April 28, 2009

David Frum: See, I Told You So
— Ace

DrewM. snarked that Frum had emailed to say "the heart of true conservatism is now dead." (Snark, guys.)

But his snark was prescient, because Frum does kinda-sorta say that. A little.

f the Democrats do succeed in pushing through national health insurance, they really should set aside a little extra money to erect a statue to Pat Toomey. They couldn’t have done it without him!

Pat Toomey is of course the former president of the Club for Growth who planned to challenge Arlen Specter in the 2010 Pennsylvania Republican primary. Polls showed Toomey well ahead – not because he is so hugely popular in the state, but because the Pennsylvania GOP has shriveled to a small, ideologically intense core. Toomey now looks likely to gain the nomination he has sought – and then to be crushed by Specter or some other Democrat next November.

The Specter defection is too severe a catastrophe to qualify as a “wake-up call.” His defection is the thing we needed the wake-up call to warn us against! For a long time, the loudest and most powerful voices in the conservative world have told us that people like Specter aren’t real Republicans – that they don’t belong in the party. Now he’s gone, and with him the last Republican leverage within any of the elected branches of government.

For years, many in the conservative world have wished for an ideologically purer GOP. Their wish has been granted. Happy?

Ah. Toomey is the bad guy, and Club for Growth too, for, you know, challenging a politician who didn't represent their views.

Frum's position is odd. I don't claim to know exactly what he thinks -- I really don't care, to be honest -- but I know that many of these Obamacans and "moderates" claim the following: We must jettison our angry, ugly social-con monsters in order to focus on what really matters, which is sound economic policy.

But Arlen Specter wasn't merely a social liberal -- he also turned out to be an economic liberal, too. He was indispensable in getting Obama's Spendulus passed. And note that the choice here was not binary, as on immigration, up or down. Almost every Republican wanted a stimulus too, but a "targeted" and "temporary" one, one that didn't grow the federal government years and decades down the road.

If Arlen Specter had voted with Republicans to continue debate, Obama and Nancy Pelosi would have been forced back to the negotiating table to bargain for a more sensible and affordable (and fiscally responsible) stimulus. Which, in turn, would have passed.

Instead Specter cast his vote for full-fledged tax-and-spend budget-busting liberalism. Actually I don't know if liberalism is the right word -- we've seen liberalism in the past, and it's never looked so ruinously irresponsible before. This is some sort of mutated, insane liberalism -- like the Reavers in Firefly. Liberals went all the way to the edge of the 'Verse and went crazy staring into the void.

And now Frum castigates conservatives for daring to challenge Arlen Specter, demanding that a "place of honor" be carved out for such people.

Well, see if you can follow me on this, Davey: If he a social liberal, and he's also a fiscal liberal, and if he opposes conservative judges too, I'm sorry, why are we doing the Democrats' job for them by electing a liberal Democrat as Senator? Shouldn't they carry that burden themselves?

Frum is big on labels. To him it doesn't matter how liberal a senator might be, so long as he is nominally a Republican.

JackM wrote this in an email:

If the GOP had any balls, they would tell everyone else who straddles the line (I'm looking at you Maine gals) to play ball or leave. The
votes don't matter now, so it's a good time to clean house.

It will be interesting to see how the Dems treat Specter in terms of honoring his seniority. He may end up as a committee chairman as part of this deal, either now or in 2010, and bump other Dems in good standing out of the way.

I think that's about right. The thing we feared -- and the thing we'd hoped to avoid by following Frumian logic -- has now come to pass. There may have been good arguments for purity vs. pragmatism before, but it seems that decision has been made for us. Purity it is.

Voters have a lot of brand-confusion about what Republicans (and conservatives) stand for. As our product isn't selling right now, perhaps it's time to clear that confusion up and re-enter the market with a strong brand identity.

Oh... Olympia Snowe and Lindsey Graham also bash conservatives and the Club for Growth for driving out poor dear Arlen Specter.

Links swiped from Hot Air.


Posted by: Ace at 09:07 AM | Comments (157)
Post contains 814 words, total size 5 kb.

1

He also voted for TARP, but you agreed with TARP didn't you Ace?

And fuck David Frum with Megan McCain's dick.

Posted by: Rudy Ray Moore at April 28, 2009 09:12 AM (o5vMm)

2 OT - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4yvvCv79QY

Well, at least as off-topic as the hijacking of the United States by hard core leftists is....

Posted by: Vincent Vega at April 28, 2009 09:16 AM (dsBLF)

3

Didn't Frum just post something about how much debt has been added per day?  For which we can thank Snarlin' Arlen, in large measure.

As one of those disreputable, not-our-kind-dear socons, I had gotten used to the Obama Bus treatment.  But now they're kneecapping fiscal conservatives, too?

Sounds like Frum's ideal party consists of himself and his ego.  

The latter of which, admittedly, requires a very, very big tent. 

Posted by: Steve the Pirate at April 28, 2009 09:17 AM (W54Uh)

4

Ah another recruit for the party of the Dear Leader.  This shows we can recruit the witless, the unprincipled, the inept, the greedy and the corrupt with the best of them.  And they will obey the Dear Leader.

Now the dhimmirats can read Specter the riot act and tell him his act won't work in the party of the lemmings.

Posted by: Vladmir Putin at April 28, 2009 09:17 AM (0Qynq)

5 f the Democrats ...

I like the way you put that.

Posted by: Wally Ballou at April 28, 2009 09:18 AM (A/vgC)

6 If he talks like a democrat, walks like a democrat , and most importantly votes like a democrat, who gives a shit? All this does is free money up for republicans to try and flush this turd once and for all...

Posted by: jollyroger at April 28, 2009 09:19 AM (40r3D)

7 There may have been good arguments for purity vs. pragmatism before, but it seems that decision has been made for us. Purity it is.

So can we say "you're either with us or against us"?

Posted by: Mama AJ at April 28, 2009 09:20 AM (X6Zdh)

8 I for one am happy.  The problem with the Republican party is that there are really three factions in this country.  Liberal, Conservative, and keep-my-train-on-time.  The worthless middle thought they could take over our party with the result of making it as irrelevant as them.

When next Republicans return to power (as Obama's policies guarantee they will), we finally have a shot at getting people concerned with the long term well being of the country into those offices.  And just maybe slash the federal budget to something we can afford, while protecting our values and our life and limb.

Posted by: Methos at April 28, 2009 09:20 AM (IvOqJ)

9 Stunning. A citizen choosing to run for office is the reason the Dems will roll through whatever they want for the next 20 months minimum? Is he serious? As if the "R" tag behind Arlen's name would have made a damn bit of difference on health care. Maybe the Dems would have needed to give him more in exchange for his vote, but nothing substantive.

Posted by: bunny boy at April 28, 2009 09:20 AM (YsSn7)

10 Let him stab them in the back for a change.

Posted by: Oldcat at April 28, 2009 09:21 AM (z1N6a)

11

 

Frum needs to follow Specter's lead and change his party to D.

Stop straddling the fence you puss, just go all the way and do it.

GTFO.

Posted by: RarestRX at April 28, 2009 09:23 AM (uIn6z)

12 there is no such thing as the fiscal conservative/social liberal.  it's a fantasy. 

Posted by: ed at April 28, 2009 09:24 AM (Urhve)

13 My right arm was getting huge from stabbing Republicans in the back constantly. Just totally gorilla'ed out. This'll give me a chance to work on the left arm for a while. I like to see symmetry when I pose down every night in 360 degree mirror-walled bedroom.

*Flex*

Posted by: Arlen at April 28, 2009 09:24 AM (PonvG)

14 wasn't Coleman just the kind of moderate squish that Frum et all loves-and he got beat by a carpetbagger with no experience and a bad personality to boot.  what lesson can we all learn from that?

Posted by: ed at April 28, 2009 09:25 AM (Urhve)

15 “I don’t want to be a member of the Club for Growth,” said Graham. “I want to be a member of a vibrant national Republican party that can attract people from all corners of the country — and we can govern the country from a center-right perspective.”

What exactly would it stand for? Not socially conservative, not economically conservative and full of pork. Get your head out of the fucking Beltway and notice that's not what non-Democrats in the rest of the country want.

Posted by: Mama AJ at April 28, 2009 09:26 AM (X6Zdh)

16 hmmm, and the club for growth got my money last year and the gop didn't.

Posted by: joeindc44 at April 28, 2009 09:27 AM (QxSug)

17 We don't care, as long as people think we're cool!  Now I've got to go put my "Specter in '10" bumpersticker on my Suburban, right next to my "Obamamama" sticker.  Off to spin class!

Posted by: Suburban PA Whitey at April 28, 2009 09:27 AM (NkvDX)

18

I don’t think David Frum has ever been a conservative. If anything he was one of the many Neo-cons over at NR, conservative on foreign policy and liberal on virtually everything else. In other words, he was a Scoop Jackson Democrat.  We need to purge every one of those sorry SOBs. Their brand of “republicanism” has been shown as asure loser over and over now.

 

As for that supreme Cockholster Lindsey Graham, he had two primary challengers in the last election and he survived based on shenanigans from the State Party. First the polls in the most populous voting district NOT in his home base ran out of ballots early in the morning of the primary. Second, just like McLame, he benefited from the open primary allowing Dems to cross over. The Dems were NOT running an opponent. They openly stated he was their best candidate. And third, and most likely the telling thing, was there were many “local” primaries for stuff like Sheriff etc. The Republicans ran no opponents in these elections. If you voted in the republican primary you could not vote in the Dem. If you did not vote in the Dem you did not get a vote on the local elections.

 

When I voted in the Republican Primary I had two poll workers question me as to if I really wanted to do that. So as far as 2008 goes, the Republican Primary in SC was fixed for McLame and Graham before the first vote was ever cast. Now it will be another 6 years before we can get rid of the SOB. I gave up writing and calling the SOB.

Posted by: Vic at April 28, 2009 09:27 AM (f6os6)

19 So, basically, the Frums of the world want the GOP to give-up on limited government, spending restraint, pro-life, national security, and family values.

And so, Republicans would stand for... what exactly?

And where the hell are these fiscally conservative social liberals? I hear about them all the time, but I've never actually seen one. Arnold Taxinator was supposedly socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but last I saw, he blew out his state's budget and was piling on tax increases.

The fiscally conservative social liberals must rank somewhere between unicorns and men who could nail Sarah Jessica Parker without a bag over her head in terms of rarity.

Posted by: V the K at April 28, 2009 09:28 AM (PLvLS)

20 Whatever happens, I'm always right.

Posted by: David Frum at April 28, 2009 09:28 AM (RL5sB)

21 ed: maybe not in politics, but there are a lot of us in real life. I don't give a flying fig whether two dudes want to "get married" (or even five dudes and a chick. Who cares?) or a host of other things. So get rid of all this national-level meddling in stuff like that. Abortion too. The states should decide with broad leeway. But gut the federal budget. Leave money for a robust defense, and maybe a couple of other things. Cut taxes to the bone. Then break the bone. Of course, maybe you don't mean classical liberal when you say "social liberal." In that case, you're right.


Posted by: mr.frakypants at April 28, 2009 09:28 AM (PonvG)

22 I've been reading Frum's website, and I still cannot figure out what his idea of a "new" Republican party v2.0 is supposed to stand for, if anything. Apparently, it's supposed to stand for winning elections and aggrandizing David Frum. So, sort of like a new hip-hop version of the Whig Party. I guess he thinks if the Democrats can run with and win under a completely content-free candidate then the Republicans should be able to do the same thing.

Posted by: Brewdog at April 28, 2009 09:29 AM (jg+Fr)

23

The Club for Shrinkage   [Ramesh Ponnuru]

My initial reaction on hearing the news was that after generating a bunch of Democratic House seats, the Club for Growth has now produced its first Democratic senator. I assume that Specter's votes will now move leftward.


Wow. It looks like lots of Republicans are mad at the Club for Growth.

On the basis of who the detractors are I'll have to say, "Club for Growth, I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter."

Posted by: Deety at April 28, 2009 09:29 AM (aVzyR)

24

Well, ok, I will take the bait:

What exactly do YOU mean by  "conservatism"?

Do conservatives believe in giving the government the power to imprison an American citizen (like Jose padilla) without charges or a trial, based on nothing more than the whim of the Executive? Tapping our phones without warrant? Secret prisons? Searching our library records without a warrant?

Do conservatives believe in maintaining a global Empire consisting of 700 military bases around the world, with American forces and/or dollars being shoveled to nearly every single nation, with American attempting to create new democracies out of thin air in any and every corner of the world?

I always thought conservatives believed in restraining the power of government, and only venturing abroad when it was absolutely vital to our protection.

I thought conservatives believed in low taxes, AND low spending both.

 

These comments aren't meant as "gotcha" hit and run snarkiness- I really would enjoy hearing from posters as to what constitutes "conservatism" in light of the War on Terror, foreign adventurism and civil liberties.

Posted by: ChipD at April 28, 2009 09:29 AM (79/pj)

25

If Toomey beats Specter (D) in the general, I will never shut the fuck up. Never.

Ever.

Never.

Practicing now.

Never.

Not ever.

Posted by: Entropy McCain at April 28, 2009 09:31 AM (m6c4H)

26 the problem with the club for growth is that they're going for the wrong people

if you have millions of dollars to promote lower taxes and restrained spending why go for the marginal benefit of taking out a specter or something for a fiscal hawk who won't win the general election when you can get a bigger benefit from taking down a liberal for a moderate republican?

we can say screw these moderates for ripping on the roots of conservatives but in the end elections matter

the club for growth hasn't shown it can win any

look at how the democrats have erected their majority---guys like tester, webb, lincoln, landreiu and johnson are commonplace

they give democrats important votes on issues where they need them from states where if they ran 'pure' candidates they wouldnt have any votes at all

i agree we need more fiscal conservatives and principled conservatives, we just need them from deep red places..at the same time though if you want to be a majority you need more susan collins', mcain's and snowe's

Posted by: republican at April 28, 2009 09:31 AM (EegTB)

27 "there is no such thing as the fiscal conservative/social liberal.  it's a fantasy." ed @ 12

I'm a fiscal conservative. And I'm a liberal in the classic sense of the word. I care about the process (Roe was a bad decision because it was a judicial answer to a political question. Or, Democrats constantly finding votes in car trunks until they win close elections.) an awful lot too.

I don't give a flying frak about the social issues the Republicans have forwarded these past 30 years.

Please, tell me I'm a fantasy.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at April 28, 2009 09:32 AM (fnU+z)

28

What does Specter care about multi-trillion dollar deficts?  Not a thing.  He just cares about keeping his 79-year old ass well puckered and flattered.

Putz.

Posted by: Greg Toombs at April 28, 2009 09:32 AM (vAu1O)

29 Whatever you think of Specter, it's painful to give the Democrats this opportunity to crow. I caught a few minutes of CNN over the lunch hour; their anchor appeared to be impersonating the woman in the restaurant scene in When Harry Met Sally.

The Powerline blog weighs in

Posted by: Scipio at April 28, 2009 09:32 AM (a8MXW)

30 About Time!

DLTDHYITAOYWO!

Cockholster did A lot of damage too.

Posted by: torabora at April 28, 2009 09:33 AM (toXPa)

31 I'm not angry at the club for growth.  We need a dedicated organization that advances conservative fiscal principles.

I'm angry at their strategy, which has been counterproductive for the party and for their own movement.

Posted by: republican at April 28, 2009 09:33 AM (EegTB)

32

So Toomey vs Spector in 10. Either Spector wins and then there is another blue dog in the Senate or Toomey wins.

Either case is better then Toomey loosing to some Acorn lefty nutjob.

 

 

Posted by: Girdyourloins! at April 28, 2009 09:34 AM (3PqHz)

33 Please, PLEASE, if God's in His heaven . . . Specter will get the usual treatment that GOP defectors get when they work with the Dems: a shiv between the ribs. Whatever happened to Jim Jeffords, anyway? (That's a rhetorical question.)

Posted by: tsj017 at April 28, 2009 09:34 AM (TBwnU)

34 For crying out loud.  Anything significant or could get him recognized he voted with the Dems.  He only voted with the Repubs when it would get him mic time.  Let the Dems have him.  The right needs an enema for these parasites anyway.  "Deep blow to the Republicans..."  Yeah right.  As in that happy kind of 'deep blow'.

Posted by: Kae Gregory at April 28, 2009 09:35 AM (RkRxq)

35 Boss, you're not going to cheat on me with him are you?

sniff

Posted by: Joe Biden at April 28, 2009 09:35 AM (toXPa)

36

I'm not shitting you man, all these people get all weepy and ruffled over Specter?

If Toomey beats his ass, I'm putting on face paint and grabbing a tomahawk.

Posted by: Entropy McCain at April 28, 2009 09:35 AM (m6c4H)

37 I thought conservatives believed in low taxes, AND low spending both.

Yes, yes we do.  Thus the problem that many conservatives have with many Republicans.

Posted by: Deety at April 28, 2009 09:36 AM (aVzyR)

38

So can we say "you're either with us or against us"?

Funny you should ask.

 

Snowe said the party's message has been, “Either you're with us or you’re against us.”

http://tinyurl.com/dltyah

Posted by: JackStraw at April 28, 2009 09:36 AM (VW9/y)

39 girdyourloins

in this case i agree w/you that specter switching actually might be a boon

regardless of his pathetic votes on spending, he's still conservative on some important issues...if he faced toomey in the repub primary there would be a significant chance we coudl see a moveon type nutjob

instead we're getting either a blue dog dem or toomey which is much better


despite the micro implications though, the switch needs to be considered for the general direction of the party

Posted by: republican at April 28, 2009 09:36 AM (EegTB)

40

Damn, forgot to change my name back.

I'm angry at their strategy, which has been counterproductive for the party and for their own movement.

Toomey hasn't lost yet.

Posted by: Entropy at April 28, 2009 09:37 AM (m6c4H)

41

So get rid of all this national-level meddling in stuff like that. Abortion too. The states should decide with broad leeway.

Arghh!

For fucks sake, will you clowns ever get it through your thick skulls that the reason "the states" cannot "decide" is precisely because of the the way the social liberals have transfered all these decisions to the federal courts?

I've really had a bellyfull of listening to you dopy "social liberals" sucking your thumbs and wondering why the nasty social cons insist on nationalizing marriage and abortion. Just shut the fuck up until your brain grows a bigger than fucking pea.

Posted by: flenser at April 28, 2009 09:38 AM (RL5sB)

42 purity vs. pragmatism

You know, purity has a pragmatism all it's own. Candidates that have principles, and who stick to those principles are attractive. Honor is attractive. Even to those who don't share all of the same principles.

People like Frum fail to see that the problem with the GOP has been that voters don't like people who say one thing, then do another. The Dems were able to sell themselves as trustworthy creatures of principle, but the bait-n-switch of the last 100 days really puts that to the test.

The big tent of any political party has little to do with policy stances. It has everything to do with trust. Do you trust politicians from that party? Do you trust that they will act according to their principles?

Avowed pragmatists usually don't have those firm principles. EVERYTHING is negotiable. And that makes them unreliable.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at April 28, 2009 09:40 AM (kLZ8u)

43

Referring back to #28, I should have added:

He cares more about another 6 years of perfumed pampering than he cares about the lives of my children.

I hope he doesn't age well.

Posted by: Greg Toombs at April 28, 2009 09:40 AM (vAu1O)

44 How do you build a moderate GOP when the two biggest obstacles are the EPA and Roe v Wade/Doe v Bolton?

Both of these institutions are moderate Republicanism in practice.

We can't find the middle on environmental policy because the EPA is the ruling body.

We can't find the middle on abortion policy because Roe and Doe are the ruling body.

From where is the moderate approach going to come?

Gay rights?  The GOP supports civil unions.

Posted by: WTF Capital Investments at April 28, 2009 09:41 AM (GtYrq)

45

For a long time, the loudest and most powerful voices in the conservative world have told us that people like Specter aren’t real Republicans – that they don’t belong in the party.

If they don't merely switch their affiliation from R to I but go fully D then they weren't real Republicans.

Posted by: buzzion at April 28, 2009 09:41 AM (Lrsi6)

46 flenser,

I will not give up the appropriate ideological fight because Democrats have nationalized issues to the detriment of all. Less government would be better in the long run for all of us. That includes the social issues the Democrats have pushed.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at April 28, 2009 09:42 AM (fnU+z)

47 Could care less about Specter. The only problem with Graham is his support of immigration reform. He is a fiscal and social conservative however. He criticized the club for growth for nominating people who can't win not their fiscal conservatism. He may have a point.

Posted by: ricky at April 28, 2009 09:42 AM (muUqs)

48 @entropy

if toomey wins i'll run the run street buck naked shouting with joy

however, i suspect he'll go down in penn when rendell and obama bring out the acorn machine for specter (and specter's already pretty popular there amongst dems)


either way, in their house races so far the club for growth doesn't have a great track record.

they should start focusing on supporting guys like christie, simmons, and the open races we'll be getting in the senate

Posted by: republican at April 28, 2009 09:42 AM (EegTB)

49
ChipD, I said this a few weeks and I'll say it again:

Go fuck yourself you stupid cocksucker.

Posted by: D-ling at April 28, 2009 09:43 AM (5QbWF)

50 how can you miss something you never had? I saw keep that enema flowin' til we get all the dingleberry RINO's off our ass.

Posted by: krukke1 at April 28, 2009 09:44 AM (GMn5O)

51

The TARP is so 2008.

Posted by: FireHorse at April 28, 2009 09:44 AM (w9FHT)

52

As soon as I heard he had switched parties, I immediately had that releived feeling like after a healthy dump.  But after a few seconds, I felt like there were a few pieces left in there.

Come on guys - you know who you are - I don't want to sit here all day.

Posted by: Kae Gregory at April 28, 2009 09:44 AM (RkRxq)

53

Do conservatives believe in giving the government the power to imprison an American citizen (like Jose padilla) without charges or a trial, based on nothing more than the whim of the Executive?

 

Well, yes. At least, they always have right up until the time Bush took office, at which point this suddenly became an outrage. And btw, Padilla went to the slammer on a little bit more than "the whim of the Executive". You could look it instead of repeating your talking points.

 

These comments aren't meant as "gotcha" hit and run snarkiness-

Then I'd hate to see what you would consider snarkiness.

Posted by: flenser at April 28, 2009 09:44 AM (RL5sB)

54 And where the hell are these fiscally conservative social liberals? I hear about them all the time, but I've never actually seen one. Arnold Taxinator was supposedly socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but last I saw, he blew out his state's budget and was piling on tax increases.

I'd consider myself one. Well, not really liberal on social issues, just not very conservative. Say, in favor of civil unions as opposed to being strongly for or against gay marriage.

I have lots of libertarian opinions on matters because I think the gov't. does a bad job of just about anything that it puts its mind to.

I'm disgusted by the amount of pork spewed out by both parties.



Posted by: Mama AJ at April 28, 2009 09:45 AM (X6Zdh)

55 I've really had a bellyfull of listening to you dopy "social liberals" sucking your thumbs and wondering why the nasty social cons insist on nationalizing marriage and abortion.

To be fair, they typically don't really suck their thumbs and wonder why.  Instead, they name call and insist that recognition of the fact that these issues have already been "nationalized" by the social liberals implies support for it or belies some sort of ignorance about "the way things ought to be".

Posted by: Deety at April 28, 2009 09:47 AM (aVzyR)

56 I love you republican purity advocates. Won't be long before the party is small enough to drown in a bathtub. Might even be there already. ... Specter is a seasoned politician from a swing state. What does he know that other Republicans don't?

Posted by: Veronica at April 28, 2009 09:48 AM (LruGI)

57

is a seasoned politician from a swing state. What does he know that other Republicans don't?

That he wasn't going to win the primary and this is his only shot at staying in the senate, which is all he cares about?

Did you have a point?

Posted by: Entropy at April 28, 2009 09:49 AM (m6c4H)

58
To those of you who are on the fence, please, you need to realize what's happening here. Don't fall for this bullshit like Frum, Snowe, and Graham have.

The media and the Democrats have been doing everything they can to make conservatism a third-rail hot-buttion issue.

I know it's sounds crazy and hard to believe that a political ideology in its entirety can be marginalized and ostracized the same way pro-lifers and gun-owners have, but it's happening.

The  political hacks and country club Republicans in the GOP who take the the opinions in the NYT seriously are running for cover everytime the C-word comes up.

Posted by: D-ling at April 28, 2009 09:50 AM (5QbWF)

59

I will not give up the appropriate ideological fight because Democrats have nationalized issues to the detriment of all. Less government would be better in the long run for all of us. That includes the social issues the Democrats have pushed.

Yes. But the national stage is now the theater of war where these battles must be fought. It is intensely irritating to hear "libertarians" talk as if all that is needed is for the right to lay down their arms unconditionally. It's almost if if they want the left to win. Oh, wait ..

Posted by: flenser at April 28, 2009 09:50 AM (RL5sB)

60

#24

 

Cmon and see the amazing ape thing, not man, not fish, but the love child of Barney Frank and Hilton Perez.  Watch the amazing creature that brays without a brain, see it read from a teleprompter and do its Obama Act!

 

Amazing folks, watch it crawl on its belly, watch it describe black as white, and gaze into its crystal ball and tell you how evil America is while describing the glories of Obamaland, a land where opposing the Dear Leader makes you a terrorist!  Or gasp belieing in the Constitution.

Yes folks see the amazing creature as it hurls spittle with every reath before it eats its own feeces and tells you how good it is.

 

This is an Obama supporter.  You'll note he doesn't even have the stature of a lemming.

A warning, this show is not for the weak of heart, pregnant women or children under 18.  Listening to such babbling can turn even the toughest of men into a faculty member from Amherst if expoused to it too long.

 

 

Posted by: Vladmir Putin at April 28, 2009 09:51 AM (0Qynq)

61

You want to know despair?  Wednesday morning after Goldwater got the shit beat out of him by a lying crooked Texan.

That was the bottom.  

We came back then, we'll come back now.

Oh, and FUCK Lindsey Graham!

SC can find someone to beat that McCain dick sucking asshole.

Kemp

Posted by: kempemanx at April 28, 2009 09:51 AM (2+9Yx)

62 I am social conservative and I believe in gay civil unions. So maybe we are not so far away from the majority people in this country?

Posted by: lions at April 28, 2009 09:52 AM (9wR+o)

63 Do conservatives believe in maintaining a global Empire consisting of 700 military bases around the world

If you don't understand the difference between having military bases and acting like an empire, I don't think I can explain anything to you.

Posted by: Mama AJ at April 28, 2009 09:53 AM (X6Zdh)

64
Rush Limbaugh used to joke about how the Democrats considered "profit" a dirty word.

Well, it's no longer a joke. Capitalism is now considered indefensible and Conservatism is becoming a four-letter word, too.


Posted by: D-ling at April 28, 2009 09:53 AM (5QbWF)

65

#43

I hope he doesn't age well.

Er, you know he has cancer, right? Just saying.

Kemp

Posted by: kempemanx at April 28, 2009 09:54 AM (2+9Yx)

66 Spectre had to go.  There was no way forward for the party with him in it.  I was willing to support the D candidate if I had to.

Posted by: Rudy Ray Moore at April 28, 2009 09:54 AM (o5vMm)

67 Gotta love it. Specter sells us out over Porkulus tax and spend liberalism and Frum tries to scapegoat social conservatives.

Posted by: DaMav at April 28, 2009 09:55 AM (W2KIY)

68 is a seasoned politician from a swing state. What does he know that other Republicans don't?

After Watergate, everyone knew, just knew, the Republicans would never acheive any political power for at least a generation.

Or six years, when Reagan came into office.

Posted by: XBradTC at April 28, 2009 09:55 AM (zY2yT)

69 The last give Presidential races have all gone for the Democrats in Pennsylvania.  It's also yet another blue state losing population.

I don't know if I would call this a swing state.

Posted by: WTF Capital Investments at April 28, 2009 09:56 AM (GtYrq)

70 Posted by: Veronica at April 28, 2009 02:48 PM (LruGI)

Well, this fiscal/security conservative - social liberal would prefer and support a purist GOP.

Purist = principled = trustworthy

Moderates in the GOP like myself only become a problem when they try to drag the rest of the party to the left, trying to get the GOP to abandon their principles. Fiscal and security conservatism is too important to me to sacrifice it on the altar of my more moderately liberal social views. 

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at April 28, 2009 09:57 AM (kLZ8u)

71 FLASHBACK: NETS DIDN'T CARRY REAGAN
February 3, 1988
NEWSDAY

President Ronald Reagan was cast in the role of a not-ready-for- primetime player yesterday, and the White House was not happy about it.

The three major networks declined to carry Reagan's Oval Office speech last night pushing his contra aid package, which the House is scheduled to vote on today. Cable News Network did carry the speech live.

ABC decided not to broadcast the speech "when it was determined that it would be a slight re-formation of the points he's made before, in his State of the Union address and other addresses," said ABC News spokeswoman Elise Adde. Spokesmen for NBC and CBS said that they have extensively covered the contra aid issue and didn't think the speech warranted coverage. Reagan's chief of staff, Howard H. Baker, said the networks' decision interferes with the "traditional right" of presidents to communicate with the American people.

Posted by: Anti-Harkonnen Freedom Fighter at April 28, 2009 09:57 AM (5r0Tz)

72

Claptrap. Specter is a tax and spend Liberal. Now that he has finally come out of the closet, I say who didn't know you were an undependable Democrat. Let your new caucus members worry about things being "not proven" and whether you might shaft them.

This is the political courage of Jeffords. Deal cutting traitor gutlessness.

The ideological purity the Republican party needs and demands is fiscal conservatism. Without that, there is no comeback. Let the Maine ladies decide if they too want to continue the country on this ruinous path in the name of fake bipartisanship or be Republicans.

Posted by: Teleprompter Messiah at April 28, 2009 09:57 AM (+kP2/)

73

Can we really arrange for the other RINO’s from Maine and South Carolina to be true to themselves and become Democrats?  The next election we can elect real conservatives and try to salvage something of our economy before the "One" gives it all to China or surrenders to the Iranians or the Russians or the Mexicans.  He would sell the country to the EU or Saudi Arabia if it was worth anything anymore.   Could we really get that lucky?

Posted by: Magic at April 28, 2009 09:58 AM (8X9tr)

74 To be honest, I did think Padilla was an overreach. An American citizen, taken in to custody in America, by law enforcement should not have been turned over to the military. So yeah, I had problems with that. But, take away ANY of those precepts, and I would have been cool with that from a Constitutional standpoint.

As to the rest of ChipD's concerned conservativism, he's pretty much full of shit.

Posted by: XBradTC at April 28, 2009 09:59 AM (zY2yT)

75

This is the same kind of crap that went on after the GOP took over Congress in 94.  All those so called conservative Democrats like Billy Tauzin,etc. switched parties just so they could remain in power with the new majority. 

Don't ever trust an officeholder who does that without resigning first, like Phil Gramm. 

Frum and other apologists are not helping the conservative/libertarian cause by covering for liberal Republicans.  Sorry, Dave.  No sale.

Posted by: Leonard Pinth-Garnell at April 28, 2009 09:59 AM (GjePs)

76 flenser,

I think we concede the intellectual high ground when we allow Democrats to frame the issues.

At that point we have lost the battle. Snow, Collins, Graham, McCain and Specter are all the proof I need on that point. (And President Bush's spending too.)

Posted by: Nom de Blog at April 28, 2009 10:00 AM (fnU+z)

77

I thought we just tried Frum's idea of politics with George W. Bush. How did that work out for us? We doubled the debt, got into nation building and  increased the size of the federal government by the most since FDR. That's why democrats and independents laugh at the current crop of republicans when they talk about cutting spending and government. Ever here "where have you been the last 8 years"?

Bush did a good job fighting terrorists and after a disasterous missfire (Harriet Meirs) did appoint two good judges but his liberal spending and growth of government killed the republican core message and it will take awhile to get people to believe we are serious about it. In fact, I don't believe people will change until this current amount of extreme debt added to what Bush gave us results in higher taxes, inflation and interest rates. Until then they will believe that all of this is free money or that someone else is paying the tab for them.

Posted by: robtr at April 28, 2009 10:02 AM (H60q6)

78 Don't pretend this is a good thing for conservatives. I was just reading in TIME that the the last president to have a workable fillibuster-proof majority was FDR. ... Now imagine Obama with that kind of power.

Posted by: Veronica at April 28, 2009 10:04 AM (LruGI)

79

To be honest, I did think Padilla was an overreach. An American citizen, taken in to custody in America, by law enforcement should not have been turned over to the military.

Tell that to Herbert Hans Haupt.

Posted by: flenser at April 28, 2009 10:05 AM (RL5sB)

80 At this point, it's eh. Specter is no longer the fig leaf the Democrats can use to call bad/liberal policy "bipartisan". What's the saying... it's the economy, stupid? Well, when you have Specter, Collins, and Snowe passing pork and government spending legislation the likes of which history has never seen, and the Liberals can call it bipartisan, then voters cannot differentiate those who implement the most impactful policy that affects them most acutely and relentlessly. It makes switching to a coin-flip or just staying home too easy.

Besides adopting a fraud of a politician that now defines Specter, the Democrats lose their cover. Invasive government and craptacular economics is and will be their albatross. Conservatives will have to sit out and stick to principles for a while, perhaps expanding the purge of RINO's, and wait for Americans to wake up to what they have wrought. It might be too late to come out of the stupor in time, but hope reigns eternal.

We've just experienced time-travel. Carter's Obama's in the White House and the Democrats Democrats own Congress. The economy sucks and our global adversaries are licking their chops. A weak presidency exists and is apologizing to the world. Hopefully a Reagan reincarnate will lead the conservatives back to relevance since the GOP has decided that being a silent majority/minority is just where they'd prefer to be.

Nevertheless, I see silver linings with Specter's ego-driven, self-preservation declaration official coming out party. The GOP either becomes a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Left instead of the increasingly rented one or it becomes an alternative lest it die. If it dies and conservatism fails, Democracy is dead... and say "hello" to your socialist/fascist overlords.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at April 28, 2009 10:05 AM (swuwV)

81 Moderates in the GOP like myself only become a problem when they try to drag the rest of the party to the left, trying to get the GOP to abandon their principles. Fiscal and security conservatism is too important to me to sacrifice it on the altar of my more moderately liberal social views.

I agree and take it a couple steps further.

I disagree much more with the leftist social views than with the right.

Having a libertarian POV leads to wanting fewer social programs and not claiming new ideas have always been lurking in the Constitution (see abortion and gay marriage).

Posted by: Mama AJ at April 28, 2009 10:06 AM (X6Zdh)

82

The only problem with Graham is his support of immigration reform.

 

Bullshit, Graham has a lot more problems than “immigration reform”. Go back and review, he went lock-step along with every fucking aisle crossing that fuck stick McLame did. He was Mclame’s butt boy from day one in the Senate and I expected him to be McLame’s choice for VP. I guess someone got to Mclame and convinced him four liberals in race were two too many.

Posted by: Vic at April 28, 2009 10:07 AM (f6os6)

83 Don't ever trust an officeholder who does that without resigning first, like Phil Gramm.

Is Texas a closed primary like Pennsylvania?

I liked Gramm's move.  I thought that was the only way to change parties and maintain integrity.  You ran as Republican, were elected as one, then resign as one.  Run again as a Democrat.  If you win you win.  That's great.  At least you did the right way.

What Specter has done is borrowed from the GOP to get elected and sold them out to stay there.

Posted by: WTF Capital Investments at April 28, 2009 10:09 AM (GtYrq)

84 I'll stand by my position-if you claim to be socially liberal, it follows that you are going to favor the socially liberal expenditures so beloved by the left.  you can say you are a "classic liberal" all you want who would prefer that all these matters be left to the States but that isn't the liberal of today and it certainly isn't the liberal of the Democratic Party.  My theory also is founded on the real life examples of socially liberal Republicans-Snowe, Collins and Spector are all socially liberal and voted for the spendstrosity of Obama.  Schwarzenegger is a caricature of the species as well. 

Posted by: ed at April 28, 2009 10:09 AM (Urhve)

85

Surprised  ? NO ! Specter wants re-election. Frum misses the point, Toomey is not the problem. Club for Growth is not the problem. Specter will turn his back on loyal supporters...because it is all about himself. .as it is with most senators.

So now Arlen will be invited to Chrissy Mathews house for diner, he will have cocktails with Keith Obermann and be the new " conscience" of the Republican party.

Republicans best find principled, yes David...principled and articulate candidates, more people like Jindal who have a backbone, believe in personal responsibility and are not afraid to argue in the public square. They need to stand for effective, responsive government and engage in candid discussion with voters.

 

  

  

Posted by: John at April 28, 2009 10:09 AM (18ar+)

86

I think we concede the intellectual high ground when we allow Democrats to frame the issues.

We are not allowing Democrats to frame the issues. It is a stone cold fact that abortion is now a federal matter. And reversing that fact is something many libertarians seem ambivalent about. The same dynamic is at play with gay marriage. Many libertarians agree with the lefts goals and are taking a "the ends justify the means" approach.

Of course the really serious libertarians reject the whole concept of representative government and long for the day when all decisions are made by judges. Ask Randy Barnett.

Posted by: flenser at April 28, 2009 10:12 AM (RL5sB)

87

Dear Lindsey Graham,

You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom.

Posted by: William Wallace at April 28, 2009 10:13 AM (nNFUl)

88 For years, many in the conservative world have wished for an ideologically purer GOP. Their wish has been granted. Happy?"

Well, happier.

Posted by: Kevin at April 28, 2009 10:14 AM (2pSub)

89

...Oh and Lindsey...

You're next.

Love,

     Republicans

Posted by: Republicans at April 28, 2009 10:15 AM (nNFUl)

90

Lindsey,

We're in ur base, killin' ur re-electionz

Posted by: The Base at April 28, 2009 10:18 AM (nNFUl)

91 You guys have a long wait for getting rid of Linsey short of him leaving the party. He was just reelected in 08.

Posted by: Vic at April 28, 2009 10:22 AM (f6os6)

92

Ace mentioned something about brand confusion. Here's some brand clarity: The Democrats are like the Red Sox. They identify with the group they support, and as much as they cheer for those on their side, they cheer against those on the other side. Ever notice how the Yankees can with the World Series three years in a row and still "suck"? Or how Red Sox fans hold that certain contempt for Yankees fans?

When the Red Sox won in 2004, the Democrats found their model. They sold the complete lower-brain-function euphoria that Red Sox fans enjoyed in '04. Stick with us, we'll win enetually, and it'll feel that good. Platforms and policies don't even matter any more. The only things that matter are winning and the good feelings that accompany winning. Remember Grant Park in Chicago on election night? Or Inauguration Day? Those weren't celebrations for public servants; they were rallies for champions.

As for our brand, there's a lot of confusion, but our key principle is still leadership -- that when we lack leadership (as we did in spades for the last election) we deserve to lose and we expect to lose.

But that's our brand. We nominate, elect and follow leaders (or fail to do so). They don't. They have winners. (And when they fail to win, they blame it on the referee.)

Leadership can speak extemperaneously, as Bush did with the bullhorn at Ground Zero.

Winnership needs a script, without which the most insightful thing you'll ever hear is "I won."

Posted by: FireHorse at April 28, 2009 10:25 AM (w9FHT)

93 Elephants have long memories

Posted by: Sock Puppet at April 28, 2009 10:26 AM (nNFUl)

94

That fucking sucker of cock Arlen is going to steal my spotlight. 

I'M THE FUCKING MAVERICK, NOT YOU ARLEN.  DO YOU HEAR ME OVER MY NOW IRRELEVANCE?

Posted by: John McCain at April 28, 2009 10:26 AM (EKMxC)

95 Lindsey Graham can kiss my ass if he can stand to pull his head out of John McCain's for 10 seconds or so.  And what the fuck kind of a name is Lindsey, anyway?  I wonder if all the swirlies he got as a kid gave him such a strong craving for brown-nosing.

Posted by: Tim at April 28, 2009 10:27 AM (3Wewy)

96 When do the other RINO's desert?

I'm sure that "The Glass is 1/10th Empty) Allahpundit will follow his buddies into the warm embrace of the Teleprompter Messiah too. We're all doomed, Frum tried to save us, we wouldn't listen to Meghaton, we actually asked that supposed Republicans act like Republicans.

Oh, and to Benedict Arlen. When the choice is a Dem or Dem Lite, they'll always go for the full bodied brand.

Good riddance to bad rubbish


Posted by: kbdabear at April 28, 2009 10:31 AM (miw86)

97

I can see Frum now some day in the future. He’ll be in an insane asylum wearing a wrap around coat having conversations like this with an orderly:

Frum: All people love me! All women want to bear my children!

Orderly: You're in a nuthouse standing in your own poo.

Frum: My autograph? Why of COURSE!

Posted by: physics geek at April 28, 2009 10:33 AM (MT22W)

98  The Specter defection is too severe a catastrophe...

Get a bigger shovel, Frumkins.  Specter defects consistently on conservative issues, would never participate in a serious filibuster, and held out on us with SCOTUS appointments.  This changes nothing but an initial.  The only catastrophe is the main one... the douchetool in the White House whom Frumkins seems to adore so fatuously.

Posted by: George Orwell at April 28, 2009 10:39 AM (r7tiD)

99 if Republicans had been fiscally responsible when in charge, would any of this social this/fiscal that nonsense have mattered-the answer is no.  Bush and the Republican Congress was anything but fiscally conservative-I seem to recall a recent election where the Dems made sure to point that out.  What "idea" is Frum going to base a party on-his brand of Republican lost big time.

Posted by: ed at April 28, 2009 10:42 AM (Urhve)

100 Arlen Specter = swine flew

Posted by: Tonawanda at April 28, 2009 10:46 AM (VKn7o)

101 For years, many in the conservative world have wished for an ideologically purer GOP. Their wish has been granted. Happy?

Yes!  Frum also fails to realize that it is not moderates who contribute campaign funds. 

Posted by: Dan F at April 28, 2009 10:47 AM (X69s8)

102 If Toomey (R) beats Specter (D) in the general election I'm going to turkey slap Lindsay Graham.

Posted by: Entropy at April 28, 2009 10:51 AM (m6c4H)

103

I'm going to walk in the Capitol building, right up to his desk, whip out my boner and beat him with it.

Cane him right on the senate floor, with my penis.

Posted by: Entropy at April 28, 2009 10:52 AM (m6c4H)

104 "Ah. Toomey is the bad guy, and Club for Growth too, for, you know, challenging a politician who didn't represent their views."

Well, lets just say that there is a time to purge moderates from your party and for you guys, barely holding on to 41 seats, that time was not now. 

Perhaps instead of punishing moderate Republicans, you should target, oh I don't know, Democrats?

Posted by: seattle slough at April 28, 2009 10:53 AM (H5l9d)

105

Perhaps instead of punishing moderate Republicans, you should target, oh I don't know, Democrats?

We are targetting democrats.

Undercover democrats.

Posted by: Entropy at April 28, 2009 10:54 AM (m6c4H)

106 but spector isn't a "moderate" Republican.  what legislative priority of obama was he going to in any way block or fight?  while you might have to make room in the tent for "moderates", do you have to open it up to Democrats?   

Posted by: ed at April 28, 2009 11:01 AM (Urhve)

107

Frum is a Republican, not a conservative. His dream is a party that holds power, his philosophy is that the policy that gains the most votes is the best policy, end results be damned.

A question for those of you who call yourselves socially liberal, are these things (drug legalization, abortion, gay marriage, assisted suicide) ideas you actively support or things that you just don't care about? Is it that you think they're OK or that you just don't want the government involved? Is it your attitude that American society needs to change or is your attitude live and let live? If it's the latter, I would suggest that you are libertarian, not liberal.

After eight years of "compassionate" conservatism and "neo"conservatism, I've decided that if you have to add an adjective then you probably really aren't conservative. In fact, I disagree with the whole concept of fiscal conservative/social con/defense conservative. It's all part of the pacakge, although your primary interest may vary: there are those who may be more compelled by the fiscal aspects and less compelled by the social or defense, or any combination thereof. But the common philosophy must be of a government limited in size and scope, an idea that the primary function of government is to protect life, liberty, and private property. The primary role must come first, and anything beyond the primary role should be considered extraordinary, examined with scrutiny and caution, and entered into very, very sparingly. Extraordinary measures should be terminated when determined to be wasteful, ineffective, or deleterious, as opposed to the liberal theory of "just spend more".

To me, the Republican party is only useful as a tool to advance the conservative/libertarian cause. I don't care about winning if winning means advancing the power of the state. Now is not the time to go wobbly on principles, it's the time to get back to the principles and forgo Frumian pragmatism.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at April 28, 2009 11:01 AM (sXLx/)

108 Beck: He's selling out because he's too big to fail. LOL

Posted by: Vic at April 28, 2009 11:02 AM (f6os6)

109

You guys have a long wait for getting rid of Linsey short of him leaving the party. He was just reelected in 08.

I held my nose and voted for that son of a bitch last fall, don't know why. Never again.

How can this state have Demint, who is triple-awesome smothered in awesome sauce, and frickin' Graham and both of them be in the same party?

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at April 28, 2009 11:08 AM (sXLx/)

110 #104 That's a laugh, Seattle.  Dems have been purging wrongthinkers from their party for a generation at least. Hasn't hurt them any.

Posted by: Oldcat at April 28, 2009 11:09 AM (z1N6a)

111 Mr. Frum is a self-described Hamiltonian.   He believes you can somehow have a 'limited but energetic government', which also means a government involved in the financial institutions of the Nation to guide them.  Of course that isn't in the Constitution and between 1832 and 1913 the US government didn't have any sort of say in those things... somehow we became a great nation without it.  Strange that the problems seen in 1832 seem to have come back to us.  We are ever so much better with the Federal Reserve than without it, aren't we?  Went the wrong direction in 1928 and yet again now... multiple times now.  You can thank the Hamiltonians for that... and we do have very energetic government!

Posted by: ajacksonian at April 28, 2009 11:09 AM (oy1lQ)

112

I'd love to have seen the look on Sen. Cornyn's face when Spector bailed after he had backed him.  Having Spector in the Republican Party reminded me of Patton saying, " I'd rather have a division of Germans in front of me than a battalion of French behind me."  Good riddence.  Same for Snow and other Rino's. 

I'm glad Big Ears scared the crap out of New York with Airforce "I Won."  They put him in , they deserved it.  They should be more afraid of his policies.  Wake up America!

Posted by: Dan at April 28, 2009 11:19 AM (ygjiI)

113 If not now, when? 

Yes, majorities conduct ideological gutchecks all the time.  Why, it's common knowledge..................

Posted by: Techie at April 28, 2009 11:20 AM (QYuCD)

114 How does Spector switching parties really change anything?  His votes are what matter and he seemed to always side with the Donks, on everything important anyway.  That's not a rhetorical question, btw.  I'm drawing a blank on how party affiliation really matters in the nuts and bolts of the US Senate anyway. 

I guess now Spector will really let out his innner progressive whacko?

Posted by: Chip Abu Hussein Sayf Al-Dawla Islam at April 28, 2009 11:25 AM (sOtz/)

115

#19 V the K

i've never seen one of these fiscal-cons/social libs be anything but liberals, they are a cancer, a disease in the GOP and must be expelled, they are the reason that the republican party can hold both Houses of Congress and the W.H. and still grow the size of government, and the national debt.

the GOP will get smaller for a while, this will be painful

don't fight the pain, invite it because when the pain is over healing and growth begin.

  

Posted by: shoey at April 28, 2009 11:28 AM (IRh55)

116 you know, I have the perfect candidate for these Frumservatives-his name is John McCain.  War hero.  Reaches across the aisle and is always willing to kick a conservative in the teeth to aggrandize himself.  fiscal conservative except when voting for boondoggles.  social liberty is his middle name.  McCain 2012

Posted by: ed at April 28, 2009 11:39 AM (Urhve)

117 But... but... but... What on Earth does Arlen Spector have to do with "true conservatism?"

Posted by: CoolCzech at April 28, 2009 11:39 AM (iafWn)

118

I held my nose and voted for that son of a bitch last fall, don't know why. Never again.

 

I didn’t. After the primaries where I voted against him, I did a write in for me in that slot. This is the first time I did not dothe whole party ticket in decades.

Posted by: Vic at April 28, 2009 11:46 AM (f6os6)

119

Seattle:

 

Right as if there are moderate dhimmirats.  Oops, I was wrong, there is Specter now.  But he won't last long.

Posted by: Vladmir Putin at April 28, 2009 11:52 AM (0Qynq)

120 seattle, I'm surprised you're not angry at your PA brethren for just allowing Specter to waltz in and hijack your primaries.

Surely there's a reliable Democrat who could run against Specter.

Surely.

Posted by: AmishDude at April 28, 2009 11:57 AM (T0NGe)

121 I challenge anyone to name three issues on which Arlen Specter was more of a Republican than a Democrat.  I doubt anyone can.  The man has been a liberal all along.  It's no surprise to see him jump ship and GOOD RIDDANCE.

TARP was bad.  Some of us got suckered into supporting it, thinking that the money would be spent quickly, effectively, and with accountability, and that this would avert the crisis.  All of those things, we now know, are false.

But the spendulus?  800 BILLION dollars of pure debt, for Democrat special interest projects, pure pork-barrel spending?  Who could POSSIBLY support that and be a Republican?  No one.  Any Republican who supported, or supports now, the "stimulus" bill needs to be pushed out.  Out of office, or at least out of the Republican Party.

We have to stand for something.  If we can't do that, and we're going to be in the minority anyway, then there's no point in existing.

Posted by: Daryl Herbert at April 28, 2009 12:00 PM (wVHIx)

122 So, how about a Club for Growth Party? The GOP is dead and just hasn't fallen down yet. Time to start something new.

Posted by: epobirs at April 28, 2009 12:19 PM (tGZMy)

123 Ramesh agree's with Frum too.You know what?Fuck them,fuck the RINO'S!Be done with compromise!!

Posted by: steevy at April 28, 2009 12:27 PM (dzIYr)

124 First of all, I don't understand why anyone at all takes Frum seriously.  It's just his kind of idiocy which diluted the Republican brand to the point even longtime supporters don't have any idea what the hell a Republican legislator might do if he gets elected.

There are two ways to win elections:  Either convince people your principles are right or pander to voters demographic by demographic, slicing and dicing the electorate until you have 50% plus 1.  Frum thinks the second method is the way to go, and it does work, kind of.  For one election.  Then you lose the next three because you can never keep all that pandering straight.

As far as Specter is concerned, I'm not sure exactly why anybody thinks this is a disaster for the GOP.  What's the point of having Specter in the party if he always votes with the Democrats?  If your goal is to "win" by having more Republicans than Democrats, then I suppose this is a disaster.  If your goal is to advance the ideology of small government conservatism, this is actually a good thing.

The Republicans were never going to sustain a filibuster with Specter, Snowe, and Collins in the Senate.  But now the Democrats don't have anyone to blame.  What are they going to do about DOMA?  Gun control?  They can no longer say "we would have passed that if not for the Republicans."

Posted by: Ace's liver at April 28, 2009 12:37 PM (XIXhw)

125

Let me recap some: 

•  Almost immediately following the announcement of Palin as VP candidate; he rejects her.  He may have already known a lot about her, but he sprang in opposition to her so quickly that it gave the impression it was a visceral thing.

•  A few weeks after the election he writes at NRO that Rush was a very important part of the Republican party and its victories but that now one needed to avoid him.

As a poster at Contentions pointed out a while back it's a bit like Nietzsche's Ressentiment in opposite direction.  Frum can dance around the fact that the Iraq war was in large part responsible for many moderate republicans fleeing to re-register as dems, but it won't do him any good.  He was part of pushing the war effort.  I supported it.  I support it still, because I want our boys and us to win.  But it's not a popular effort.

Here's the thing that Frum -mortician and charismatically challenged- and his fellow travelers are angry about:   they are now married to the dems and Obama and will have to follow where he leads them.  I can't imagine that Frum voted for McCain.  I voted for the temperamental bastard, and not because of Palin either.  I admire the blowhard bipartisan whose turgor is always directed at conservatives.

If what drives moderates and independents is mainly offended tastes, Frum and his ilk are going to be frustrated and grow angrier.  I consider myself a social conservative because a solid moral order is indispensable to a nation, and without it fiscal conservatism falls to the wayside because a civilized society will try to pick up the slack of the disorder that occurs.  It's natural to do that, but it's not sustainable.

In short, Frum and Co. are pissed because they're married to the dems with possiblity for divorce is in sight.

 

Posted by: MLD at April 28, 2009 12:38 PM (n3G/k)

126 that should read with  no possiblity for divorce is in sight.

Posted by: MLD at April 28, 2009 12:43 PM (n3G/k)

127 It's game over.

The democrats have a filibuster proof majority and can pass whatever the hell they want, Show me an entitlement program that has been taken away once it has been started. Give me 1 example.

We are watching the systematic destruction of the USA by the people that "conservatives" were too busy calling each other "RINO's" to unite against and now the opposition, which has outsmarted and outworked us is busy consolidating it's power. Still, the lesson isn't learned and still the circular firing squad continues.

Bitching about Meghan McCain and purging everyone who doesn't follow your own personal litmus test is working sooooo well, isn't it?

Posted by: people suck at April 28, 2009 12:53 PM (z/8AK)

128 127 David is that you??

Posted by: steevy at April 28, 2009 01:05 PM (dzIYr)

129

Was Frum blogging from Sullivan's computer in Chaz Johnson's basement?

In short. Fuck Frum.

Posted by: Robert The Bruce at April 28, 2009 01:27 PM (FDomG)

130 I'm still not donating to the RNC if they give one dollar to Snowe or Collins.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at April 28, 2009 01:47 PM (UXMW8)

131 You know who pisses me off right about now? Hugh Hewitt. After shilling for Specter in 2004, now he talks about how he felt sure that Specter would be a reliable conservative vote when it most mattered. I remember listening to his show in 2004 thinking, "WTF??!!" when he was spewing this garbage during the primaries. The thing that is even more hilarious is that, at the time, he was also hawking one of his endless numbers of books, this one about the "New Permanent Republican Majority." I swear to god, the next pointy-haired conservative "intellectual" who opens his hole around me is going to get a kick a gonads. We have been sold down the river by our "leaders" and our "thinkers", and it is time to take the movement back. David

Posted by: Queen Davida WMD at April 28, 2009 01:49 PM (4DqDu)

132 the other problem with what frum is saying is that many minorities trend social conservative. hispanics, african americans, asians, all trend much more socially conservative on issues like gay marriage and abortion then the democratic party's current platform. while i could really careless personally about many of those social issues, it's apparent that much could be done to woo these constituents away over time. there would have to be considerable re-branding of the republican party though, because the media and pop culture has done a great job of turning us into the party of bigots and fiscal irresponsibility. there is a lot of work to do there. personally, i place sound economic policies before all else. but as far as specter goes - glad he's gone. he was a spend thrift even when he was a republican, so he might as well join the spending party instead of making the republicans look bad. i hope he loses re-election. we should try to do all we can to support the opponent. it's better to have a clear line of dileniation between opponents and friends - so see ya arlen! and don't let the door hit ya on the bum on the way out! or better yet, yeah, why don't ya let it hit ya...


Posted by: annak at April 28, 2009 01:50 PM (M4IOE)

133 “I want to be a member of a vibrant national Republican party that can attract people from all corners of the country — and we can govern the country from a center-right perspective.” What exactly would it stand for? Who cares what it stands for, as long as it's FAAABULOUS!

Posted by: richard mcenroe at April 28, 2009 01:51 PM (UXMW8)

134 No one who heard Frum on the phone with Mark Levin giggling while trying to justify himself can conclude he's anything but a total douchebag.

Posted by: kbdabear at April 28, 2009 02:07 PM (miw86)

135 128 127 David is that you??

Posted by: steevy at April 28, 2009 06:05 PM (dzIYr)

No... That you Rahm Emanuel?

Hey steevy, thanks for socialism..

Posted by: people suck at April 28, 2009 02:10 PM (z/8AK)

136

Bitching about Meghan McCain and purging everyone who doesn't follow your own personal litmus test is working sooooo well, isn't it?

Yeah. 

I call myself a conservative because I believe in Ownership vs Entitlement (crosses out Democrat) and I want a strong National Defense (crosses out Libertarian).  I support gay marriage (question mark next to Republican) and want to see a smaller Federal Government and more respect for State's Rights. 

 

RINO, Whatever.  Call me what you want, you're stuck with me because I don't really feel home anywhere else.

 

Posted by: Lauderdale at April 28, 2009 02:11 PM (BHkkI)

137

<i>the other problem with what frum is saying is that many minorities trend social conservative. hispanics, african americans, asians, all trend much more socially conservative</i>

I don't think this is true.  Black population has a 70% illegitimacy rate, Hispanic 50%, nationallly 41%.  Where can limited government come from with these numbers?  I don't think it's possible.  These are pathologies that the State, as father figure, either subsidizes or runs around in circles trying to find a solution to where there is none.

Buchanan may be nuts and anti-semitic, but his understanding of the balkanization of the Country is indisputable.  If you have to approach any minority with something akin to "what can I do as a republican to meet your hispanic needs?," you're now many out of one.  I don't think that's sustainable.

As an immigrant myself the ethos was a melting pot.  But that didn't mean you didn't keep and appreciate your own culture; it just meant that you recognized the unity of being an American.  The melting pot came to be replaced by the "salad," but that invites clashing flavors.  You can put everything and anything in a melting pot, not remotely so in a salad.

Every bit of it is a piece of warring consciousness.

Posted by: MLD at April 28, 2009 02:13 PM (n3G/k)

138

I've said this before but I'll post it here too:

Go to David Frum's newmajority.com and, in the Search box at the top of the page, type in "tea party."

You get...nada.

Posted by: Ken at April 28, 2009 02:18 PM (E77Hn)

139 Frum is an idiot he and the others are the main reason the Repubs are were they are, hey dumb ass here is a clue, your base is the foundation and will always be more conservative just ask the Dems their base are a bunch of slavering lunatics but their passion is very usefull so what do you do? You build a platform that appeals to your base ie... less govermnet, lower taxes, strong defense, balanced budget you know Conservative principals, these have good appeal to conservative base and then you build on that to get the fence sitters  instead you dumb asses insult the base and go after the "moderates" so who is making campaighn contributions and getting out the vote etc for you if not the base? The moderates yeah right, you know what Frum? You and your RINO's can go fuck yourselves we out here you know in flyover country will persavere and build the GOP back to it's conservative roots as each of you RINO POS's drop like flies in case you have not noticed we are hunkering down for the long cold ultra liberal winter ahead.

Posted by: Oldcrow at April 28, 2009 02:20 PM (ZLiWZ)

140 135 I voted for the old bastard.I supported his ass(with cash even)even though I was lukewarm on him at best.I wasn't voting for Zero or sitting it out.I did my best to convince other conservatives I knew to vote for McCain too.

Posted by: steevy at April 28, 2009 02:23 PM (dzIYr)

141

Put it this way:  the GOP can be either Toomey's GOP or Frum's GOP.

Toomey's GOP, best case scenario:  we get a brand new conservative majority and conservative president in 2012.  This is not as unlikely as it sounds.  Politics runs in 30 year cycles, and we are coming up on a conservative era, like the Eighties.  Often things reach rock bottom for conservatives in the elections just before they regain power:  Truman's unexpected victory in 1948 just before the Eisenhower era began (and yes I know that Ike wasn't a true conservative--although compared to Frum he might as well have been a Bircher--but he was considerably more so than the Dems who had held the Presidency for 20 years), and Watergate and the Carter victory in 1976, followed by the Reagan landslide in 1980.

Toomey's GOP, worst case scenario:  we stay between 40 and 47 percent for the near future.  We remain united and the Dems will be as cowardly on everything else as they are right now on guns.  The Dems may talk shit, but they won't start a civil war against a determined 46% of the nation.

Frum's GOP, best case scenario:  see "Arnold Schwarzenegger."

Frum's GOP, worst case scenario--and I have a nasty suspicion this is what he really wants:  no one in the Republican Party ever bothers to make a case for conservative principles, and they are forgotten.  They are quietly illegalized, and the few remaining conservatives are isolated and, ultimately, killed.

Pat Toomey in 2012.

Posted by: Ken at April 28, 2009 02:36 PM (E77Hn)

142

#136

Frum says he is in favor of everything you said, until a Dem. calls him out.

Specter claimed to be a fiscal conservative, but votes for every big spending bill that comes down the pipe.

Ron Paul says he wants a strong national defense, as long as no one gets hurt.

John McCain claims to love America, yet works diligently to destroy it by breaking our culture apart thur illegal immigration.

which one of those morons is your hero?

or wait, let me guess... you think Teddy Roosevelt was our greatest President.

progressivism will be purged from the Party or the Party will be destroyed.

why? because i'm not changing what i believe, and i'm also never going to take my eyes off these assholes again, ever.

 

Posted by: shoey at April 28, 2009 02:37 PM (RxUMK)

143 By which I mean, for President in 2012.  For Senate in 2010.

Posted by: Ken at April 28, 2009 02:38 PM (E77Hn)

144

#142:

I agree with what you're saying, but can we stop calling these people "progressive"?  Considering that almost all of them oppose nuclear power, and a significant proportion of them literally practice witchcraft (!), I think "progress" is the last thing they stand for.

Posted by: Ken at April 28, 2009 02:42 PM (E77Hn)

145

After some thinking, I have concluded that this probably helps Toomey.

If Specter had remained in the GOP, Toomey would have been nominated after a bruising primary battle.  Now, he will probably have little real opposition.

Specter is an incumbent in a year when incumbents will most likely not be popular; he is also an obvious snake in the grass.

Between the new and the old, the new will win.

Of course, it's possible that the Dems will get smart and give Specter the heave-ho, in which case it's up for grabs again.

Posted by: Ken at April 28, 2009 02:54 PM (E77Hn)

146

i call them progressive for two reasons, first, that's what they call themselves (until they think of something more deceptive to call themselves) and second, because by calling them progressives it connects all the dots clear back to T.R. and Wilson when this disease called "Progressivism"

besides these ppl always choose names for themselves that are the opposite of what they really believe.

in the beginning they called themselves Progressives until ppl got fed up with the hypocrisy of the name, then they started calling themselves liberals until ppl got fed up with that shit too, now they are back to calling themselves progressives because they think ppl have forgotten about the orginal Progressives and the freedom they took from us.

i haven't forgotten, i will never forget

i'm not rich, in fact by american standards i am poor (25k per year) but i don't consider myself a failure, it's the life i have chosen, i like it, i enjoy it, but it gets harder every year for me to live my life the way i want to, every year i feel like i am being forced ever closer to the soul-sucking abyss of State stewardship, if they pass National Health Care i will become a ward of the State whether i like it or not.

I hate the Government, i want it as far away from me as possible, and i don't want the Government in charge of the things I need to survive and i shouldn't have to go out and make 500k a year just to remain free of the State (still wouldn't be anyway)

Posted by: shoey at April 28, 2009 03:08 PM (RxUMK)

147 #18, #23, etc - go read National Review online where they are all lamenting the Arlen move (apparently having the R next to the name is more important than how they vote) and ripping the Club for Growth.  And they are the leading conservative media source?  I don't think so.

Posted by: aww at April 28, 2009 03:13 PM (xK9oO)

148

I'm aware of the history of the "progressive" movement.  The problem is that there really is a thing correctly called "progress," and it is technological progress.  It is this real progress that has given mankind every boon of the last five hundred years, not the phony "social" progress that is really just mass slavery.  It is no wonder that the hard-core leftists reject technological progress; they are, after all, idle aristocrats who live off of others, and these parasites have always been the least benefitted by technology (since many peasants could do the job almost as well as a few machines, and as long as they were out in the fields, they had less time to assert their rights).

Posted by: Ken at April 28, 2009 03:21 PM (E77Hn)

149

i agree that the collectivists hijacked the word "progress" at the time they did it, it made perfect sense, why not hitch a regressive political philosophy to the technological advances of the times by stealing one of it's buzz words?

this is what they (collectivists of all stripes) always do rob, cheat, steal and lie.

guess i just like making them eat their own words, i plan on ragging on the "progressive" label until they stop it, just like we kept ragging on the word "liberal" until they stopped using it.

when we keep it simple, smart and true to our principles, we win, we lose when we listen to ppl like Frum and Specter.

Posted by: shoey at April 28, 2009 03:37 PM (RxUMK)

150 Just two words....Joe Lieberman. Do you the net roots were right to ride him out on the rails? No. But, it didn't really affect them too much either - they still won in 2006 and 2008.

Posted by: Harun at April 28, 2009 03:44 PM (y7p+1)

151

Frum=Specter.

 

What kind of party can you get with these two?  Progressive Party.

Posted by: Vladmir Putin at April 28, 2009 04:12 PM (0Qynq)

152

@53 & 74:

Re: the Jose Padilla case;

How I wish he was imprisoned for something more than a whim! Truth is, he was held in prison for something like 6 years before he was even charged, and only then because of vigorous lawsuits demanding that he be charged or released.

This is my concern about the modern conservative movement- it wants to restrain all the functions of government except the one most important, the power of the government to imprison people.

Giving the government nearly unlimited power seems pretty much the opposite of traditional conservative thought.

From my favorite conservative:

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" 

Posted by: ChipD at April 28, 2009 05:23 PM (nWYl8)

153

#154

i agree and would add:

however hard it might be for some to accept, the Founders designed the system around this simple idea "better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be wrongly convicted"

what that means in everyday life is: the only safety you have is the safety you create for yourself"

it's the Government's job to "promote the general welfare" not make sure you are tucked into bed every night safe and sound.

Posted by: shoey at April 28, 2009 05:40 PM (RxUMK)

154

I think that's about right. The thing we feared -- and the thing we'd hoped to avoid by following Frumian logic -- has now come to pass. There may have been good arguments for purity vs. pragmatism before, but it seems that decision has been made for us. Purity it is.

Wow, The conclusion is only at least three years too late.

Frumian Logic? an oxymoron for the head moron.

Seen alot of this lately, better late than never, I guess.

Posted by: Awnree at April 28, 2009 05:41 PM (eH8Cv)

155 I am sick and tired of all this "the conservatives drove Spector out" crap with the implications that ol Arlen wasn't right on abortion, gay marriage and every other social issue and that is why we turned on him.  The social issues had nothing to do with it - it was his complete sell-out on the so-called stimulas bill.  Son of a bitch, if we are not at least in favor of smaller government, less spending and lower taxes, than why have a Republican party. Lots of social conservatives held their nose and voted for Spector.  But instead of realizing this, the Frums and MSM of the world will go on and on about how the Republicans are too right wing, too pro-gun, anti-choice, ect. ect. to marginalize conservatives.  If they want ol Mr. Not Proven - they can have him.  Spector was neither a Republican or Democrat, he is the founding member of the Spector party.  Screw him.

Posted by: Malamutt at April 28, 2009 06:06 PM (5BH2X)

156

Ah, David Frum.  Screaming incoherently from the phone booth in which every single "conservative" who agrees with him fits comfortably, with room to spare for the wet bar, walk-in humidor, and even Meghan McCain's ass.

You know, David, either this country is governed by the distinctly conservative principles under which its founders explicitly designed it to be governed, or it can be reduced to smoldering ash for all I care.  I'm not living in a Eurotrash slave state so we can all bask equally in the anesthesized, subsistence-level comforts of every other socialist ant colony.

Let Arlen go off and invoke Scottish Law with the rest of the self-serving scumbags in the glorious new majority.

Posted by: VJay at April 29, 2009 07:23 AM (gQ+XA)

157 I like this post and I'm sure people would do much more than just read, they act. Great stuff here. Please keep it up....Mercedes-Benz Mobil Mewah Terbaik Indonesia::Meriahkan pesta ulang tahun bersama GarudaFood::Mari Berkomunitas Di Faceblog

Posted by: Mercedes-Benz at June 02, 2011 09:43 PM (xJe3c)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
176kb generated in CPU 0.23, elapsed 1.6528 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.5146 seconds, 393 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.