I’ll be honest, I don’t know much about David Frum, but if more Republicans behaved the way he does in this CNN piece he wrote, it would be better for our entire country.
He lays out specific things he would change about the bill.
He doesn’t accuse Democrats of being evil, hating freedom, wanting to destroy America etc.
He doesn’t throw out socialism as if it is synonymous with killing puppies and small children, heck he doesn’t use the word at all.
He decries the hate-filled vitriolic rhetoric and lies of people like Rush Limbaugh who, lets face it, are selfish blow-hards.
I don’t agree with everything he says, but atleast I can respect it. I feel like he is the type of conservative who you could have an honest discussion with, who would listen to your arguments, be open to changing his mind on things, and would be able to convince me to change my mind on some ideas too.
We need more people like that and less people like Glenn Beck, not just for the good of the GOP but for the good of America.
For the same reason more Democrats aren’t like Joe Lieberman.
So you are saying that David Frum isn’t a Republican then I take it?
I’m saying that David Frum occupies the same position in Republican politics that Joe Lieberman occupied in Democrat politics, until the democrats kicked him out.
The difference is, republicans won’t kick Frum out, they’ll just argue with him and show him how he is wrong.
Frum is like a lot of connected/insider Republicans. He likes to get invited to all the high end cocktail parties and shindigs, so he has to spend much of his time attacking other Republicans.
First, Lieberman wasn’t kicked out by “the democrats”, he lost a free and open election. Shockingly that happens in our society. I realize that recently Republicans have decided that getting the most votes on something is somehow tyrannical and all, but really?
Second, he was allowed by the Democratic leadership in the Senate to retain his positions on various commitees after he won election in Connecticut, despite his continued pro-Republican behavior.
Lieberman’s OWN CHOICES have led him to become distanced from the Democratic party as he rejects their views on more and more issues over time. There is nothing wrong with him changing parties, I just wish he’d be honest about it.
Frum is nothing like Lieberman, because based on what I have read so far from Frum, he ACTUALLY supports the platforms the rest of the Republicans claim (and fail) to support. He also rejects assholes like Limbaugh, which makes him a hero in my book.
Lieberman is making a headlong dash to the right. Frum is not making a headlong dash to the left. So no, they are not alike at all.
Frum also appears to stand by his principles, Lieberman flip flops worse than a fish on land.
Well, I’ll tell you what.
I’ll let you decide who the “good” Republicans are when you let me decide who the “good” Democrats are.
*Sigh*
gahrie, who died and made you GOP gatekeeper?
The only thing not “Republican” about Frum is that people like Rush Limbaugh don’t consider him conservative. But that’s not enough in my book. The only reason Frum “attacks” other Republicans is because he thinks they are bad for the conservative movement longterm. Which I tend to agree with him. I think the conservative movement needs much less in the way of gatekeepers, who go around saying “SO AND SO IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE! WE MUST ONLY SUPPORT THOSE WHO ARE TRUE BELIEVERS!” Especially if the only thing you don’t like about a person is that they are too critical of something you are doing. Not listening to constructive criticism is one of the things that got the GOP INTO this mess in the first place.
A while ago Gahrie pointed out that the Republican party seems to be at a low ebb; was thinking the other day that may be partly attributable to the rigid, ideological obviousness of right wing radio/cable tv. If politics is chess, ideological obviousness is political chess played by retards.
Maybe its just me, but the way that this health reform went down feels like the Republicans got played in a big big way. I may not be smart enough to put my finger on it exactly, but it feels like December’s health reform failure/Brown’s election was the rope-a-dope, with the Republican dopes subsequently knocked out by a bill that, upon a bit of reflection, really bodes poorly for their electoral hopes (as Frum more or less argued).
Speaking of retards, an easily-understood example of Republican simple-mindedness was Rahm Emanuel’s idiot retard jibe. I can’t have been the only one that immediately pondered the obvious, canned chagrined retort forthcoming from Miss Palin. In fact, her pique, like all her public proclamations, was so obviously telegraphed that one can be certain that within seconds of Emanuel’s stupid statement, Democratic operatives began combing the files of whichever Republican blowhard was also likely to have misused the term retard. Mass marketed Republicanism in the 21st century is so painfully obtuse. Its a wonder they win anything at all.
OK..you are attacking me for attacking Frum because he attacks other Republicans……..?
The only reason Frum “attacks” other Republicans is because he thinks they are bad for the conservative movement longterm.
I think Frum is bad for the conservative movement. So why is it OK for him, and not for me?
I don’t listen to Rush, but it is a simple fact that far more Republicans and conservatives support Rush than support Frum. Rush has done far more for conservatives and Republicans than Frum has ever done.
By the way, I am barely a Republican, in fact only a Republican because they is no other viable opposition to the Democrats.
A while ago Gahrie pointed out that the Republican party seems to be at a low ebb; was thinking the other day that may be partly attributable to the rigid, ideological obviousness of right wing radio/cable tv. If politics is chess, ideological obviousness is political chess played by retards.
Which party is held hostage to rigid, ideological obviousness? Who birthed “Fake but accurate”? Who demanded every scrap of paper of Pres. Bush’s life, but allowed Pres. Obama a complete pass?
AM talk radio and Fox News are not successful because of any “rigid, ideological obviousness”. They are successful because the American public wants to hear them. They know that the competition supports the left and parrots leftwing talking points. If you want to argue that Fox and AM radio parrots the right and supports the right, I would dispute you….but let’s grant the point for the sake of argument. It merely supports the contention that the United States is, and has been, a center-right country.
I would argue that the Republican Party’s ills are not caused by “rigid, ideological obviousness”, but rather because the national Republican Party has abandoned it’s ideology and principles in favor of becoming “compassionite conservaties” ie Democrat lite.
gahrie: Let me be clear. (And I can’t be stealing from Obama if this wasn’t how I’ve always started interweb rebuttals! So there! Obama is stealing from ME!)
OK, so that wasn’t clear. Lets try again.
Let me be clear. You can think anyone you want is bad for conservatives. As can I. What bugs me, and what I wasn’t as clear as I should have been about, is the fact that I very much dislike those partisans who insist on reading someone out of the party based solely on their having a position disliked by said partisan. The Dems have done this many times, as have the Republicans. It isn’t a new thing, but it is frustrating. If someone agrees with you on 70% of the issues and wants to be in your party, why are you so eager to kick them out? Plus, the “rigid ideological obviousness” is exactly what plagues the GOP, your protestations to the contrary not withstanding.
Rush has done many things for the Republicans over the years. But he has also hurt them, and hurts them now more then he helps. His rants aren’t reasoned defenses of conservatism, but a logic lacking “everything conservative is good, and anything not conservative is LIBERAL!!!!”
Pingback: Why Can’t Republicans Be More Like This?
I’ll let Tunku Varadarajan make my argument for me.
In a polarized world, you’d better be polarized. That’s why Rush and Beck have 35 million listeners between them and David Frum has the 14 people who still subscribe to the New York Times, 11 of whom don’t read him because he’s still too conservative.
Also, Joe Lieberman is a poor analogue. He stuck with principle on one issue. Number of Democrats who insisted on compromise with the Bush Administration: none that I can think of (certainly absolutely none on Social Security, which was Bush’s domestic policy Waterloo). Being a selfish blowhard certainly didn’t hurt Molly Ivins, Keith Olbermann, etc. in their careers.
Mike – I don’t remember who said it, but they stated it well when they said that a larger number of Democrats choose to listen regularly to Rush Limbaugh than the number of people of any persuasion who choose to listen regularly to Keith Olbermann … mostly, Rush causes people to think and to talk and to debate things (like on here) …
I’m not sure I agree with your polarization analogy, however … I’m more of the “In a polarized world, you better be able to deal with polarized folk” – and that usually means being able to choose *when* to be polarized and when not to be …
Question: Does any rational human being actually subscribe to the NYTimes ?
Here is a good example of why the left loves Frum:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/07/026839.php
Once again, the only good “conservative” is either a dead one, or one who goes around attacking conservatives.
By the way, you guys on the left love “conservatives” Andrew Sullivan and David Frum because they spend most of their time attacking those on the right.
I’d like to get in on that fun.
Somebody give me the names of a couple of “liberals” or “progressives” who spend most of their time attacking those on the left……….
Ummm .. .Pelosi ? Reid ? Obama ?
Of course, their policies are attacking *everyone* right now, by sending the US economy into the Sir Thomas …