S.F. attorney do not comprise a coastal conspiracy of liberal elites attempting to sap and impurify America’s precious bodily fluids. Even KO’s overheated rhetoric doesn’t suggest that Cheney-Bush knew about 9-11 beforehand and deliberately let it happen.

  And even if you can find some crazy leftist voices out there, does this excuse the over the top bloviations from Limbaugh? Does it justify insinuations that Obama is a terrorist (sympathizer) himself? Or that he hates and wants to destroy the country he was elected to lead?

• 69 Dr. Tesla // May 16, 2009 at 5:06 pm

  There is no doubt that Obama does have a lot of problems with America, or he wouldn’t go around apologizing to leftwing dicators for it, and he wouldn’t keep saying that he is going to transform it. If you like AMerica, why does it need a major transformation, as Obama believes?

  Limbaugh has never insinuated Obama is a terrorist sympathizer. He has asserted Obama wants to appease terrorist groups and rogue left wing dictators like Chavez. Obama listened to these guys trash America and did not rebuke them for it. That’s not a man that love his country.

• 70 sinz54 // May 16, 2009 at 5:07 pm

  Dr. Tesla: The Truthers, who believe that Bush blew up the WTC with controlled demolition charges, or something, tend to be mostly fringe types. You’ll find supporters of Ron Paul among them, as well as supporters of Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader.

• 71 Dr. Tesla // May 16, 2009 at 5:09 pm

  It should be noted, in one of Obama’s own books, he does say he rejected the radical black nationalism of the Nation of Islam (think Louis Farakhan (sp?) ) out of his belief that it was not effective, but “not out of sentiment”.

  It other words, Obama had no problems with racist and radical agenda of the nation of islam from a values standpoint, he just didn’t think it was effective.

• 72 Dr. Tesla // May 16, 2009 at 5:11 pm

  Sinz,

  I know Truthers who voted for Kerry and Gore and Obama.

• 73 balconesfault // May 16, 2009 at 5:16 pm

  Tesla: “Do Democrats allow pro-lifers in their party? Or people for tax cuts?”

  Harry Reid declares he is pro-life. And Obama just pushed through a massive middle class tax cut.

  “There are a lot of liberals that think Bush was behind 9-11″

  You’re going to find a lot more people in the Alex Jones/Ron Paul camp who believe this, than liberals. Last time I listened to him, Alex Jones was sounding a lot more like you Dr. Tesla, while ranting against Obama’s Presidency.

• 74 danbmil99 // May 16, 2009 at 5:19 pm

  This is such tiresome crap. Yes, the liberals did this to Bush, so it should come as no surprise that the right wing-nuts would try to do it to Obama. Unfortunately for them, he’s clearly in another league as a person, an intellect, and a leader.

  I honestly think Rush’s biggest fear — in fact he pretty much says it — is that Obama will succeed, and history will view his administration as a good, necessary corrective to the previous 8 years, if not the last 3 decades.

  Will the big O leave us a somewhat bigger government than I would like? sure, as did FDR and Johnson. So maybe then we can elect someone like Romney to put some discipline back into the system. In the end though, he will probably be remembered fondly by most, and his legacy will likely be the historical consensus that supply-side and neocon ideology brought us to the brink of disaster, and quasi-socialistic government policies pulled us back to reality.

  If this comes to pass, it’s a game-changing disaster for the likes of Limbaugh. He has no alternative but to hope for failure. If the GOP follows him into that rabbit hole, it’s curtains for the party as a relevant force in American politics.

• 75 sinz54 // May 16, 2009 at 5:20 pm

  Palomino70: Limbaugh said: “His [Obama's] instincts were to let terrorists go in the United States on the street.”

  Had the media and the Congress not raised an outcry, that was *exactly* what was going to happen. 17 Chinese Uighur terrorists–oops!–I mean “militants,” that’s what you liberals call them–were about to be released into Fairfax County VA.

  I would have preferred to send these Uighurs back to China where the Chinese could deal with them as they deserve. But since we’ve got wooly-headed folks even in the Bush Administration (not to mention all those in the ACLU and your other buddies), we just couldn’t allow the Chinese to treat these Uighurs harshly, oh dear, oh my.

  So instead, these 17 trained terrorists–trained in terrorist training camps to attack Chinese targets–were going to be released into Fairfax County VA.

  We don’t need more Islamist fanatics walking around America, even if they haven’t attacked this nation (yet). We’ve got naturalized Chinese citizens living in Virginia–they don’t need to be in fear for their lives.

  So Limbaugh was undeniably accurate.

  I am unalterably opposed to settling anyone from Gitmo inside America, unless they’re Boy Scouts who never even got so much as a parking ticket.

• 76 palomino70 // May 16, 2009 at 5:22 pm

  So back it up, Dr. T. Who are these “a lot of liberals” who think Bush actively engineered 9-11? Three guys who made a web video don’t count. The answer is that they are a lunatic fringe on the far left and even some on the far right; a small group of dead-enders who aren’t taken seriously by the mainstream of any party or political persuasion.

  Suggesting that all liberals be subject to the same opprobrium deserved by 9-11 truthers is unfair at the very least.

  Remember the 90’s? There were “some conservatives” who spent 8 years arguing that the Clintons had assassinated dozens of political opponents; but anyone who ties this bit of fantasy to mainstream conservativism is a fool. Likewise with 9-11 conspiracy theories and mainstream liberalism.

• 77 danbmil99 // May 16, 2009 at 5:22 pm

  oh and BTW, I have lived among liberals from both coasts since 9/11, and I’ve never heard anyone spout this idiocy about a conspiracy. The only people who talk like that are paranoid conspiracy nuts on the web.

  What liberals generally believe is that Bush and cohorts used 9/11 and the GWOT to cynically push their ideological agenda of spreading democracy at the point of a bomb, while simultaneously vastly increasing the scope of their executive power. I think there’s some pretty good evidence to support that notion, unfortunately.

• 78 palomino70 // May 16, 2009 at 5:25 pm

  And Frum, how dare you go after Limbaugh in search of more traffic? It’s not like he’s one of the leading voices in the conservative movement, so he’s clearly not a legitimate target. And would he ever attack CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NYT or any other media outlet with an eye to ratings?

• 79 palomino70 // May 16, 2009 at 5:48 pm

  Dr. T: Dr. Tesla wrote 19 minutes ago
  There is no doubt that Obama does have a lot of problems with America, or he wouldn’t go around apologizing to leftwing dicators for it, and he wouldn’t keep saying that he is going to transform it.

  Now you’re just making crap up, Doc. Which left-wing dictator did he apologize to? No apologies to Chavez (scum but not technically a dictator) or Ahmadinejad (not a left-winger). And the apologies in Europe were accompanied by a stinging reprimand of Europeans for their “unacceptable anti-Americanism.”

  But if it makes you feel good to portray him as some sort of Manchurian candidate, go ahead–it puts you in the same discredited category as 9-11 truthers.

• 80 Mike K // May 16, 2009 at 6:34 pm

  “Yes, the liberals did this to Bush, so it should come as no surprise that the right wing-nuts would try to do it to Obama. Unfortunately for them, he’s clearly in another league as a person, an intellect, and a leader.”

  Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

  For another opinon on Obama hat I share, you could read this:

  http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/929/

  A leader indeed. David, your posts seem to attract an odd bunch for a supposed Republican site.

• 81 palomino70 // May 16, 2009 at 7:35 pm

  Sinz, like a loyal little dittohead you’re stretching to justify Limbaugh’s incendiary rhetoric. The Uighurs aren’t the focus of his commentary. He’s clearly implying that Obama would happily let radical anti-American al-Qaeda types free to roam our streets, rape our daughters and blow up all our churches.

  This is absurd, of course. If convicted, these ppl will go to supermax fed penitentiaries and be no more threat than anyone else in federal prison.

  Unfortunately, much of this commentary is of a piece with insidious web rumors that Obama is a secret Muslim, born in Kenya, a servant of al-Qaeda, etc. With this garbage floating around, it becomes easier to see a Chavez handshake as treason. And conveniently forget that handshakes with real totalitarian monsters (Stalin, Mao, Brezhnev) by the likes of FDR, Reagan and Nixon were actually good diplomacy. We can’t just blow up everybody, folks, even if we despise them.

• 82 Mike K // May 16, 2009 at 8:05 pm

  David, if you think these people who post here (most of them-Palomino for example) are the future of the Republican Party, I have some property in California I could let you have at a nice price.

  Why make yourself a dartboard ? Limbaugh is an obsession not only with them, but it seems with you.

• 83 danbmil99 // May 16, 2009 at 8:52 pm

  Mike K:

  The difference between you and DF is, he actually cares about the GOP getting back into power. As to who is in this “odd bunch” that the site attracts, it’s people who, while we may be impressed with Obama and don’t think he’s the antichrist, still want to see a loyal, competent opposition party as a viable alternative, and as a check on the power of any administration.

  What is it about the hard-line conservatives that makes them so mad at the idea of letting a few moderates into the tent? Are your egos so brittle that you can’t take a bit of dissent within the ranks? Why do you need 100% of your positions reflected in the platform, when 80% might get you back into power? Do you really want to be a permanent, bereaved minority party?

• 84 danbmil99 // May 16, 2009 at 8:59 pm

  What really galls me is, my positions win me no friends on the left. They get mad that I’m not supporting “change you can believe in”. When I say that Obama is a well-intentioned, talented politician who may be a bit out of his depth, I get it from both sides.

  Same thing with Bush. I never thought he was “in it for the money”, or cartoonishly evil (though Cheney sometimes seems to play for laughs). I thought he was a decent guy who got some bad advice and started to believe his own press. These people are — people. Human beings. Not supermen, or super-evil villains.

  This is not the movies, folks. It’s not “24″, or “The Matrix”. It’s real life, with real people, making real decisions that will affect all our lives. Try to be rational, try to think outside the carefully crafted, seductive media messages that are thrown your way like red meat in front of a bull.

  Try to think for yourselves for a change.

• 85 Mike K // May 16, 2009 at 9:15 pm

  “What is it about the hard-line conservatives that makes them so mad at the idea of letting a few moderates into the tent? Are your egos so brittle that you can’t take a bit of dissent within the ranks? Why do you need 100% of your positions reflected in the platform, when 80% might get you back into power? Do you really want to be a permanent, bereaved minority party”

  Dan, when was the last time you voted for a Republican ? Come on, fess up. I voted for Nixon in 1960, outraging my family because Jack Kennedy was a distant cousin. I also voted for LBJ in 1964 and regretted it. All I’m saying is that comments from the likes of Palomino and krove show no amount of persuasion would change those radical leftists.

  For your information, I am pro-choice and am very close to libertarian in philosophy. I don’t listen much to Limbaugh but he is a good source of info that never gets into the MSM. The harshest critics always seem to be the ones who have never heard him.

  I still think David is looking for volume and Limbaugh always seems to provide it. Once again, he has never run for office and will not.

  I just think there is little here that provides real inspiration for a revived GOP.

  Among other positions I support is national health insurance but on a model, the French, that allows free choice and provides excellent care. You could see my analysis here:

  http://abriefhistory.org/?p=400

  I just have trouble with phonies and there are a bunch of them commenting here. Maybe not you but a lot.

• 86 palomino70 // May 16, 2009 at 10:06 pm

  One current difference between the parties is that moderates are actually welcomed by the Dems (not all party-switchers are narcissists like Specter); whereas the GOP wants to drum DF and other centrists out for insufficient ideological rigidity. I’ve yet to hear a compelling case for how this works in 2010. The GOP revolutions of 1980 and 1994 weren’t predicated on cleansing the party of dissent from moderates; indeed, it was largely the opposite–big tent and all.

• 87 palomino70 // May 16, 2009 at 10:10 pm

  Still waiting for Dr. Teaparty or anyone else to tell me which “left-wing dictator” Obama apologized to. This is the sort of misinformation that results from relying on talk radio and rumor mill websites for news and not just commentary.

• 88 palomino70 // May 16, 2009 at 10:23 pm

  Mike K: “Dan, when was the last time you voted for a Republican? Come on, fess up.”

  Are you a commenter or the grand inquisitor?

  I happen to be a Dem; so what? This isn’t RedState, Mike. NM is not an exclusive little sandbox reserved for pristinely like-minded ideologues. So spare us the litmus tests and outing of non-believers.

  And, yeah, if you bothered to try and make an argument I’m receptive. Indeed, I’m looking for well-reasoned centrist arguments as I have doubts regarding some of my liberal views and current Dem policies. But I guess it’s easier to write off all honest disagreement as the product of “radical leftists”

• 89 cheesehead // May 16, 2009 at 10:24 pm

  Colin Powell deserves no respect from the GOP.

  He hung both President Bush and Scooter Libby out to dry, by covering for his buddy, the Valerie Plame leaker, Richard Armitage.

  Out of respect for Sen. McCain and the GOP, the party Powell claims to be affiliated with, he could have merely been silent in the 2008 election. Instead, he had to publicly endorse Sen. Obama.

  Vice President Cheney and Rush Limbaugh are right: Colin Powell is no Republican, and the sooner he’s ostracized, the better off the party will be.

• 90 danbmil99 // May 16, 2009 at 11:14 pm

  since my voting record seems to be of interest:

  Note that I have lived in NYC and CA exclusively. What with the electoral college, it’s never seemed to me in a presidential election that my vote was anything other than a footnote. Therefore I’ve typically gotten creative, hoping to be part of a “message”.

  IIRC, I’ve voted communist (Angela Davis), libertarian (can’t remember the guy’s name), Ross Perot, libertarian again, Nader in ‘04 (specifically to taunt my friends who had stupidly voted for him in ‘00 — he’s a complete tool), and this time, Obama.

  I admit I’ve never voted Republican in a presidential race yet, but believe me it’s not out of the question. I was seriously considering McCain before he selected Barbie the bear-shootin’ wonder doll as a running mate.

  I like Romney, though I think he’s got a weathervane for a heart. I lived under Giuliani, and while he was what NYC needed, he would be a complete disaster as Pres. If Schwartznegger could run, I would probably vote for him. I even like Mike Huckabee, though I disagree with almost every position he takes, so would probably never vote for him. The point there is that an agreeable demeanor is important. As much as I disagree with him, Huck seems like a straight shooter, someone with a heart and some integrity. Palin seems like a crazed lunatic, and has that Bush-like lack of curiosity that drives me nuts.

  I even admire Gingrich, at least he has some principles that he sticks with. I care about this stuff because I know what the left is capable of, good and bad. I do not want to live in a USA that resembles NYC under Lindsay or Koch. I’ve been there and done that. There needs to be a counterbalance, but Rush and Hannity aren’t it — they’re just noise.

• 91 MSheridan // May 17, 2009 at 12:04 am

  I’ve been reading National Review Online (blech) and The American Conservative (which I often quite enjoy) for quite a while and reading here ever since this site started. I’ve come to the tentative conclusion that the Republican Party really IS in its death throes. Conservative thinkers are going to have to start anew with a new party (or become Blue Dogs, I suppose). I say this not because I think conservatives have declined in number or because the far right has gone farther to the right than it was before, but because I’ve concluded that Frum is correct–the GOP has not only allowed the people least likely to appeal to centrists to become its public face and leadership, it doesn’t even seem to understand as an organization how suicidal that is. If Democratic politicians had to publicly bow down and kiss the ring of Michael Moore and Al Sharpton or face political Armageddon, I’m positive that Republicans would chortle with glee, but the GOP can’t seem to see that it faces the same situation. I’ll continue to look in here from time to time, but unless something changes drastically, I’ll be doing so with ever decreasing hope that something will actually come of this place.

• 92 Robohobo // May 17, 2009 at 12:07 am

  “…nobody as central to the left as Limbaugh is central to the right – ever accused either President Bush or Vice President Cheney of wishing to do harm to America.”

  That is some selective memory there. The Leftists HOWLED for 8 years about how GWB was doing everything he could to ruin the country. Remember BDS?

  But this is about what I expect from Frum.

• 93 Egli Ha // May 17, 2009 at 12:27 am

  The problem is, each time Rush humiliates someone, he gets richer. He makes his audience more enthusiastic.

  Some of you write “why is he doing this? Doesn’t he see it’s bad for the party?” Rush doesnt give a govno about the party. He wants to make his audience more enthusiastic, that’s all.

  Frum keeps writing that we should not let Rush be the public face of the Party but it’s not clear whether we have a choice. We’re like the horse in the story who contracted to let the man saddle and ride him in order to kill the wolf but then found he was enslaved.

• 94 palomino70 // May 17, 2009 at 1:16 am

  cheesehead 10:30 PM
  “Colin Powell deserves no respect from the GOP.”

  Respect is a two-way street, and Powell earned a lot of it from the GOP…how would the selling of the war in 2003 have gone without his gravitas and UN presentation?

  “Colin Powell is no Republican, and the sooner he’s ostracized, the better off the party will be.”

  This is what I really don’t get. HOW does eliminating Powell improve the party? How does removing one of our greatest military heroes, one of the most esteemed men in all of American life and probably the highest regarded black republican ever, improve the GOP?

  Punishing dissent in the pursuit of narrow party purification is not the way a thriving party bounces back from consecutive losses. But it seems to satisfy the bloodlust that accompanies your anger, and maybe that’s more important to some of you at this point.

• 95 ND Pendent // May 17, 2009 at 5:29 am

  Rush, Hannity, Beck, Savage, Ingram, Coulter and the dozens of local AM radio affiliate wannabes that spew the same type of foaming at the mouth often irrational rants as the big boys are the mouth of the GOP. They are on the air literally 24 X 7 and for centrists and independents they represent what the GOP stands for. This is not a good thing for the GOP and worse they are not going away.

  The GOP benefited from Rushes ability to rev up the base for years now the cheerleader is the coach and if an elected political player rises up that does not meet his approval he has the power to send him to the bench.

• 96 Cforchange // May 17, 2009 at 5:36 am

  Limbaugh is majority responsible for the minority in the minority – female Republican. He is the lady killer.

  Women vote, fix the problem.

• 97 cajuncocoa // May 17, 2009 at 6:09 am

  For a long time, conservatives had NO voice in the mainstream media. Then, along came Limbaugh. At first, it was refreshing to hear this other POV; but little by little, he began to annoy and anger me with things he would say about women, minorities, etc. After about 5 years of listening to him in the 1990s, I found I started to disagree with him more than agree — I took new stock of my political beliefs, and realized I was more libertarian than conservative.

  That said, I take exception to this comment within the article:

  “But short of the crazy 9/11 denialists, no prominent liberal figure – certainly nobody as central to the left as Limbaugh is central to the right – ever accused either President Bush or Vice President Cheney of wishing to do harm to America.”

  Over the past 8 years, I’ve done my share of listening to leftist loonies as well. They worship Keith Olbermann as the right wingnuts worship Limbaugh. I would be willing to bet a small amount of money that one could easily find a YouTube video of KO saying such things about Bush and/or Cheney!

• 98 sinz54 // May 17, 2009 at 6:48 am

  rohohobo: In fact, I posted numerous examples of BDS over the last 8 years, including one from Olbermann. Unfortunately, David Frum saw fit to have them all deleted.

  So be it.
  Do your own Google search for “Bush Derangement Syndrome” and for “Bush allowed 9-11 to happen,” and you’ll get a whole bunch of hits.

  What Limbaugh said about Obama pales by comparison to what the liberals were saying about Bush, Cheney, and anyone else in the Bush Administration who dared defend their boss.

  The aforementioned Google search will make that clear.

• 99 Dr. Tesla // May 17, 2009 at 6:53 am

  Obama’s TALKED about a middle class tax cuts. There has been no middle class tax cut to my knowledge. He wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire, which is a TAX HIKE, and Bush cut taxes for everybody, despite the liberal class warfare mantra that it was only “tax cuts for the rich”.

  I know some leftwinger is going to call me a liar and assert the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich. I’m warning you…I got the facts on my side here and I will post them and you are going to be exposed as an ignorant fool or intellectually dishonest.

• 100 Dr. Tesla // May 17, 2009 at 7:19 am

  Here’s is a column that Frum posted recently about Limbaugh written by some liberal kook on the Huffington Post. The fact that Frum would post ANYTHING on the Huffington Post seems to reveal he’s certainly not all that conservative and little understanding of the free market.

  Here’s the article by the leftwing conspiracy theorist Bill Mann, and Frum actually bought into this, if only becauase Frum’s jealousy and hate of Limbaugh makes him want to believe such lunancy:

  Ever wonder why Rush “Boss” Limbaughs syndicated radio show is all over the place like the proverbial cheap suit?

  If you do much driving in rural areas e.g. between cities “Boss” Limbaughs bloviations are often the only thing you can pick up on a car radio. Hey, thats what CD players are for.

  Did Rush accrue hundreds of local radio affiliates across the country because his political views are mainstream? Thats obviously not it. OK, so why IS his show so “popular?” Why do hundreds of stations around the country carry his show, the most widely syndicated talkfest in the country?

  The real story is not generally well-known. The only reason I know is through my covering the business of radio for years for several major daily newspapers and also, for industry trade magazines like Radio World.

  Its because ready for this? Rushs show was, and presumably still is, given away for free to many local radio stations.

  This shocker is because of a little-known practice in broadcast syndication called a “barter deal.” (Barter deals were briefly mentioned in Michael Wolffs first-rate recent piece on Rush in Vanity Fair).

  Heres how a barter deal works: To launch the show, Limbaughs syndicator, Premiere Radio Networks the same folks who syndicate wingnut du jour Glen Beck gave Limbaughs three hours away thats right, no cash to local radio stations, mostly in medium and smaller markets, back in the early 1990s.

  So, a local talk station got Rushs show for zilch. In exchange, Premiere took for itself much of the local stations available advertising time (roughly 15 minutes an hour) and packed the show with national ads it had already pre-sold.

  Major-market right-wing talk stations, like San Franciscos KSFO-AM (”Reichstag Radio”) have to pay actual money, of course, to carry Boss Limbaughs daily proclamation-a-thon. (Note: KSFO, which I referred to as “Sieg Heil on Your Dial” in my column when it first switched to righty talk, is the same station that gave hatemonger Michael Savage his first radio megaphone).

  So, when you hear Rush bellowing as youre passing through Birdseed Junction, Beanblossom, or Pyrite, just remember: The radio stations getting what it paid for. Or, more accurately, DIDNT pay for.

• 101 Dr. Tesla // May 17, 2009 at 7:25 am

  Here is a beatdown of Bill Mann’s nonsense that Frum thought was reasonable.

  Shhh! Put on your dark conspiratorial shades. Radio critic Bill Mann has revealed the highly classified “secret” of Rush Limbaughs success in his Huffington Post blog. The information is so top secret that it has heretofore been known only to people even slightly familiar with the radio business. Listen as Mann whispers the “dirty little secret” in public: (see article below)

  GASP! That explains it all. Why even a person with permanent laryingtus or the communications skills of Mario Cuomo could hit it big on radio by just giving away his show for free.

  Shame on Rush Limbaughs radio syndicator for being market savvy. Why couldnt they have been more inept in the interest of fairness

  What they get is a larger audience along with larger ad revenues. However, explaining reality to Bill Mann is a tough proposition. Many commentors on the Huffington Post also think Mann took leave of his senses:

  “HAHA you guys on here kill me.if this was the whole truth and the only reason Rush is on all these stations is they “gave the show away” then it wouldnt last. To get people to advertise on a show you need listeners or the sponsorships go away. Which means the show would die. If the show is growing and copanies keep scrambling to put up commercials that means people are listening. It is more simple than you are trying to make it out to be.

  WowRush is using a “diabolical secret plan” that is only used by Opra, and lots and lots and lots of other radio and TV shows.”

  Even folks who dislike Rush think Bill Manns position is silly:

  “This article is a bit silly. Yes, Limbaughs show is ridiculous, but it gets attention and obviously entertains a fair number of people. Bartering is a standard business models for shows that are trying to expand their syndication. If you want someone to take you, you offer your show for free. But what good is having a free show that nobody listens to? Nobody would hear the sponsors ads and youd lose advertisement revenue. Any show can barter itself. But only a successful show that gets ratings can barter itself successfully. A show still has to get a following in order for a local station to consider using up air time for you (even if your show is free). The point is, this articles thought process is a bit simple-minded. Anybody can follow this same business model. Its actually a pretty shrewd model. “

  Of course, flat out jealousy could explain Bill Manns absurd conspiracy theory. His HuffPo bio states that he once hosted a radio show. What happened, Bill? You couldnt even give it away for free?

• 102 Dr. Tesla // May 17, 2009 at 7:32 am

  The point of posting this article that Frum posted with great excitement is that Frum’s agenda is to discredit Rush as a kook and out of the mainstream.

  But does this not rather establish that Frum as a kook and a slopper thinker, and thus discredit him as a legit critic of Limbaugh?

• 103 sinz54 // May 17, 2009 at 7:44 am

  Dr. Tesla: That Limbaugh is popular with working-class conservatives (”Joe the Plumber”) is undeniable. Whether Limbaugh got on a lot of stations due to business deals is irrelevant; now that he is on the air there, his ratings are high. And he is the favorite on all the right-wing blogs.

  The real issue is the disconnect between Limbaugh and the GOP base on one side, and the rest of the nation on the other. Polls show a wide gap in ideology, even in what issues they believe are most important, let alone possible solutions.

  The increasing ideological isolation of the GOP base from the rest of the nation is making it difficult for the GOP to expand its “big tent.” A candidate whose stance on issues might appeal to, say, suburban women in the Northeast, or New Mexico Hispanics, is going to be viewed by the GOP base as a “RINO.” And hence won’t have the support of the base.

• 104 ottovbvs // May 17, 2009 at 7:55 am

  danbmil99
  5:19 PM

  You summarize the situation almost perfectly. The big fear on the far right is that essentially the center moves permanently left as it did with FDR and Johnson and that Obama is seen as having cleaned up a catastrophe brought on by thirty years of Republican ideology and latterly incompetence. If I had to place bets I’d say this is what is going to happen. Obama is a huge political talent despite the rather hysterical, self delusion here and he’s clearly going to achieve two thirds of his agenda and get most of the credit for turning the economy around. Absent a huge disaster which I don’t see, he’s set. Underpinning this are huge generational and ethnic demographic shifts which are inexorably building a structural Democratic advantage in the electoral process. Most people spend a lot of time focussing on personalities and forget Demography which remains destiny. The only people I see talking about this are liberal or centrist political scientists, conservatives are avoiding the subject like the plague. The only area where I demur is Limbaugh who is making a good living off a demographic that numbers 13-20 million according to whose numbers you believe. This bloc is going to take a long time to shrink and will see out the end of his career so he wins.

• 105 Dr. Tesla // May 17, 2009 at 8:32 am

  Polls still show that a majority of Americans oppose big government. Obama did not run as a liberal, especially in the swing states….tax cuts and gun rights were out of his mouth every second, and he said he against gay marriage.

  Now, we all know this is a lie, but the reality is that liberals cannot win by being honest about what they believed. I find this most disturbing about Democrats in general. They do not have the courage to run on what they really believe and win or lose on those convictions. They run hard to the right in the general election, and yet you have Frum telling us we need to run away from conservative idealls.

  Polls have shown that while Obama is still popular, most of his ideas are not. He’s a statist and his policies are not pro-economic growth. Nationalizing the private sector, raising taxes, spending like crazy, etc, is just bad economic policy that is going to extend this recession/depression much longer than if we had a Reagan conservative in the White House.

  Obama is anti-capitalism and corporations. He admits as much in his books.

  If he doesn’t turn this economy around soon, I do not see him winning in 2012. Presidents get blamed for the economy even if it’s not his fault, and he can’t keep blaiming BUsh for it forever. He’s Jimmy Carter Version 2.0. It will be hard for him to win if unemployment is at 10% or higher.

• 106 Dr. Tesla // May 17, 2009 at 8:37 am

  I love this notion that liberals have that Republicans can’t win without the femi-Nazi vote. Reagan did, Bush did.

  I do think there is a coming backlash against illegal immigration, and I do think Democrats are going to pay a price for their support of amnesty at some point.

  ANd like it or not, as even Hillary confessed, if another terrorist attack occurs in America, the Democrats will be in trouble, as a majority of Americans see them as weak on national security, which they are.

• 107 ChristianMiller // May 17, 2009 at 8:41 am

  Limbaugh is not a spokesman and he’s not trying to talk to those who aren’t in his audience. He is talking to the people who know, or believe, that Obama is deliberately pulling a power-grab for himself and his friends. Obama has not once said he loves America, unless it was in the context of what America has done for him personally.

  Obama sat through years of clearly anti-American rants by Rev Wright, holds classic left-wing un-American positions and Limbaughs listeners know this.

  Limbaugh is at worst conflating effect with intent. But I’m not sure he is far off base when all things are considered.

  It is a farce to pretend, as Frum would have us, that Obama is anything more than another power-mad partisan politician.

  Of course this will inflame the left, but it’s not going to hurt the conservative cause, since the cause is helped by open and honest debate.

• 108 Dr. Tesla // May 17, 2009 at 8:55 am

  It seems to me Frum is essentially what the leftwingers call a “neo-con”. He was for the IRaq war and a hawkish national security policy, and he appears to be a deficit hawk, and willing to support higher taxes to balance the budget (ie the taxpayers pay the price for Congress’s lack of fiscal restraint).

  I don’t see what recommends Frum as a person that the Republican movement should listen to as it’s hard to build a coalition of national security hawks, people who support less spending, supports of tax hikes, and global warming nuts.

  Frum’s not going to attract 99.99% of liberals with his views on national security or cutting spending.

  He’s not going to attract 99.99% of conservatives with his carbon tax and global warming nonsense, support for higher income taxes, support of gay marriage and pro-choice views, and ad hominem attacks on Limbaugh and other popular conservatives.

  I don’t see how Frum could build a new majority. The fact that that he couldn’t even give his book away for free for the most part seems to indicate that nobody is that wild about his ideas or even knows who he is, despite the fact he has his only little column on National Review.

  I’m all about Frum starting his own political party, but I think it’s safe to say he’s not really a Republican and we don’t need lectures from Frum and Colin Powell on what we need to do to win elections, as neither is a conservative.

• 109 InTheMiddle12 // May 17, 2009 at 8:57 am

  It took a Buckley to throw out the crazy people from the GOP during the 50’s and it seems to be taking another Buckley to do it again.

  What really puzzles me is that the lying that Limbaugh and the others do. They don’t seem to have an ounce of conscious while lying and even less consciousness that it’s what cost the GOP their majorities.

  To continue to perpetrate these lies, from “Obama is a socialist,” to “Obama wants to welcome terrorists to the USA,” just seems plain crazy.

  I’m beginning to think that Rush and the others are closet lefties that are creating their characters and their rhetoric to strengthen the left. There doesn’t seem to be any other explanation for lying like this, with such conviction.

• 110 Mike K // May 17, 2009 at 9:01 am

  “I happen to be a Dem; so what? This isn’t RedState, Mike. NM is not an exclusive little sandbox reserved for pristinely like-minded ideologues. So spare us the litmus tests and outing of non-believers.”

  Palomino, you didn’t have to tell me but thanks for confirming my point.

  “I admit I’ve never voted Republican in a presidential race yet, but believe me it’s not out of the question. I was seriously considering McCain before he selected Barbie the bear-shootin’ wonder doll as a running mate.”

  Thanks to you dan for making my point a second time. I’m not objecting to your posting here but I did want to point out that many of the comments here come from people who DO NOT wish the GOP well.

• 111 Mike K // May 17, 2009 at 9:17 am

  “Rush, Hannity, Beck, Savage, Ingram, Coulter and the dozens of local AM radio affiliate wannabes that spew the same type of foaming at the mouth often irrational rants as the big boys are the mouth of the GOP. They are on the air literally 24 X 7 and for centrists and independents they represent what the GOP stands for. This is not a good thing for the GOP and worse they are not going away. “

  Have you given any thought to why there are so many “wannabes” on AM radio ? Have you noticed what is happening to left leaning newspapers and magazines, like Time and Newsweek ?

  Has it occurred to you that people actually CHOOSE to tune the radio to that station and listen to Limbaugh and the others you hate so intensely ? Freedom is all about choice. Socialism is about coercion.

  Why are banks trying to pay back TARP money and why is the Obama administration refusing to let them do so ?

  “What really puzzles me is that the lying that Limbaugh and the others do. They don’t seem to have an ounce of conscious while lying and even less consciousness that it’s what cost the GOP their majorities.

  To continue to perpetrate these lies, from “Obama is a socialist,” to “Obama wants to welcome terrorists to the USA,” just seems plain crazy.”

  Another whose knowledge of Limbaugh comes from his enemies. What are the Uighurs ? They are trained terrorists who were captured in Afghanistan having been trained by al Qeada. There is a law against allowing trained terrorists into the US, no matter who they are ostensibly fighting against. What was Obama’s plan for them until most of the Senate objected like Jim Webb did this morning ? It was releasing them into the US.

  Right ?

  What do you call that ?

  As far as Obama’s socialism, that is a matter of opinion but he looks a lot like a socialist to me. What does it mean if you raise the capital gains tax even though it raises less revenue ? If you say you will do it anyway for “fairness?”

  I think it is really charming that all you lefties are trying to save the GOP from itself. I will give your advice all the credit it deserves.

• 112 sinz54 // May 17, 2009 at 10:02 am

  Mike K: The popularity of these talk-show hosts with *one-fourth* of the American electorate is undeniable.

  What is equally undeniable is that you can’t win an election with 25% of the vote.

  And what is equally undeniable is that the other 75% includes many people who are repelled by Coulter and Beck and their ilk.

  Who speaks for them in the conservative movement? Who speaks for suburban soccer moms who never owned a gun and have no intention of ever owning one? Who speaks for Hispanics in the Southwest? Who speaks for young voters?

• 113 sinz54 // May 17, 2009 at 10:12 am

  danbmil99 sez: “I do not want to live in a USA that resembles NYC under Lindsay or Koch. I’ve been there and done that. “

  Me too.

  In fact, Mayors Lindsay, Beame, and Dinkins (you forgot those last two) are what made me a conservative, in my formative years in NYC.

  Today, it’s going to take someone with real gravitas and real guts, to take hold of the conservative movement and dislodge the Know-Nothings from their grip on it. That’s what it took in the 1950s, when Buckley stood up to the Birchers and the anti-Semites. And that is what it is going to take again.

  For conservatism to be relevant to the 21st century, it can no longer sound like Ralph Kramden and Archie Bunker ranting to each other in a bar.

• 114 balconesfault // May 17, 2009 at 10:17 am

  “Why are banks trying to pay back TARP money and why is the Obama administration refusing to let them do so ?”

  A different discussion – but the answer is because TARP is simply part of a much bigger system of bailouts that the Fed has undertaken for the financial industry. For example, virtually every one of these banks, even those trying to give back TARP funds, would be in massive trouble if the Gov’t wasn’t picking up the tab for all the AIG bills on their bad loans. The Government is making them stay on equal grounds for TARP purposes to prevent gaming of the system.

  You might disagree, but don’t go talking about these bankers, who would be getting tarred and feathered by their depositors if it weren’t for the Government coming to their rescue, as some kind of free market heroes. And I have my own problems with how the bailout has been managed, but I don’t believe that it’s some nefarious plot just to make the financial sector a part of the Federal bureaucracy.

  That could have been accomplished more rapidly and simply by letting them all fail, and putting the Federal Government in place as the lender of last resort.

• 115 dragonlady // May 17, 2009 at 10:23 am

  sinz54, who are you wanting the GOP to stand up to exactly?

• 116 Dr. Tesla // May 17, 2009 at 10:59 am

  Buckley didn’t throw out Rush…Buckley was a fan of Rush.

  These attempts by liberals like Frum and others to pit Buckley against Rush is laughable. Buckley and Limbaugh and Reagan shared the same politics….Frum is no Buckley or Reagan.

  I’m kind of tired of hearing about Buckley. In my opinion, Rush is far superior to Buckley is advancing conservatism as he has a greater reach and he comes across as a regular American. Buckley was a smart guy, but I don’t think he coulld have the #1 talk radio show, and the fact that he was British and talked rather “formal” seems to feed into the stereotype of Republicans being “out of touch” with the little guy. People in towns like Pittsburgh love Rush… i can’t see them relating that much to Buckley.

  And this nothing that Buckley was this angel that all the liberals loved is laughable. He said a lot of controversial things in his heyday that Frum would whine about if Rush was the one saying them.

• 117 Dr. Tesla // May 17, 2009 at 11:04 am

  From an Ann Coulter column:

  Buckley’s first book, “God and Man at Yale,” was met with the usual thoughtful critiques of anyone who challenges the liberal establishment. Frank Ashburn wrote in the Saturday Review: “The book is one which has the glow and appeal of a fiery cross on a hillside at night. There will undoubtedly be robed figures who gather to it, but the hoods will not be academic. They will cover the face.”

  The president of Yale sent alumni thousands of copies of McGeorge Bundy’s review of the book from the Atlantic Monthly calling Buckley a “twisted and ignorant young man.” Other reviews bordered on the hyperbolic. One critic simply burst into tears, then transcribed his entire crying jag word for word.

  Buckley’s next book, “McCarthy and His Enemies,” written with L. Brent Bozell, proved that normal people didn’t have to wait for the Venona Papers to be declassified to see that the Democratic Party was collaborating with fascists. The book — and the left’s reaction thereto — demonstrated that liberals could tolerate a communist sympathizer, but never a Joe McCarthy sympathizer.

  Relevant to Republicans’ predicament today, National Review did not endorse a candidate for president in 1956, correctly concluding that Dwight Eisenhower was not a conservative, however great a military leader he had been. In his defense, Ike never demanded that camps housing enemy detainees be closed down.

• 118 Dr. Tesla // May 17, 2009 at 11:05 am

  The rest:

  Nor would National Review endorse liberal Republican Richard Nixon, waiting until 1964 to enthusiastically support a candidate for president who had no hope of winning. Barry Goldwater, though given the right things to say — often by Buckley or Bozell, who wrote Goldwater’s “Conscience of a Conservative” — was not particularly bright.

  But the Goldwater candidacy, Buckley believed, would provide “the well-planted seeds of hope,” eventually fulfilled by Ronald Reagan. Goldwater was sort of the army ant on whose body Reagan walked to greatness. Thanks, Barry. When later challenged on Reagan’s intellectual stature, Buckley said: “Of course, he will always tend to reach first for an anecdote. But then, so does the New Testament.”

  With liberal Republicans still bothering everyone even after Reagan, Buckley went all out against liberal Republican Sen. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. When Democrat Joe Lieberman challenged Weicker for the Senate in 1988, National Review ran an article subtly titled: “Does Lowell Weicker Make You Sick?”

  Buckley started a political action committee to support Lieberman, explaining, “We want to pass the word that it’s OK to vote for the other guy or stay at home.” The good thing about Lieberman, Buckley said, was that he “doesn’t have the tendency of appalling you every time he opens his mouth.”

  That same year, when the radical chic composer Leonard Bernstein complained about the smearing of the word “liberal,” Buckley replied: “Lenny does not realize that one of the reasons the ‘L’ word is discredited is that it was handled by such as Leonard Bernstein.” The composer was so unnerved by this remark that, just to cheer himself up, he invited several extra Black Panthers to his next cocktail party.

  When Arthur Schlesinger Jr. objected to his words being used as a jacket-flap endorsement on one of Buckley’s books in 1963, Buckley replied by telegram:

  “MY OFFICE HAS COPY OF ORIGINAL TAPE. TELL ARTHUR THAT’LL TEACH HIM TO USE UNCTION IN POLITICAL DEBATE BUT NOT TO TAKE IT SO HARD: NO ONE BELIEVES ANYTHING HE SAYS ANYWAY.”

  In a famous exchange with Gore Vidal in 1968, Vidal said to Buckley: “As far as I am concerned, the only crypto Nazi I can think of is yourself.”

  Buckley replied: “Now listen, you queer. Stop calling me a crypto Nazi, or I’ll sock you in your goddamn face and you’ll stay plastered.”

  Years later, in 1985, Buckley said of the incident: “We both acted irresponsibly. I’m not a Nazi, but he is, I suppose, a fag.”

  Writing in defense of the rich in 1967, Buckley said: “My guess is, that the last man to corner the soybean market, whoever he was, put at least as much time and creative energy into the cornering of it as, say, Norman Mailer put into his latest novel and produced something far more bearable — better a rise in the price of soybeans than ‘Why Are We in Vietnam?’” (For you kids out there, Norman Mailer was an America-hating drunkard who wrote books.)

  Some of Buckley’s best lines were uttered in court during a lengthy libel trial in the ’80s against National Review brought by the Liberty Lobby, which was then countersued by National Review. (The Liberty Lobby lost and NR won.)

  Irritated by attorney Mark Lane’s questions, Buckley asked the judge: “Your Honor, when he asks a ludicrous question, how am I supposed to behave?”

  In response to another of Lane’s questions, Buckley said: “I decline to answer that question; it’s too stupid.”

  When asked if he had “referred to Jesse Jackson as an ignoramus,” Buckley said, “If I didn’t, I should have.”

  Buckley may have been a conservative celebrity, but there was a lot more to him than a bow tie and a sailboat.

• 119 Dr. Tesla // May 17, 2009 at 11:17 am

  Can anybody possibly believe Frum, given his hate of Limbaugh, would have liked Buckley? Buckley even called someone the new f- word…never heard Limbaugh go there. Yet Frum suggests Buckley was this perfect choir boy and Limbaugh is the great Satan. It’s dishonest to the point of smarmy for Frum to assert that Buckley and Rush’s politics are different.

• 120 ottovbvs // May 17, 2009 at 11:20 am

  Dr. Tesla
  8:32 AM
  “Polls have shown that while Obama is still popular, most of his ideas are not.”

  ……Er…..actually they don’t……On just about all major policy issues he and the democrats are favored by margins of 2 or 3 to 1 over Republicans…..It’s not even close.

• 121 Dr. Tesla // May 17, 2009 at 11:25 am

  otto.

  Show me the polls where a majority of Americans support big government, socialism, higher taxes, out of control spending, gay marriage, closing Club Gitmo, etc.
  There was even a poll out this week showing a majority of American against abortion, and Obama is so radical on abortion he supports partial birth abortion and even voted for 3 infanticide bills.

  

• 122 ottovbvs // May 17, 2009 at 11:25 am

  Dr Tesla…..ever thought of changing your moniker to Dr Kudzu?

• 123 Dr. Tesla // May 17, 2009 at 11:27 am

  Hey, all the liberals in here, do you not think those Buckley quotes were offensive and polarizing and one was even an anti-gay slur? You guys keep saying we need to go back to Buckley type conservatism and drop Limbaugh…sure about that?

• 124 Dr. Tesla // May 17, 2009 at 11:29 am

  otto,

  I dont’ talk to callow people.

• 125 ottovbvs // May 17, 2009 at 11:48 am

  Dr. Tesla
  wrote 18 minutes agootto,

  “I dont’ talk to callow people’

  ……That’s a surprise….I thought you never stopped talking

• 126 Dr. Tesla // May 17, 2009 at 11:51 am

  I think it’s more you wish I would stop talking because you can’t refute me in the arena of ideas. You are a child throwing a temper tantrum. I understand that, and I forgive you. But I don’t have a desire to debate a child.

• 127 ottovbvs // May 17, 2009 at 11:57 am

  Dr. Tesla
  wrote 2 minutes ago
  “I think it’s more you wish I would stop talking “

  ……..Dr Kudzu…..On the contrary….talk all you like…..you’re a classic demonstration of the truth that old bit of folk wisdom “That it’s better to keep one’s mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and confirm the fact.” ……Go knock yourself out

• 128 balconesfault // May 17, 2009 at 12:02 pm

  “There was even a poll out this week showing a majority of American against abortion”

  If you dumb down “pro-life” to not mean what the Republican base does – yep.

  “Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?”
  Illegal In All – 23%

  The 75% of Americans who have thought this through, and believe that abortion should be legal in all or some circumstances, aren’t going to suddenly decide big government should decide on whether a woman carries a fetus for 9 months. Good luck calling women who want choice “feminazis” – that will continue to sell well in the general public.

• 129 ottovbvs // May 17, 2009 at 12:39 pm

  balconesfault
  wrote 27 minutes ago

  …..Unfortunately as is often remarked the far right don’t do nuance…….One be against the idea of abortion but that’s a million miles from recognizing it’s a personal matter and legally restricting access to it for those that want the procedure. As you point out 75% of the country are opposed to that but that’s never mentioned by these zealots…..And when it was tested in actual voter propositions on the ballots of three states last November, two of them very red, it was rejected decisively in every case. This is effectively over as an issue but the far right cling to it like an anvil for a drowning man.

• 130 ottovbvs // May 17, 2009 at 1:01 pm

  balconesfault
  wrote 55 minutes ago

  ……Another brief thought on the math…..If 51% of those polled were “pro life” but 75% favored legal access to abortion for those that wanted it….that means half the pro lifers voted for legal access……Or did I miss something.

• 131 danbmil99 // May 17, 2009 at 1:12 pm

  ottovbvs: “Obama is a huge political talent despite the rather hysterical, self delusion here and he’s clearly going to achieve two thirds of his agenda and get most of the credit for turning the economy around. Absent a huge disaster which I don’t see, he’s set.”

  To anyone who discounts Obama and team’s political skills, note that he’s doing everything in his power to ensure that if (forbid) a big 9/11 type attack occurs, he has ample cover to avoid being labeled ’soft’, which has hurt dems like Carter badly in the past.

  * Keep up surveillance – check
  * Slow-walk Iraq pullout – check
  * Pullback on releasing Gitmo guys – check
  * Ramp up ops in Pak/Afghan – check
  * Keep GOP-era top mil brass – check

  These moves have seriously angered his base, but he doesn’t care. He wants to stay in power, and I reckon he will. His only weak spot is the torture debate, and I think he’ll end up winning that one. It’s really abhorrent to most people that the USA is a torturing nation like China and the Middle East. If something bad happens, he’ll declassify intelligence acquired through non-extreme means and claim it was everything these people knew.

  The guy is sharp, and the GOP underestimates him at its own peril. He is not an ideologue, at least not when it comes to his political survival. We could learn a thing or two from how the Dems got control of the country back from the GOP.

• 132 jjv // May 17, 2009 at 1:32 pm

  1. I am aware of no one who says Rush is “the” voice of the Republicans but he certainly is “a” voice, and unlike most such voices is articulate.

  2. I tend to only hear Rush every couple of weeks and do think cherry picking 15 hours of talk a week is not useful or fair.

  3. The Colin Powell of 1996 is not the Colin Powell of 2008. What does Powell believe that is useful to a conservative majority, or a conservative minority or actually any kind of conservatism? He endorsed Barack Obama over uber-centrist John McCain. That Rubicon can not be recrossed. If McCain is too conservative for you there is no Republican Party that can ever be to yoru liking. He was more respected in the international community (the target audience) because of his slavish need to be loved by that crowd and his walking away from American conservatives which always makes you more loved with that crowd. If would send Richard Gere to Hollywood if I wanted to convince them on Tibet, but it would not be because he is a reliable conservative or a Republican.

  4. Sorry, but if you want Welch you have to go to Michael Savage, Rush just isn’t there.

  5. There is in President Obama’s past words and associations, as well as his actions as President, evidence that he wishes to eliminate forever certain aspects of American governance conservatives revere and has no bones about attacking them or failing to protect them. His behavior at the South American summit in relation to Ortega, Castro and Chavez was a disgrace and fully bears out Rush’s criticism. His behavior with the auto companies and contract are also of a piece. His appointment of Koh certainly evinces an admiration of those who have undermined American sovereingty by word and deed. Is it wrong to point these things out even when they are indisputably true? Colin Powell glosses over these things, Rush does not. Rush comes out better in that comparison. When Colin Powell criticizes Obama’s spending trillions on democratic wish lists but short changes the military he may have something to contribute. When he defends honorable “neocons” rather than just Scowcraftian types, perhaps we will listen. Powell for temperment and demeanor, and life story, Limbaugh for conservative ideas.

• 133 Mike K // May 17, 2009 at 1:37 pm

  “And what is equally undeniable is that the other 75% includes many people who are repelled by Coulter and Beck and their ilk.

  Who speaks for them in the conservative movement? Who speaks for suburban soccer moms who never owned a gun and have no intention of ever owning one? Who speaks for Hispanics in the Southwest? Who speaks for young voters?”

  Young voters are a tough problem. Unfortunately, I’ve seen what college courses are teaching now as my youngest daughter has just finished her freshman year at U of Arizona. Her US History since 1877 course taught her that, for example, the “Silent Majority” referred to people whom opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That would have been news to Nixon and to the Republicans who voted the Civil Rights Act into law over the opposition of Robert Byrd and a majority of Democrats. Her only textbook for the course was on “Whiteness Studies”, the rest was handouts. Her instructor the last day of class, instead of a review period, spent the hour on a rant about how Ronald Reagan was an actor and just playing the part of president.

  Yes, that age group will be tough unless and until they get some real world experience.

  As far as suburban moms and guns are concerned, a left wing radio talk show host in LA once had an entire show about concealed handguns, illegal in California without very rare permits. ALL HIS CALLERS that day were women ! It was hilarious. He would be flustered and warn them they were breaking the law. The uniform answer was that they refused to be a victim. These women were all carrying guns in spite of the law.

  Another point you might consider is that polls now show 51% are opposed to abortion without restrictions. Democrats have seen their issue of guns disappear and abortion may be next.

  Republicans ruined their brand, not by listening to Limbaugh, but by spending like Democrats.

• 134 ireign // May 17, 2009 at 1:48 pm

  Shockingly, David has nothing on David Axelrod suggesting “Miss California” for the name of Obama family dog. Given that Miss California has the same position on gay marriage that the President claims to have and Miss California only gave her position in response to an inappropriate question (I have never heard one asked their position on foreign, social, or economic policy in a beauty pageant) posed by someone who used an odd platform to push his own viewpoints, it seems Axelrod would choose to bash her. It would also seem inappropriate for someone who claims he has nothing in common with Karl Rove to resot to the lowest form of politics i.e. bashing a private citizen for expressing a majority viewpoint.

• 135 Mike K // May 17, 2009 at 1:52 pm

  I have previously pointed out that I am pro-choice but Obama is the most extreme national politician, not just president, on abortion we’ve ever seen. I think that could eventually wear on his support.

  His policies lean socialist, especially taking ownership interest in banks and then threatening some other companies that DID NOT take TARP money.

  His appeal as an articulate black man is going to persist as most Americans want him to succeed. Even those of us who oppose his policies would prefer that he not be humiliated for reasons that have nothing to do with his policies.

  I think the best thing that could happen to him is what happened to Clinton who was also struggling. The 1994 elections saved Clinton’s presidency. The 2010 elections could put Republicans in control of one house of Congress and that would prevent much of the disaster that Obama is directing us into.

  Right now we are in a bear market rally that I do not believe will last beyond the fall. The sort of uncertainty and ill considered populist rhetoric that prolonged the Depression is leading to a second phase of the bear market and that, if Republicans recruit some good candidates, could cause a severe change of course a year from now. We’ll see what happens by year end but a year from now, I don’t the Obama people will be carrying their tails as high as they are now.

• 136 ChristianMiller // May 17, 2009 at 1:53 pm

  Great Buckley stories, Dr Tesla! Thanks!
  I agree Rush is very close to Buckley philosophically.

  Agree also with jiv.

• 137 balconesfault // May 17, 2009 at 2:18 pm

  “That would have been news to Nixon and to the Republicans who voted the Civil Rights Act into law over the opposition of Robert Byrd and a majority of Democrats.”

  Nope. A majority of Dems in both the House and Senate voted for the Civil Rights Act. And the vast majority of Dems who opposed the Act were Southern Dems, many of whom changed to Republican affiliation in the ensuing decade.

  I know I’ll never change your mind on some things – but at least you could stay fact based. No matter what you hear on the radio.

  And as you call Obama “extreme” on abortion, I can envision Sinz in a corner somewhere, banging his head on the wall.

• 138 Jeffersonian // May 17, 2009 at 2:50 pm

  David you claim to be conservative, but do I ever hear anything from you concerning true federalism? You spend more time purportedly giving direction to conservatives in how to win elections, and who needs to be kept out of influence than you do contrasting our current criminal enterprise that masquerades as government to what the constitution says about the federal government.
  You’re so desperate in your endeavor that you wildly misconstue Rush’s words here. Having listened to him enough, I am aware that he has particular idiosyncracies when speaking that can only be understood after sufficient time listening to him. This is not to say that he is not justified in remarking of the great harm that Obama is doing and is doing intentionally. I just don’t know that his intention is to do harm, so much as through imposing what he considers right that great harm is being done.
  BTW, David no true federalist/conservative takes you seriously. I see you more as a kid at the playground who can’t compete in the game being played, trying to make his own game, saying how much more fun it is, and thus drawing away others from the game at hand. Some might get suckered, but eventually they’ll learn how boring your game is.

• 139 // May 17, 2009 at 3:28 pm

  Mike K: Why do you keep attributing the government’s ownership stake in banks under TARP to Obama?

  Are you not aware that TARP was called for by Bush and Paulsen and passed into law by the previous Congress with broad support from both Republicans and Democrats?

• 140 nyroughrider // May 17, 2009 at 3:37 pm

  Rush is speaking in a hyperpolic form to illustrate his and my own ‘amazement’ that Obama sometimes shows a little prudence well calculated of course to divert negative reprecussions even at the expense of The ACLU and their allies. Obama is seeking to have it both ways not unlike Nancy Pelosi at the end of the day. So occasionally, common sense and the truth may win out.
  Close Gitmo was the first part for poliltical consumption by the Left and anti-war America. Harm America doemstically is a code for diminsh capitalism expand socialism here domestically.
  I find that extending this argument to compare Limbaugh to Welch is a bit farfetched, yet it is a (Bill)Buckley as a keepr of the flame would welcome Rush’s hyperbole, and reject the likes of Tom Delay and other corrupt conservatives. Congressional Republicans including Jud Gregg were smart enough to back away from the Obama’s plan despite Specter, Snowe and Collins. Sound conservatives are building theire ranks under a big tent to take back the party and in every region of the Country with or with Rush’s propensity to make himself the target of conservative criticism in addition to number’s 44 desire to divide and conquer.

• 141 sinz54 // May 17, 2009 at 4:04 pm

  balconesfault sez: “I can envision Sinz in a corner somewhere, banging his head on the wall.”

  What do you mean?

  Obama has gone too far on abortion even for me. It appears that he wants absolute, total, 100% abortion on demand, with no restrictions. That goes much further than my position.

  I just don’t CARE enough about the abortion issue to vote a candidate up or down on that basis. I’m not arrogant enough to demand that my moral code on abortion be imposed on the rest of the nation, the way both Focus on the Family and NARAL are.

• 142 sinz54 // May 17, 2009 at 4:10 pm

  balconesfault sez: “A majority of Dems in both the House and Senate voted for the Civil Rights Act.”

  So did a more lopsided majority of Republicans.

  From Wikipedia:

  The Senate:
  * Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
  * Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

  The House:
  * Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
  * Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

  The GOP never got credit for its strong support of the Civil Rights Act. Probably because one famous Republican opposed it: Barry Goldwater, the GOP nominee for President in 1964.

• 143 // May 17, 2009 at 4:32 pm

  Sinz: “The GOP never got credit for its strong support of the Civil Rights Act”

  In addition to Goldwater’s opposition, I think the GOP also did not get credit b/c it became the home of many of those southern Dems who opposed the Act.

  Neither party has completely clean hands on this issue, and I’m no fan of Bush, but I believe he really tried to make the GOP open for blacks and hispanics. Unfortunately, there is a part (albeit small) of the Republican electorate that prominently displayed its racism at some of the rallies before the election and at the tea parties. Fair or not, this continues to do significant harm to the GOP.

• 144 balconesfault // May 17, 2009 at 4:51 pm

  sinz: “Obama has gone too far on abortion even for me. It appears that he wants absolute, total, 100% abortion on demand, with no restrictions”

  Really? That would mean Obama calling for a repeal of Roe v Wade – to be replaced by something much more libertarian. I haven’t seen that – can you point me to it?

  re the Civil Rights Act – I’ll grant you that Southern Dems held back the party on that issue for decades. And Lincoln freed the slaves. But those facts, along with a little Michael Steele urban hip-hop slang, Tying the two threads together, going around campaigning that abortions are “anti-black” because black women have abortions is as useful a pitch to the black community as telling women you’re going to work to make sure their earnings aren’t as high as men’s, because that makes it less likely they’ll end up in a confiscatory tax bracket.

  And finally – tying it all together – I don’t believe that Limbaugh is racist. But I think Limbaugh has no problem with fueling the worst instincts of racists if it helps his ratings.

• 145 balconesfault // May 17, 2009 at 5:01 pm

  sinz: “Obama has gone too far on abortion even for me. It appears that he wants absolute, total, 100% abortion on demand, with no restrictions”

  Really? That would mean Obama calling for a repeal of Roe v Wade – to be replaced by something much more libertarian. I haven’t seen that – can you point me to it?

  re the Civil Rights Act – I’ll grant you that Southern Dems held back the party on that issue for decades. And Lincoln freed the slaves. But those facts, along with a little Michael Steele urban hip-hop slang, Tying the two threads together, going around campaigning that abortions are “anti-black” because black women have abortions is as useful a pitch to the black community as telling women you’re going to work to make sure their earnings aren’t as high as men’s, because that makes it less likely they’ll end up in a confiscatory tax bracket.

  And finally – tying it all together – I don’t believe that Limbaugh is racist. But I think Limbaugh has no problem with fueling the worst instincts of racists if it helps his ratings.

• 146 barker13 // May 17, 2009 at 5:33 pm

  Jeez… Frum once again plays the Rush card and like clockwork 145 replies and counting.

  (*SNORT*)

  BILL

• 147 Mike K // May 17, 2009 at 7:18 pm

  “In addition to Goldwater’s opposition, I think the GOP also did not get credit b/c it became the home of many of those southern Dems who opposed the Act. “

  In fact, the Republican trend in the south followed years of migration from the rust belt, which was paralyzed by old fashioned union politics, to the south west. The old time Democrats, except for Strom Thurmond, did not change party. Robert Byrd, for example, led filibusters against the anti-lynching act for at least a decade.

  The comment about “racism” in the tea parties is typical race card playing by clueless lefties.

• 148 InTheMiddle12 // May 17, 2009 at 7:26 pm

  Mike K:

  First of all, I’ve been participating in this forum since the beginning. I am delighted to finally find someone who truly represents the right whose postings I look forward to reading. You have earned my respect with your thoughtful and insightful posts. I say all of this because frankly, you’re about the only blogger here I’d like to debate. Having said that, here I go.

  There’s much that you write about I can see and understand, though not necessarily agree with. And here’s why.

  I think you are right in saying that President Obama is moving the country to the left and of course, that is no surprise considering he represents the party of the left and the majority of the country voted for him. So I think that leaves us with the following question to debate:

  1) Why did the country go left and how far would it like to go?
  2) How will this change the national landscape: healthcare, education, the market, families (social issues)?

  2) What will the right’s, if you’ll excuse the expression, resurrection look like as these policies are reacted to? I say reacted to because the Democrats do currently have strong majorities in both Houses and the White House so let’s assume there will be policies that classically ‘represent the left’ that will be executed.

  If you think that’s not a fair frame for the debate, I’m open to understanding why?

• 149 Mike K // May 17, 2009 at 9:07 pm

  “InTheMiddle12
  7:26 PM
  Mike K:

  First of all, I’ve been participating in this forum since the beginning. I am delighted to finally find someone who truly represents the right whose postings I look forward to reading. You have earned my respect with your thoughtful and insightful posts. I say all of this because frankly, you’re about the only blogger here I’d like to debate. Having said that, here I go.

  There’s much that you write about I can see and understand, though not necessarily agree with. And here’s why.

  I think you are right in saying that President Obama is moving the country to the left and of course, that is no surprise considering he represents the party of the left and the majority of the country voted for him. So I think that leaves us with the following question to debate:

  1) Why did the country go left and how far would it like to go?”

  I think it is significant that Obama campaigned as a moderate with tax cuts a big part of his message. We know that was dishonest but we recognize that it suggests he recognized that an honest description of his plans would have resulted in him losing the election.

  “2) How will this change the national landscape: healthcare, education, the market, families (social issues)?”

  I think Republicans need to come up with suggestions for a national health plan and I suggest the French model. Having said that, I now think Obama may over reach and get nothing done this Congress. He just doesn’t seem as competent as he seemed. Max Baucus seems to be balking.

  “2) What will the right’s, if you’ll excuse the expression, resurrection look like as these policies are reacted to? I say reacted to because the Democrats do currently have strong majorities in both Houses and the White House so let’s assume there will be policies that classically ‘represent the left’ that will be executed.”

  One, I think they may get less done than I initially feared. They seem pretty incompetent. Nancy Pelosi, for example, seems to be a clown.

  The best chance for Republicans will be in 2010 as the public recoils from what they see as excess and incompetence. That means getting good candidates and that may require a serious fund raising effort. I wish we would see less of Michael Steels, who I have met and who seems a great guy, and more behind the scenes fund raising and candidate recruitment.

  If the economy recovers, the Republicans will be SOL but I don’t think that is likely. I wouldn’t mind success by Obama as my own circumstances would be better but I think the chances of him succeeding are nil.

  “If you think that’s not a fair frame for the debate, I’m open to understanding why?”

  I think Republicans need to get back to libertarian principles and that means conservative principles. The only thing that separates libertarians from Republicans is foreign policy. Here, we have to be realistic in what can be accomplished. I think Afghanistan, long term, is impossible. It is basically a Pashtun civil war. Pakistan is the issue, not Afghanistan. The Democrats demonized Mushareff, and now have to deal with “Mr ten percent” a corrupt politician. I suspect he has a stash in Switzerland or Cayman Islands and will not fight “to the death.” That resembles the Vietnamese politicians we dealt with in the 60s.

  I am in favor of a national health plan, not because I am Republican but because it would be better policy, but only if done right.

  The worst Obama policy is energy which seems frankly irrational.

• 150 Mike K // May 17, 2009 at 10:00 pm

  Here is a story that shows how Obama won the election.

  http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/05/023580.php

  This is not the stuff of democracy; it suggests that a fair coverage of the campaign might have had another result. At least the Times thought so. It speaks to this question:

  “Why did the country go left and how far would it like to go?”

• 151 balconesfault // May 17, 2009 at 10:55 pm

  Mike K – I’m sure that this will be unpersuasive for you – but that is almost exactly the same reason the Times gave back in 2005 for not releasing their warrentless wiretapping story prior to the 2004 election.

  http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/opinion/13pubed.html?_r=3&hp=&pagewanted=all

• 152 danbmil99 // May 17, 2009 at 11:38 pm

  Mike K:

  “The only thing that separates libertarians from Republicans is foreign policy.”

  What about the social conservative issues? I don’t see how a libertarian philosophy leads one to reject the right to die in peace, for instance. What is the libertarian justification for barring same-sex marriage?

  Also, how is the French health-care system in any way libertarian?

• 153 // May 18, 2009 at 12:07 am

  Mike K: “The comment about “racism” in the tea parties is typical race card playing by clueless lefties.”

  I’m not sure these would qualify as “race card playing by clueless lefties:”

  http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2009/04/20/california-gop-slaps-san-mateo-tea-party-organizers/

  http://www.buckeyestateblog.com/racist_statements_made_at_the_wheeling_tea_party

  http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/04/racist_signs_at_tea_parties.php

• 154 // May 18, 2009 at 12:09 am

  Mike K: Why do you keep attributing the government’s ownership stake in banks under TARP to Obama?

  Are you not aware that TARP was called for by Bush and Paulsen and passed into law by the previous Congress with broad support from both Republicans and Democrats?

• 155 senor // May 18, 2009 at 6:21 am

  David;
  What in the Hell are you talking about? “No prominent liberal figure ever accused Bush and Cheney of wanting to do harm to America?” Really? Al Gore and his rants about how Bush wanted to hurt the environment? How he had “betrayed” his country? The New York Times editorial page on how Bush wanted to curtail American’s freedoms through the Patriot Act? Gee, maybe they’re not prominent enough liberals for you, but I have to wonder if you hit your head or something and suffered memory lapse.

• 156 balconesfault // May 18, 2009 at 6:48 am

  “Al Gore and his rants about how Bush wanted to hurt the environment?”

  There is a significant difference between wanting to hurt the environment, and to being indifferent to environmental damage. I personally do not know any liberals who believe George Bush wanted to exacerbate climate change – but simply that he did not consider it a significant enough threat to act upon.

  Gore’s claim that Bush betrayed the country was retrospective – he was not accusing Bush of intentionally damaging America, but of being so obsessed with invading Iraq that he was willing to mislead Americans. No serious Democrats believe that Bush really wanted to waste trillions of dollars, cost the lives of thousands of US troops, and weaken America’s standing – there is little doubt that Bush was convinced going in that we would quickly stabilize Iraq, and US corporations could start up some very profitable business ventures there while our military moved on to invading Syria and then Iran. Bush believed what he was doing was best for America.

  As for the Patriot Act – it most certainly curtailed certain freedoms. That was the point – a decision that under the circumstances certain freedoms had to be curtailed for the purposes of America’s security. There will always be a dynamic between the goals of freedom and security.

• 157 barker13 // May 18, 2009 at 6:50 am

  Re: Mike K; 10:00 PM –

  Thanks for providing that link.

  Re: Spartacus; 12:09 AM –

  And that’s a fair point, Sparky! We must not forget – must not sweep under the rug – that it was BUSH who (with a Democratic Party controlled Congress) gave us TARP as well as Bush (again, working with a Democratic Congress) who gave us the first major “Stimulus” bill.

  Re: Senor; wrote 15 minutes ago –

  Good points. (*THUMBS UP*)

  BILL

• 158 Bulldoglover100 // May 18, 2009 at 6:58 am

  Our true new leader? Will be the man or woman who can stand up to that drug rehabbed trice married blow hard.. THAT person will comand the respect that is needed to lead this party back to a position of power where we are able to govern without demanding and can be accepting of others opinions though we must follow the majority in our party.

• 159 Mike K // May 18, 2009 at 6:59 am

  Spartacus, you don’t think Matt Yglesias is a lefty ?

  The TARP program began under Bush and was very, very problematic. The populist rants about compensation, the refusal to allow banks to repay the money and the threats to non-TARP banks came under Obama. I will grant that Bush and Paulsen opened the door to this sort of thing. It was Obama who chose to take ownership of the banks.

  The French system is not libertarian but is as close as we could ever come to universal coverage and freedom of choice. An fully libertarian system is not my ideal but I think the closer Republicans come to that the better.

  Social conservative issues are not libertarian but social conservatives who, in spite of leftist propaganda are almost completely defensive, do better under libertarian government. Try to remember why the Puritans came here. Of course they became almost as intolerant once they got here as the English king but that’s another story.

  For example, civil unions should solve the gay marriage problem but the advocates are not satisfied so the solution may lie in two marriage ceremonies, as in France. The religious ceremony would be separate. That way, the attacks on churches that I anticipate once gay marriage is the law (and prompted the NH governor to veto the bill), would be moot since the state marriage contract would be the legal document.

  Abortion is a very difficult issue as opponents consider it murder but the Obama administration plans to penalize health providers who decline to participate for reasons of conscience. That is as far from libertarian as I can imagine.

• 160 Mike K // May 18, 2009 at 7:03 am

  I checked you other link:

  “As of a minute ago, the graphic (shown on the right) was still posted on the Ron Paul web site, http://ronpaul.meetup.com/18/calendar/10156083/“

  Ron Paul is NOT part of the tea party movement which is almost completely separate from the politicians. His links to anti-Semites were a big reason why few of us took him seriously.

• 161 sinz54 // May 18, 2009 at 7:22 am

  balconesfault sez: “That would mean Obama calling for a repeal of Roe v Wade – to be replaced by something much more libertarian.”

  That’s ridiculous. Obama can’t “call for a repeal of” a Supreme Court ruling–they don’t work for him.

  If you mean that Obama hasn’t called for a Constitutional Amendment to make abortion 100% legal everywhere with no restrictions, that’s because Obama isn’t as loony as the Religious Right. The only ones who introduce social-related amendments are the fringe loons of the Left and the Right.

  But in every case where Obama has had the opportunity to decide or vote on an abortion-related issue, he has consisistently voted to expand abortion rights. He opposes parental notification, he opposes restrictions on partial-birth abortion–and he expanded the use of abortion overseas by Executive Order.

• 162 sinz54 // May 18, 2009 at 7:32 am

  InTheMiddle12 asks:

  “1) Why did the country go left and how far would it like to go?”

  One of my rules is that elections do NOT make realignments; successful presidencies do.

  The country did NOT move left. The country moved against Bush. Just like in 1980, the country moved against Carter.

  But Reagan had a successful right-wing presidency (though many liberals steadfastly refuse to admit that), and our pragmatic citizenry said that if it works, then let’s keep on doing it. If Reagan had failed (say a limited nuclear war in Europe), then that would have been the end of the Right.

  If Obama is a successful President, he will demonstrate to the nation that left-wing ideas work, and they will continue to be comfortable with left-wing ideas. If his Presidency is a failure, left-wing governance will end up being regarded as an aberration, and the nation will go back to the Right.

  “2) How will this change the national landscape: healthcare, education, the market, families (social issues)?”

  Another one of my rules is that Life Goes On. I do NOT believe that health care reform will destroy the nation. I *do* believe that any form of industrial policy, where the Government picks winners and losers (whether it’s the GOP favoring the oil industry or the Dems now favoring the auto industry) distorts the marketplace and will result in less GDP growth and hence a more stagnant economy for all of us.

  Whether Americans choose to go that way again depends on whether they perceive the Obama Administration as a success or a failure. And it’s much too early to pass judgment on it.

• 163 senor // May 18, 2009 at 8:45 am

  Balconesfault:
  Gore’s criticisms of Bush on the environment and war were “retrospective?’ Really, in 2002 and 2003? Accusing the President of “misleading” (what a euphemism) in the midst of war? Huh…”No serious Democrats believe that Bush really wanted to waste trillions of dollars, cost the lives of thousands of US troops, and weaken America’s standing” Really? How about the Moveon fundraisers and Brother Soros and Brother Moore? I mean, according to them, Bush was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Saudi Royal family, the Bin Laden family, and made sure that all Jews were out of the World Trade Center. Why he was more than happy to sacrifice 3000 lives to line his own pocket. I guess I see your point though: those who bankroll the Democratic Party certainly can’t be considered serious Democrats. Re the Patriot Act: I have a steak dinner bet with a colleague that in 8 years the Patriot Act is unchanged from where it is now. Any takers?

• 164 // May 18, 2009 at 10:05 am

  Mike K: I do think Matt Yglesias is a liberal, but he is not the one holding the racist sign in the picture. He is merely the operator of the website on which the picture is posted. I don’t think we are entitled to reject facts simply b/c we disagree with the person who informs us of them.

  As for TARP, again you are wrong. It was not Obama who chose to take ownership of the banks. Ownership was granted during Bush’s term in exchange for the TARP funds that were imposed on the banks. This occurred when TARP was enacted – not when Obama became president.

  It is true that Obama has, so far, resisted allowing the banks to repay the funds. But, it’s intellectually dishonest to distinguish Obama’s refusal to accept repayment from Bush’s insistence in the first place that the banks take the money against their will.

  Moreover, Geithner has not only said that he is working on developing conditions for repayment of the TARP funds, he is actually counting on that repayment b/c he wants to recycle it to other banks.

• 165 balconesfault // May 18, 2009 at 11:40 am

  “Accusing the President of “misleading” (what a euphemism) in the midst of war?”

  That is not the same as accusing someone of wishing harm to America. As I noted – Bush really believed that the invasion of Iraq was best for America – and was willing to push spurious evidence in order to convince Americans that it was necessary. Similarly, LBJ did not wish harm to America when he escalated our involvement in Vietnam with the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

• 166 barker13 // May 18, 2009 at 1:03 pm

  Re: Sinz54; 7:22 AM –

  “Obama can’t “call for a repeal of” a Supreme Court ruling…”

  Sure he can. He can call upon Congress to pass legislation that directly addresses USSC decisions and specifically overrides “judgment” calls of the USSC.

  http://www.amazon.com/Overruled-Legislative-Overrides-Contemporary-Court-Congress/dp/0804748837

  Excerpting from the dust cover:

  “Since the mid-1970s, Congress has passed hundreds of overrideslaws that explicitly seek to reverse or modify judicial interpretations of statutes. Whether front-page news or not, overrides serve potentially vital functions in American policy-making. Federal statutesand court cases interpreting themoften require revision. Some are ambiguous, some conflict, and others are obsolete. Under these circumstances, overrides promise Congress a means to repair flawed statutes, reconcile discordant court decisions, and reverse errant judicial interpretations. Overrides also allow dissatisfied litigants to revisit issues and raise concerns in Congress that courts have overlooked.”

  BILL

• 167 Franklin // May 18, 2009 at 5:18 pm

  “To have accused them of such a thing would have been to accuse them of treason.”

  The left, from Move-On to the AlGore, accused BushHitler of treason every day.

  Why is it shocking and right-wing-crazy (that’s your Bircher code) that Rush is accusing a former street agitator and Alinskyite of wanting to harm the country? After all, if President Obama believes in “not wasting a good crisis” and has spent a lifetime soaking up the ends-justifies-the-means ethic, isn’t “harming the country” perfectly ok — creating a crisis to remake America?

  Nope, just Bircher paranoia. Next, Rush will be having the delusion that Obama just took over the American car industry and nationalized the banks. All one can say (shaking one’s head as one takes a sip of the Chaume Coteaux du Layon they like to serve on the Buckley yacht) is: What a WINGNUT.

• 168 carpenter_529 // May 18, 2009 at 5:23 pm

  Mr. Frum
  You do realize that Rush did everything he could to get your former boss elected, and reelected? You wouldn’t be in your exalted position if not for Mr. Limbaugh and his listeners!
  I’m sick of pseudo-conservatives like you attacking the only decent people left who are trying to rebuild the GOP.
  Face it– the GOP cannot win without folks like Rush, Cheney, and Palin, and their supports.
  Get over yourself!

• 169 sinz54 // May 18, 2009 at 5:33 pm

  Unless any of us has ESP or is privy to Obama’s bedroom conversations with his wife, we cannot know what his personal intentions are.

  With politicians, let’s watch and critique what they do, not try to psychoanalyze their motives.

  If you believe that Obama’s policies will negatively affect the nation (and I believe some of them will), then that’s worth discussing.

  But unless you’re psychic, please don’t claim that Obama is deliberately trying to harm the country, because you have NO EVIDENCE. You may have objective evidence of the harm, but you don’t know if that was deliberate or because Obama sincerely made a wrong decision.

  I used to plead with liberals NOT to ascribe the failures of the Iraq War to malevolence on the part of Bush. They didn’t listen and persisted in their fury, painting Bush out to be some kind of hydra-headed monster.

  Let’s not do that here with Obama. If the GOP base needs to be frothing at the mouth in order to get out there and campaign for GOP candidates, then leave this venom to THEM. Let’s not engage in it ourselves here.

• 170 citizen_o_Repub // May 18, 2009 at 6:54 pm

  He betrayed this country!” Mr. Gore shouted into the microphone at a rally of Tennessee Democrats here in a stuffy hotel ballroom. “He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place.”

  The speech had several hundred Democrats roaring their approval for Mr. Gore, the party’s 2000 standard-bearer.

  http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0209-01.htm

  get a clue, David. You’re giving me another Andrew Sullivan experience agreeing with someone most of the time who then goes batsh-t goofy in the head…wowwhat a waste youve become.

  Im thinking it was LBJ who said something along the lines that “its better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in”.you, along with the McCains (old man & kid), Specters, C. Powells, have chosen to be inside the tent pissing all over everyone else there with you, but rarely every aiming at anyone outside.

  Maybe you can take over for Kevin Phillips as the spokesman for Republican-despising Republicans after youve evolved and embittered yourself a bit more…

  You ARE the smartest guy in the room.

  Pathetic.

• 171 PhilByler // May 18, 2009 at 6:56 pm

  No, Rush is NOT suffering from Obama derangement syndrome. Rush is calling Obama on being the most left wing President we have ever had, which Obama is. The Obama budget is deficit spending gone beserk — $1.8+ trillion in the next fiscal year! The banking industry and much of the car industry have been effectively nationalized. Obama is intent upon what may fairly be called socialized medicine and has an extreme pro-abortion record. And I have not started to write about foreign policy. There, Obama has pursued an appeasement course, pining for a meeting with Irans Ahmadinejad; you would think that Chavez and Castro were American allies. All of these policies are and will be harmful to America. Just because you can’t rationally accuse Bush and Cheney of harming America with their mostly conservative policies does not mean that you must think that Obama’s left wing policies at home and appeasement abroad are not harmful to America.

  As for Colin Powell, Dick Cheney is right: Powell stopped being a Republican. Powell, while being Secretary of State, said nothing to his bosses Bush and Cheney about Armitage being Novak’s source concerning Valerie Plame, but rather let the President and Vice President get pilloried in the liberal press. Powell in the last Presidential election endorsed and voted for a left wing Democrat in Obama over John McCain. Rush, with his belief in free market economics, represents traditional GOP principle, not Powell who has in this age of Obama endorsed more Government in people’s lives.

• 172 PhilByler // May 18, 2009 at 6:58 pm

  Let me add to my first comment: I don’t agree with everything Rush says. He unfairly attacks John McCain, ignoring McCains conservative voting record in the Senate this year, and Rush seems to think that all the GOP needs to do is to articulate conservative principles to win in the future. While I think that delivering a conservative message is one part of the task for the GOP ahead, it is but one part. Rush talks about the Reagan formula of 1984, but he forgets that in 1984, Reagan was an incumbent President at a time of prosperity and peace — a winning combination. In 1996, Bill Clinton won by a wide margin without a conservative message but with the benefit of prosperity and apparent peace (the gathering storm of radical Islam was not on peoples radar).

  In 2008, it wasnt running what Rush unfairly calls a moderate campaign that killed the GOP. It was a combination of factors: (i) a financial crisis that caused economic uncertainties that historically have favored Democrats and did in 2008 (McCain had gone ahead in September in the polls, but then the financial crisis hit); (ii) a Bush Administration bailout that muddied the waters of the difference between the parties on economics and diluted the largely Reaganesque message on the campaign trail delivered by the McCain-Palin ticket; (iii) Bush unpopularity, which was unfair but which was a factor; (iv) the Obama money that paid for what was false political advertising (how do you win against a 7 to 1 advantage?); (v) the media bias that operated day in, day out as a propaganda machine for Obama; and (vi) demographic changes (if the country had the same demographic make up as 1992 and groups voted in the same percentage McCain-Obama as they did in 2008, McCain would have won). Had more foreign problems arose and reminded everyone of McCains strengths in foreign policy, military matters and national security, then McCain would have been elected despite everything.

  The point is that today, contrary to Rush, we cannot comfort ourselves with easy formulas, but rather confront all that went wrong in 2008. To overcome a mainstream media bias, Leftist money fueling Leftist propaganda and causes, ACORN operatives, and demographic changes are favoring Democrats, just talking conservative principles per Rush wont be enough. Among other things, Republicans need to reconnect with the people at such gatherings as TEA parties and Town Hall meetings and bring a message applied to the specific circumstances of American lives and explain how Democrat multi-trillion dollar deficit spending and Big Government hurts people in their every day lives.

  So Rush can be fairly criticized, just not on the basis of the above Frum article.

• 173 InTheMiddle12 // May 18, 2009 at 7:18 pm

  Phil: The most fascinating thing I found in your post is the complete lack of responsibility for the mood, mess and malaise the country found itself in as a result of 8 years of Bush/Cheney White House leadership along with 6 of 8 years of GOP House and Senate leadership. As I read your post it’s almost like one must have amnesia about:
  a) fighting a war of choice that was a bad choice
  b) unbridled de-regulation that led to a financial collapse and a GOP led bailout of their base donors
  c) the destruction of good American will in the world through the institution of torture as a policy
  e) a demoralized and scattered GOP
  f) the destruction of a major city (New Orleans) through inept response to a natural disaster (the truth is coming out about Rumsfeld’s role in that this week)
  g) the invasion of one’s personal family life through the attempted legislation of someone’s life, a la Mary Schiavo (thank God we have 3 branches of government for checks and balances and the court’s prevailed)
  h) the shameful treatment of our soldiers with 4 and 5 deployments leading to high numbers of suicides and broken families, let along a demoralized and broken military
  i) a complete unwillingness to speak with those with whom they disagreed and growing partisanship to a level that is causing this President to try and undo it on a daily basis (Thank God for the heroes at Notre Dame this last weekend – true Christian leadership that understands dialogue is the way to good policy and consensus)

  Those are just off the top of my head. I’m sorry but I can’t continue to read this intense level of denial and rationalization about the reality of the GOP legacy of 2000 – 2008.

  And perhaps I left out some of the most important, starting with the attempted bankrupting of the government through ridiculous spending.

  So now the Democrats are seen as the opposite an all these issues, from foreign policy, security to the economy. Why is this a surprise to anyone and how can anyone continue to try and deny it and regroup from the honest place?

• 174 InTheMiddle12 // May 18, 2009 at 7:28 pm

  Carpenter: if Cheney, Palin and Rush are the cornerstone of the new and energized GOP, it’s a far sadder day than I even thought.

  Until the entire GOP opens its mind to its current reality and practices that age old Christian discipline of examination of conscious and behavior, followed by confession (good for you Mr. Frum, you and a few others are trying), they’ll continue to plummet in the polls, period.

  Elections are about choosing a direction and letting those that are rejected, adjust. That’s how America works. The Democrats know very well of this from 1994 with Bill Clinton hearing the election and going to the center. If the GOP continues to behave as they are (What is with Michael Steele, a true joke), I’m afraid they may actually do worse in a mid-term election, when just about every President loses votes in the House to the minority party.

• 175 Mike K // May 18, 2009 at 9:12 pm

  Inthemiddle, I don’t know where your middle is but it’s not where I put it.

  “As I read your post it’s almost like one must have amnesia about:
  a) fighting a war of choice that was a bad choice”

  So you would have done what with Saddam after 9/11 ?

  “b) unbridled de-regulation that led to a financial collapse and a GOP led bailout of their base donors”

  The deregulation consisted of Clinton officials running Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the ground in spite of Wall Street Journal warnings for years.

  “c) the destruction of good American will in the world through the institution of torture as a policy”

  Ask Pelosi how well established that is.

  “e) a demoralized and scattered GOP”

  Actually, Obama is doing a great job at revitalization.

  “f) the destruction of a major city (New Orleans) through inept response to a natural disaster (the truth is coming out about Rumsfeld’s role in that this week)”

  The truth about Nagan and Blanco is the story. What about all those school buses that should have been used for evacuation? What about MRGO ? If you don’t know what that is, you don’t know enough to judge.

  “g) the invasion of one’s personal family life through the attempted legislation of someone’s life, a la Mary Schiavo (thank God we have 3 branches of government for checks and balances and the court’s prevailed)”

  The parents disagree with you but I agree that Congress should have stayed out. In fact, they should stay out of most things, like CAFE standards, for example.

  “h) the shameful treatment of our soldiers with 4 and 5 deployments leading to high numbers of suicides and broken families, let along a demoralized and broken military”

  Especially the dishonest stories about suicides that are no more common than the civilian population of the same age. The shameful treatment is mostly by the political left and their allies in the news media.

  “i) a complete unwillingness to speak with those with whom they disagreed and growing partisanship to a level that is causing this President to try and undo it on a daily basis (Thank God for the heroes at Notre Dame this last weekend – true Christian leadership that understands dialogue is the way to good policy and consensus)”

  So the most left wing member of the Senate is elected with a history of NEVER cooperating on bipartisan issues and you thank “true Christian leadership.” Well we know your middle is far to the left of the country’s.
  “

• 176 PhilByler // May 18, 2009 at 9:35 pm

  To InTheMiddle12 re your 7:18 PM post: You have picked a bad moniker because you are NOT in the middle, but very much on the left. You are just wrong about everything you write, which is nothing more than left wing garbage.

  a) The Iraq War was the right decision. What is irresponsible is your failure in not considering what the world would have be like if Saddam were still in power. By dint of what our magnificent troops have done (and that does include my older son now in his second tour of duty in Iraq), a brutal, murderous and terror-supporting dictatorship was removed and a secular democracy is in its place in the Middle East. The congressional authorization for use of force contained 22 reasons to remove Saddam, and almost in Iraq everyone in Congress, GOP and Democrat alike, voted for the war — rightly. Saddam was in violation of 17 UN arms resolutions, and Saddam was using real torture against his own people. Weapons of mass destruction was one of many reasons, but it was important and true: Saddam used WMD against his own people, had WMDs (Iraqi Air Force General Georges Sada has spoken frequesntly about that fact) and intended to get more WMDs. And yes, as Christopher Hitchens once wrote, Saddam did go uranium shoppipng in Africa. Saddam government documents showed that.

  b) Deregulation did not cause the financial crisis. Government did. It was not deregulation that caused the subprime mortgage problems; it was Government programs that encouraged reckless lending.

• 177 PhilByler // May 18, 2009 at 9:36 pm

  c) American goodwill in the world was not destroyed during the Bush years, despite the hype you leftists were responsible for. We did not have torture as a policy. That is a leftist lie. Based on legal advice that it was not torture under the 1994 statute, we did waterboard three top al Qaeda leaders in 2002 who were responsible for 9/11 because we needed and in fact obtained information to prevent a second wave of 9/11-type attacks. The abuses at Abu Ghraib were uncovered and punished by the U.S. Army and did not represent the good work that our troops did. The Iraq War turned around in our favor because the Iraqis came to see the radical jihadists as killers, which they were, and because the American troops were the protectors. And while you say that American goodwill declined during the Bush years, Germany and France both voted in office more pro-American leaders in that period.

  d) The GOP is NOT demoralized and scattered, but regrouping. Please stay confident about your leftist and Democrat compatriots. In the years ahead, you are going to face a very effective GOP.

  e) New Orleans, much of which is built below sea level, was destroyed by a major hurricane, and the Democrat Mayor and Democrat Governor were worthless in response. The federal effort could certainly have been better, but the failures of the Democrat state and local officials were what guaranteed the situation to be as bad as it was. In neighboring Mississippi, with a Republican Governor, matters were under control.

  f) The Schiavo case showed the secular left to be without morals; it was too much for Jesse Jackson. Schiavo was starved and dehydrated to death by order of a state judge relying on the hearsay testimony of the “husband” who was living with another woman with whom he had children and disregarding the pleas of the woman’s parents. Excuse me, but talking about “invading family life” is dishonest.

  g) I don’t know what you are referrng to when you cite the branches of government, but I will guess you had in mind the U.S. Supreme Court’s unprincipled and unwise decisions in Hamdan and Boumediene. I am a lawyer and can elaborate, but I will refer to here to Andy McCarthy’s excellent analyses on the subject available at the National Review Online.

  h) The military is NOT broken. That is another leftist lie. My two sons are military officers (one Army and one Marines), and we laugh at people like you who say such dumb things. Sorry, but when you state a lie like this, you don’t deserve a more restrained response from military people.

  i) I don’t know what you are talking about when you say that there was a complete unwillingness to speak with those who disagreed. That’s not true. But since you refer to Obama’s Notre Dame speech, I will say that on the subject of abortion, (i) Obama’s radical pro-abortion record makes him unsuitable to be arguing that people ought to seek “common ground”; and (ii) the only way possibly to find “common ground” is to overrule Roe v. Wade and allow elected state representatives to reach legislative compromise. I am sure pro-abortion advocates such as you applaud the Notre Dame President, but don’t call him “Christian” in giving Obama a forum. The “Christian” position is pro-life — period.

  I don’t find your comments fascinating or even interesting. It is the same old left wing stuff. America will be rejecting it in the years ahead.

• 178 kroner // May 18, 2009 at 11:21 pm

  Mike K: “So you would have done what with Saddam after 9/11 ?”

  Has the myth of an Al Qaeda-Iraq link really persisted on the right even among the otherwise politically savvy? This is an honest question.

• 179 gary4205 // May 19, 2009 at 12:27 am

  To paraphrase the great Ronald Reagan:

  It’s not that moderates are ignorant, it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so!

  Frum, you and morons like you need to sit down and shut up, you’ve done enough to destroy the once proud GOP brand!

  Go find something shiny.

• 180 KendraWilder // May 19, 2009 at 1:34 am

  What might be a more accurate assessment does not in any way shape or form involve Rush Limbaugh’s opinion of President Obama’s apparent tearing down of the Unites States of America for some political agenda’s purpose.

  Much more accurate, in my not so humble opinion, Mr. David Frum, would be to suggest quite strongly that you have an agenda which, out of necessity, requires the taking out of Mr. Limbaugh and discrediting him and eliminating him as a rival in the realm of Conservative Leadership.

  You have this website, the New Majority, which clearly intends to take the initiative in reshaping the GOP, with you as its titular leader. Standing in the way are true GOP Conservatives, with Rush Limbaugh as their acknowledge ‘leader’, within certain parameters given that he has no desire to ‘lead’ the GOP in its contortionist rebirths among the various factions that are attempting to gain control of the GOP’s course and direction.

  So, to eliminate your psychotically misperceived rival, Rush Limbaugh, you have been systematically attempting to distort public perception of the motivations behind why he does what he does on his show, in public speaking, and in responses to the Mainstream Media’s requests for statements or Q&A sessions.

  Then what, Mr. Frum? If you, in the highly unlikely to nearly impossible chance, eliminated Mr. Limbaugh as an impediment to your goals, who’s next? Mark Levin? Sean Hannity? Glenn Beck? All of them have a considerably large following.

  You’d have to take them all out one by one to have a chance at gaining the numbers of followers for your “New Majority” to even have a ghost of a chance to be able to truthfully call your “New Majority” a majority at all within the GOP.

  It’s readily apparent that Rush Limbaugh is the biggest and hardest target with the largest “following”. Truthfully, after reading your website and your articles for several months, I’m convinced that you’re on some induced ego trip that has gotten so out of hand that your attacks on Limbaugh and others have taken on a rather desperate tone. Your assessments and accusations don’t sound reasonable at all, and actually smack of Twilight Zone insanity.

  Sorry, Dude. You’re not fooling anyone. You haven’t got a chance, especially with the lame and sophomoric tack you’ve taken.

• 181 wasdisgruntled // May 19, 2009 at 3:56 am

  It’s people like Mike K who are the problem with the Conservative base. They don’t do their homework and, when confronted with something that doesn’t fit into their ideological box, they disregard it as “left-wing bias” or “liberal media” driven. Well, guess what? Like most of Mike K’s entries, it’s the Limbaughs and Hannitys that fuel this wealth of misinformation designed to keep people like him inflamed and eager to hang on these two’s (one-semester college dropouts’) every word…all the while generating millions in revenue from advertising for the station owners and millions for these two broadcasters…Union members (NABIT), I might add.

  By incorporating the age-old adage of deflection, “liberal media”, guys like Limbaugh utilize this falsehood to their benefit. (Of course, Mike K, you realize that the term “liberal media” was coined by a young Reagan speechwriter in order to deflect all of the criticism he was receiving in the early part of his first term, right? It’s a simple, pre-emptive tactic…I tell everyone in the room you’re a big, fat liar and you spend the rest of the day trying to convince them otherwise……good luck with that.) It gets to the point where the gullible people who listen to Limbaugh’s drivel no longer know up from down or true from false because they don’t trust even the most upstanding investigative reporting since it comes from (and I love this one) the MSM. So many acronyms, so little time. ACORN!!! Boo! I scared you!

  A true Conservative is an intelligent, open-minded one; someone who cares to take the time to find the truth by weighing a variety of sources. I think that’s what Mr. Frum is talking about. Hanging your hat on a career radio man whose sole purpose is seeking fame, fortune and grand importance is no different that doing the same with a career politician – both will manipulate them for their own personal gain.

  Oh, and as an example of Mike K’s bloviated and regurgitated remarks from the likes of Limbaugh and like-minded websites, I give you the truth:
  “Military Service Doubles Suicide Risk
  ScienceDaily (June 12, 2007) Former military personnel are twice as likely to kill themselves as people who have not seen combat reports a study in the July issue of Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.
  The results suggest that doctors need to look out for signs of suicidal intentions in soldiers returning from service in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  Researchers in the United States followed up 320,000 men aged over 18 years for 12 years and found that those who had served in the armed forces at some time between 1917 and 1994 were twice as likely to die from suicide compared with men in the general population.”
  But hey, don’t believe Science Daily…I’m sure they’re just a bunch of “librul intillechewals”. Sheesh. Let’s take our party back, thinkers.

• 182 PhilByler // May 19, 2009 at 4:14 am

  To kroner re your 11:21 PM post: There is not a myth on the Right about a link between Saddam and 9/11. What the Left fails to grasp, but was in the 9/11 Commission report, is that there was a link between Saddam and support of radical jihadist terrorism. Saddam, among other things, allowed terrorist training camps to operate in Iraq, paid for suicide bombers and had an agreement with al Qaeda contemplating arms transfer. Just because Saddam was not in on the 9/11 operation did not mean that he was not involved in supporting radical jihadist activities. He clearly was; and the concern was that he would pass on to the jihadists nuclear weapons that he was intent upon and was fairly far advanced in developing.

• 183 InTheMiddle12 // May 19, 2009 at 4:37 am

  wasdisgruntled: Thank you, thank you, thank you.

  It’s ironic because I was writing a post with facts about the reality of the military suicide rate (as of 01/09) being the highest rates (from 2008) in the history of the records, in an attempt to respond to the myths below, but, reading your post said it all, far better than I could.

  I am so sick of the ‘non-intellectual’ wing of the party acting like bullies and inhibiting genuine debate and dialogue. They diminish the integrity of what was a great party. Thanks for hanging in there with me!

• 184 cousinavi // May 19, 2009 at 4:59 am

  David Frum is Better Than Tucker Carlson, But He’s No Rush Limbaugh!

  You see, Frum? Youre not even a real conservative! How could you be? Youre one of them inteleckshul elites (Christ, wait til she finds out youre Canadian!)
  Forget the National Review magazines are deaddeader than dead.
  Dead like cocaine at James Spaders house in Pulp Fiction. Rush Limbaugh is the new Bill Buckley hes the heroin from the Hartz Mountains in Germany. And when you shoot it you will know where those extra brains went.
  Mi casa, su casa.
  Muchos gracias.

  Carville was right. The Dems will rule for 40 years, and what remains of the GOP will follow Limbaugh, Palin, Hannity, Steele, Gingrich, Cheney, Jindal, Boehner, Bachmann and a cast of idiot extras too numerous to mention onto the heap of failure and ranting obscurity reduced to a radio show and appearances at county fairs to introduce The Knack.

  Read the rest: http://cousinavi.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/david-frum-better-than-tucker-carlson/

• 185 balconesfault // May 19, 2009 at 5:49 am

  “Saddam, among other things, allowed terrorist training camps to operate in Iraq, paid for suicide bombers and had an agreement with al Qaeda contemplating arms transfer. “

  I’m sorry – I accept the “paid for suicide bombers” (actually, he made payments to the families of suicide bombers) … but I have no evidence of the other allegations that I’m sure was not obtained via torture.

  I thought the 9-11 report actuall quashed those allegations:

  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

  To me, the idea that a meglomaniac like Saddam would hand over to Islamic jihadists the power to kill him (as any WMD transfer would do) is cartoonish.

  But who knows – perhaps the guy who was so afraid of an American invasion that he scrubbed his country clean of WMDs would have been willing to “roll the dice” and give a bunch of fundamentalists who hated his secular rule the keys to his destruction.

  I will grant, I’m increasingly convinced that Limbaugh followers do understand meglomania better than I do.

• 186 sinz54 // May 19, 2009 at 6:52 am

  Phil Byler: At least you’re willing to confront the 800 pound gorilla in the room: The unpopularity of the Iraq War debacle (and yes, it WAS a debacle), which erased the public’s perception of the GOP as the right party on national security.

  I don’t want to rehash Iraq again here. You would lose the argument, because your arguments have been exposed as false many times.

  I know you’re proud of your son’s duty. I’m proud of him too. But unlike you, I am NOT proud of the thinking in the Bush Administration that ended up sending him to Iraq. I would have been just as proud if your son had gone to Afghanistan and put a bullet in Osama bin Laden’s head.

  But I want to recommend a couple of policy changes looking forward:

  NEVER again will America launch a pre-emptive invasion of another country based solely on extrapolations of past behavior of that country. There has to be hard evidence that another country is actively preparing (NOT just planning) to attack us, before we take action.

  And NEVER again will America try a nation-building scheme so grandiose as to attempt to convert a nation which has no history of Western-style democracy or the notion of unalienable rights, into a modern Western-style democracy. Pouring our blood and treasure into stopping Muslim fundamentalists from beating their wives is NOT a conservative position. Pouring our blood and treasure into stopping Sunnis and Shiites from slaughtering each other is NOT a conservative position. It’s none of our business how Muslims live. It only becomes our business when some of them plot to attack us. And that is our ONLY business.

  Let’s avoid foreign entanglements. If necessary, LET the enemy take the first shot–and then it will be undeniable that we should retaliate against THAT enemy (NOT some other enemy that we also happen to dislike) and destroy it utterly.

  That was FDR’s policy with Pearl Harbor.

  That was the bipartisan policy of deterrence during the Cold War–even though it was understood that a Soviet first strike would kill millions of Americans. We still didn’t try for a pre-emptive strike, instead preparing to ride out the Soviet attack while retaliating.

  And it should remain our policy: Ride out and retaliate.

• 187 Bic667 // May 19, 2009 at 9:10 am

  For the record, those “crazy 9/11 denialists” made up approximately 35% of the Democratic party as of the 2007 Rasmussen report.

  That’s 35% of democrats who openly believed Bush had prior knowledge of the event of 9/11 and allowed them to happen, if not participated in.

  To compare, only 39% stated they believed he had know prior knowledge.

  26% were unsure either way.

  So in effect you could say as many Democrats were 9/11 denialists as weren’t in 2007.

• 188 InTheMiddle12 // May 19, 2009 at 12:25 pm

  Bic: For the record, those Dems trusted President Bush and the lies that were being told, until they realized, within a year or 2 at the most, that they were lies and there was no basis for invading Iraq.

  I’d be more interested in seeing how the curve of Democratic Support, by month/date evaporated and just when the GOP curve started to turn against the Bush/Cheney Iraq war. That will give you far more insight into where things stand today, and why.

• 189 MSheridan // May 19, 2009 at 2:23 pm

  Many people below have taken issue with something Mr. Frum didn’t actually write. He didn’t say that no leading figures on the left ever accused Bush of damaging the nation. As has been repeatedly pointed out, such a claim would be ridiculous.

  In fact, what Mr. Frum said was that nobody as prominent on the left as Rush is on the right ever accused Bush of DELIBERATELY damaging the nation. Look at the words of Rush he pulled out for emphasis: “His [Obama's] instincts were to let terrorists go in the United States on the street.” “You want to harm America, you’re taking care of that domestically.”

  To assert that Obama is a crypto-Muslim, terrorist sympathizer, and secret despiser of America is completely different from saying that you believe his policies will ruin the nation. Rush and his apologists have claimed in Rush’s defense that he only attacked Obama’s policies, not Obama the man. However, listening to or reading Rush’s words (and there are many examples), that’s clearly not the case.

• 190 Bic667 // May 19, 2009 at 2:24 pm

  ITM12, so your defense of Frum’s contention that no one on the left ever attacked Bush, and my providing of stats that at least a third of the Democratic party fell into Frum’s self defined “crazy” category is to bring up one of the most repeated attacks (even used last week by Speaker Pelosi to try and remove her foot from her mouth); that is to say that Bush lied to start the Iraq war.

  And why exactly did he ‘lie’ to start the war? (Remember, in Mr. Frum’s world no one on the left even impugned President Bush’s motives or intentions so answer carefully.)

  FYI, every single partisan and independent review has found absolutely no proof of lying on the part of the previous administration in terms of the build up for the war. In fact they have pretty much uniformly found that the failure of the intelligence community to fully comprehend Iraq’s true capabilities was a global effort, meaning every known intelligence gathering agency believed the same thing that was presented by Bush to be true or at the least, highly probable. Of course the fact Saddam’s own generals also believed his abilities to be far more advanced than they were didn’t help.

  All this being KNOWN to be true, the dedicated true believers (such as yourself) still cling to the “Bush Lied” mantra.

  It even helps bring up yet another direct example of a prominent Dem attacking Bush, which of course didn’t happen in Mr. Frum’s universe. After Sen. Rockefeller completed the senate review of the preamble to the war immediately started attacking Bush even though his own report in fact finds on almost all fronts that the President’s claims were “generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.” The report even intentionally ignored all prewar statements from Rockefeller himself and other prominent Dems which echoed or in many cases predated Bushes because those pesky facts would have made their attacks less viable.

  So instead of simply finding an example of a entertainer attacking a sitting President (which Olbermann did on a nightly baseis for pretty much the entire time) you instead find yet another example of an elected and ‘respected’ Democrat official doing so.

• 191 Bic667 // May 19, 2009 at 2:34 pm

  MSheridan, saying “His [Obama's] instincts were to let terrorists go in the United States on the street.” was a statement meant to attack Obama is quite true. It directly questions his ability to make the serious decisions a president is faced with daily.

  What is also true is that it is factually backed up. Until the uproar from the people that was the Obama administration’s leading plan for how to handle the chinese combatants that no other country wanted to take.

  Are you trying to now contend that Obama did not see that as a viable option until the opinion polls came out firmly against it?

• 192 MSheridan // May 19, 2009 at 2:59 pm

  To be perfectly frank, I have no idea. I have never seen anything whatsoever indicating that the government under Bush or Obama is or was ever interested in settling them here. Under Bush, there was at one point a legal ruling that they had to be physically present (not settled) for a trial against them to go forward. The Justice Department successfully got a stay on that ruling before it was implemented.

  Additionally, your word of combatant is perhaps imperfect. It was September of last year when their “enemy combatant” status was legally removed. As I’m sure you’re aware, they are accused of no crimes against the U.S. or U.S. forces–the reason they were imprisoned is that they were receiving training at a Taliban camp, and it is known that they planned to use that training against China. That is, they ARE aspiring terrorists/revolutionaries, but not against us. That distinction doesn’t make them attractive immigrants, of course, and I don’t myself support settling them here.

  It seems completely unnecessary to worry about it, however, as early this year Canada indicated it is willing to take some of them and Munich offered to take all the rest of them off our hands. Hence, the debate here always seemed quite one-sided, with many arguing that they couldn’t come, vs…..no one, so far as I could see.

• 193 MSheridan // May 19, 2009 at 3:15 pm

  I should have said “no one speaking for the government.” I’m aware that a few human rights groups were pushing for them to be resettled here.

• 194 A. Wilson // May 20, 2009 at 2:03 am

  For all the disdain Frum seems to have for Rush, I think it’s pretty clear that he’s right there listening to all three hours five days a week. “Oh, sorry, gotta go now, important appointment you know”, he says to anybody on the line at noon eastern.

  Pen in hand, listening carefully for something he can use to get attention, that rare little nugget he can turn into an article to get more than a handful of comments. Maybe even parlay it into a cable TV appearance. That’d be sweet!!

  How much different, really, is Frum’s appropriation — from Al Franken and his book “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot”??

  In both cases, unflattering pictures of their love/hate sugar-daddy prominently displayed. Do these two fist-bump when they pass each other at the airport?

  Cut the cord, David. Focus on the real problems — those being that our media is composed almost entirely of uncritical democrat voters, and the current occupant, who is systematically and fundamentally “changing” this country for the worse — regardless of his underlying motivation for doing so.

• 195 Bic667 // May 20, 2009 at 7:57 am

  MSheridan, the Obama administration announced their plan to resettle at least 7 of the Uighurs detainees within the US, even against protests from Homeland Security; and that was as of last month.

• 196 sinz54 // May 20, 2009 at 9:23 am

  MSheridan sez: “That is, they ARE aspiring terrorists/revolutionaries, but not against us.”

  Oh, brother.

  They’re not “aspiring.” They trained in terrorist training camps. They are terrorists who just haven’t pulled the trigger quite yet.

  Chinese tourists or businessmen visiting that part of America would have to fear for their lives. So might Chinese-Americans who could be mistaken for Chinese nationals.

  How come you liberals opposed aiding the Contras in Nicaragua, but now you’re prepared to give asylum to trained terrorists from China?

• 197 MSheridan // May 20, 2009 at 11:30 am

  Bic667, I googled your info and found you are correct on this (with perhaps a tiny quibble on the “at least 7″ terminology, as it looks like at most 7). I hadn’t previously seen any of this in the news and had not deliberately omitted any of the facts from my previous post. Even now, there isn’t much on this in the usual news sites.

  I’m not backing away from my earlier statement that I’d much prefer to see the Uighurs settled somewhere outside our borders. That said, I consider it completely unacceptable to keep them locked up indefinitely or repatriated to China, either, so I recognize the difficulty of the situation. If you or sinz54 (who seems to think he understands my motives better than I do) have some better ideas, please present them.

  However, interesting as this side-discussion is, look back on Rush’s words. If you read through the paragraphs quoted on this page, it is impossible to escape the conclusion that Rush is saying that Obama wants to harm America, that Obama is a deliberate enemy of America. Whether you agree with that conclusion or not (I don’t, myself) is not actually the point in question. David Frum’s point was that although many on the left despised our last President and thought he’d done serious damage to the U.S., there weren’t any progressive voices as prominent as Rush who claimed that Bush WANTED harm to come to America, and Frum’s further point was that when someone as visible and important in the conservative movement as Rush Limbaugh makes that claim about Obama, it damages the credibility of that movement among the conservatives and centrists it vitally needs to retain and attract.

  There is not one demographic measured by the Gallup Poll in which Republicans have gained strength since 2001, and the ONLY demographic in which they have not lost ground is those who attend church frequently, although they’ve come close to retaining the same share of self-identified conservatives and citizens aged 65 years or more. Nationally, the number of self identified liberals in or leaning towards the Republican Party has declined from 17% of all liberals to 9% and the number of self-identified moderates who are or lean towards the Republican Party has declined from 37% of all moderates to 28%. Self-identified conservatives who are Republicans have dropped only 1%, from 66% of all conservatives to 65%.

  http://www.gallup.com/poll/118528/GOP-Losses-Span-Nearly-Demographic-Groups.aspx

  I’ve seen many claims on this site and elsewhere that Republicans need to become more conservative to regain popularity. The data would seem to indicate that is not the case. Certainly, allowing the party to headline Rush’s brand of conservatism, containing a strong streak of paranoia regarding an incredibly popular President’s loyalty to the country, seems ill-advised at best and disastrous at worst, even aside from its influence on policy.

• 198 VerityJones // May 20, 2009 at 4:25 pm

  I’m with Frum on this one.

  Rush Limbaugh has “a character issue.” He repeatedly bears false witness and I don’t understand why that doesn’t make social conservatives sick.

  Here’s what Obama had to say to Europe about anti-Americanism: “But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what’s bad…. On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth. They threaten to widen the divide across the Atlantic and leave us both more isolated. They fail to acknowledge the fundamental truth that America cannot confront the challenges of this century alone, but that Europe cannot confront them without America.”

  If a conservative said that, Limbaugh would shout it out with pride! Because Obama said it, he deliberately ignores it so he can continue lying about Obama in order to frighten ordinary Americans. To me, it’s just sickening. It’s un-American to engage in that kind of… tribalism. What I grew up believing about America is that we are an advanced nation, one nation, indivisible, committed to real principles of truth and justice. We’re not two tribes committed to tribal loyalty no matter how many lies or character assassinations have to be made. The mendacious Limbaugh is this (tribal) political hostility personified and, to me, he represents a disease in American politics.

  Why support and defend a person like Limbaugh who so is so ugly and so consistently has to lie to maintain his positions? The only thing I can think is that the people who defend him are basically defending their own right to enjoy the anger he stirs up in them. How do you justify clinging to that when there’s evidence that what you’re angry about isn’t even true and, further, it is not only dividing your political party, it’s hurting your country?

• 199 Patrick // May 22, 2009 at 6:38 am

  Well said, VerityJones.

• 200 The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Frum: History Began When I Decided to Remake Conservatism in My Image // Jul 28, 2009 at 11:47 am

  [...] May, while criticizing Rush Limbaugh, David Frum wrote “nobody as central to the left as Limbaugh is central to the right – ever accused either [...]

You must log in to post a comment.