12 / March
12 / March
Frum v. Limbaugh

For David Frum, it's not the failed president he dubbed "the right man," or the far-fetched utopian military crusades he advocated as "an end to evil," but Rush Limbaugh who is to blame for the Republican Party's sorry state. Read my article @ the American Spectator detailing how the Robespierre who once attempted to drive "Unpatriotic Conservatives" (read: Iraq war opponents) out of the conservative movement now laments conservative intolerance of "squishes" (read: him).

posted at 09:54 AM
Comments

Excellent article, Dan. All the way around.

I found one line curious, though. You wrote: "The first six years of the Bush presidency have cured..." What about the last two?

Posted by: Eric F. Langborgh on March 12, 2009 11:05 AM

I meant that he had majorities in those first six years--the GOP controlled the three branches of government then--and they still couldn't institute conservative governance.

Posted by: Dan Flynn on March 12, 2009 11:10 AM

Right on the money. Excellent piece.

Frum might want to ask: "I would not join any club that would have someone like me for a member."

You’ve got to love these people who 'evolve' and who use a list their past credentials (of someone who they are not anymore) to establish themselves by way of furthering their new agenda.

Fraud.

Posted by: asdf on March 12, 2009 11:11 AM

"I meant that he had majorities in those first six years--the GOP controlled the three branches of government then--and they still couldn't institute conservative governance."

Because the GOP, for the most part, doesn’t (and hasn't for some time) represent conservative values anymore?

Posted by: asdf on March 12, 2009 11:14 AM

Ah, good point.

Posted by: Eric F. Langborgh on March 12, 2009 11:33 AM

To follow on that point, it could be argued that the GOP tried to do it Frum's way the first six years, and look where it got them! Classic example of losing the very thing you idolize; in this case, political power, whatever the cost to principle.

Posted by: Eric F. Langborgh on March 12, 2009 11:36 AM

A masterpiece. As usual.

Posted by: Alan on March 12, 2009 07:01 PM

Bravo. Well said. Newsweek's favorite conservatives are somewhat like my favorite Democrats--not very alive, not very liberal and not very active.

Posted by: Mal Kline on March 12, 2009 09:29 PM

Watch the sleight of hand and diversions here. Obama is like the Great and Powerful Oz – pay no attention to the man in the White House who is shoveling $900 million dollars to the Hamas/Palestinians and another $20 million to bring Hamas “refugees” into the United States. Rush Limbaugh is the real problem.

Posted by: Thomas on March 12, 2009 09:35 PM

Frum's kind of a silly goose, but I read his "Unpatriotic Conservatives" from 2003, and I found myself nodding along. He isn't intolerant of dissent as you like to say, Dan. He's just telling it like it is. I liked this section in particular:

"The antiwar conservatives aren't satisfied merely to question the wisdom of an Iraq war. Questions are perfectly reasonable, indeed valuable. There is more than one way to wage the war on terror, and thoughtful people will naturally disagree about how best to do it, whether to focus on terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and Hezbollah or on states like Iraq and Iran; and if states, then which state first?

But the antiwar conservatives have gone far, far beyond the advocacy of alternative strategies. They have made common cause with the left-wing and Islamist antiwar movements in this country and in Europe. They deny and excuse terror. They espouse a potentially self-fulfilling defeatism. They publicize wild conspiracy theories. And some of them explicitly yearn for the victory of their nation's enemies."

Denying and excusing terror? Check. Hobnobbing with leftists? Check. Defeatism? Check. Yearning for the victory of our nation's enemies? Check. I'm not saying that you in particular have said/done these things, but check out Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan and others.

Spare me the victim routine. You sound like that Garafolo chick.

Even you know that we've found WMD. That's why your tried (in vain) to explain it away.

http://www.flynnfiles.com/archives/world_events2006/when_is_a_wmd_not_a_wmd.html

Your assesment of the WMD is completely wrong. You concealed key facts.

I usually like what you have to say, but when you start talking about this war in Iraq, you lose all semblance of logic.

Posted by: Ben Duffy on March 18, 2009 12:51 AM

"Denying and excusing terror? Check. Hobnobbing with leftists? Check. Defeatism? Check. Yearning for the victory of our nation's enemies? Check. I'm not saying that you in particular have said/done these things, but check out Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan and others."

What a bunch of nonsense. Paul, Buchanan, and others merely recited what the CIA and the 911 Report said. Try reading their actual arguments instead of the warmongering neo-con talking points next time.

Posted by: Eric F. Langborgh on March 18, 2009 04:49 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?