Quote of the day
posted at 8:45 pm on March 7, 2009 by Allahpundit
“Notice that Limbaugh did not say: ‘I hope the administration’s liberal plans fail.’ Or (better): ‘I know the administration’s liberal plans will fail.’ Or (best): ‘I fear that this administration’s liberal plans will fail, as liberal plans usually do.’ If it had been phrased that way, nobody could have used Limbaugh’s words to misrepresent conservatives as clueless, indifferent or gleeful in the face of the most painful economic crisis in a generation. But then, if it had been phrased that way, nobody would have quoted his words at all—and as Limbaugh himself said, being ‘headlined’ was the point of the exercise. If it had been phrased that way, Limbaugh’s face would not now be adorning the covers of magazines. He phrased his hope in a way that drew maximum attention to himself, offered maximum benefit to the administration and did maximum harm to the party he claims to support…
In the days since I stumbled into this controversy, I’ve received a great deal of e-mail. (Most of it on days when Levin or Hannity or Hugh Hewitt or Limbaugh himself has had something especially disobliging to say about me.) Most of these e-mails say some version of the same thing: if you don’t agree with Rush, quit calling yourself a conservative and get out of the Republican Party. There’s the perfect culmination of the outlook Rush Limbaugh has taught his fans and followers: we want to transform the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan into a party of unanimous dittoheads—and we don’t care how much the party has to shrink to do it. That’s not the language of politics. It’s the language of a cult.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next »
Well the more standardized the use of the commodity and the more stable the supply lines the better. I agree on the benefit of having an essentially finite supply, but it’s important that the value isn’t up to swings in demand as well as swings in supply.
galenrox on March 8, 2009 at 12:59 AM
Kryptonite is only harmful to liberals. I think AP just feels sorry for their suffering, is all.
FloatingRock on March 8, 2009 at 1:02 AM
Once again the abortion argument is being allowed to be framed by the liberals. They all want abortion on demand but then argue for abortion in the case of rape against Republicans. See they promote their more moderate postion to campaign AGAINST republicans while always holding their absolute postion that isn’t debated or when it is they lie.
This postion will flip to the Republicans arguing the moderate position after Obama gets his abortion on demand back and repeals partial birth abortion.
Next time around it won’t be Republicans defending no abortion under any circumstances it will democrats trying to defend drilling the top of a fetus skill and sucking out the brains. If that practice comes back.
I am not trying to make a point about abortion but what Frum and others don’t realize is the playing field is changing as we speak to one where they are the one’s who can be defined as the totalitarians and we can be the one’s seeking a middle ground like no partial birth abortion.
This goes for other issues and doesn’t require a softening on any issue.
We won’t be defending tax cuts for the rich they will be defending carbon taxes on EVERYBODY
No need to panic wait for the (unfortunate)pendulum to swing and rephrase the debate of what people in the middle DON”T LIKE about the liberals agenda. Can you say Change?
Conan on March 8, 2009 at 1:03 AM
All too easy. I hope that wasn’t your clincher. Wait, it was?
geckomon on March 8, 2009 at 1:05 AM
If I misunderstood your point, then I apologize for the mistake, just please clarify that if those weren’t the basis for your claim that he’s significantly to the left of Michelle than what was?
And so you’ve gotta go along with everything Frum’s about in order to say he’s got a point in something he said? I don’t buy a word of his big government conservatism crap, but I thought he made a hell of strong case for Bush’s foreign policy in Foreign Policy magazine, would that make me qualify as a Frumper?
galenrox on March 8, 2009 at 1:05 AM
If by feeling sorry you mean, likes to poke them in their rather blind eye, then yes I do believe you are correct.
doriangrey on March 8, 2009 at 1:06 AM
Conan on March 8, 2009 at 1:03 AM
That was my point….Obama is most definitely an authoritarian. Americans don’t like authoritarians. If the GOP will champion voters’ rights to make these decisions on a state by state level instead of a national, one-size-fits-all mandate, it’s a winner.
If the GOP continues to demand a national abortion ban, it’s just one form of authoritarianism vs another.
funky chicken on March 8, 2009 at 1:09 AM
Apparently according to AP and Frum. Conversely of course.
geckomon on March 8, 2009 at 1:10 AM
Bishop on March 7, 2009 at 11:44 PM
I can’t argue against someone I agree with LOL.
FontanaConservative on March 8, 2009 at 1:11 AM
Frumty Dumbty sat on a wall.
Frumty Dumbty had a great fall.
FloatingRock on March 8, 2009 at 1:12 AM
I wasn’t aware that a ban on premeditated murder would be considered authoritarianism.
Your argument may be better served with a less shaky example.
geckomon on March 8, 2009 at 1:13 AM
That’s not true. I’ll give you a simple example – Not allowing any growth in the money supply, at all. If we had a set amount of dollars (fiat) and never allowed any more to be printed, we would never have monetary inflation.
Now, of course that is not reasonable, as we would like to have some measure of price stability, and that requires a monetary base that grows commensurate with the creation of wealth, but I put it up to start at one extreme.
On the side of having the currency tied to a physical, that is also not foolproof. Then you have the future of the currency determined, in large part, by that physical. So, if it were gold and all of a sudden a gigantic lode is found (humungous!), then we would experience an extreme monetary inflation even with the hard physical. On the opther side, if we required an expanding monetary base, but had no more gold, then we would suffer from an effective monetary contraction (not in absolute terms, obviously, but as compared with available wealth and resources) from nothing but the vaguaries of mining gold.
I am for a fiat currency with a strict set of rules governing its creation and handling (as was the Fed’s only real task, which it floated away from to muck about in the economy – for a variety of reasons). There will be many risks in this (as we are now experiencing) but they are best handled through competition between various currencies (as independent as possible) rather than putting a hard backing on ours.
I’d rather we were in total control of our currency than having to rely on the specific scarcity/availability of a physical to give it value. If we screw it up, then that’s just our fault.
progressoverpeace on March 8, 2009 at 1:16 AM
Red, green, or gold?
Mojave Mark on March 8, 2009 at 1:17 AM
David Frum tows his Newsweek magazine talking points…he sounds off once again about we have to stop listening to Rush: oh wait…Obama’s talking point.
Yes David, of course you’re a conservative, because like David Gergin you were once a speech writer for a Republican president.
David Frum is about as conservative as Arlen Spector.
aigle on March 8, 2009 at 1:19 AM
funky chicken claimed:
“It’s hard to sell the idea that the GOP is for freedom of choice when one marqee issue is abortion, especially when most Americans are moderately pro-choice, meaning that they just don’t want politicians telling them what to do.”
MOST Americans recognize that abortion is the violent murder of an innocent baby boy or girl. Many have seen what abortion really is caught on video or in images.
This is the information that the Frumster doesn’t want anyone to see, otherwise Frum’s promotion of making the GOP more PRO-ABORTION (as he made clear at the end of the discussion with Mark Levin) will fail.
http://www.abortionno.org
FYI – I show this graphic information to 1,000s of people each day online every day and I save at least an average of one baby per week as a result of that influence.
Someone needs to send images of aborted babies to Frum with a quote from him about wanting the GOP to be soft on abortion.
TheMightyQuinn on March 8, 2009 at 1:20 AM
I’m talking about Frum’s big government idea’s on domestic policy. His pro-global warming, pro-abortion ideas, etc, etc. Democrat lite.
Kjeil on March 8, 2009 at 1:21 AM
Which is pretty much why we went off the gold standard. The amount of gold worldwide is relativly small whereas the number of humans is not so small. Basically somebody realized that there just wasnt enough gold to go around.
doriangrey on March 8, 2009 at 1:21 AM
There’s no plausible sign that a nationwide ban on abortion could be implemented anytime soon. The switch can’t be flipped that easily, it will require time. I agree with Funky on this, Federalism is the better approach in the short term. If you can’t achieve it all at once, do it in steps—or take a gamble and wait patiently as the decades pass hoping that circumstances will change. But they might not.
FloatingRock on March 8, 2009 at 1:22 AM
Yes. Not just number of humans, but value of the total wealth and services that existed, compounded by the situation that the dollar was the only currency tied to the dollar, with everyone else tied to us.
progressoverpeace on March 8, 2009 at 1:26 AM
O.K. heres a random topic to discuss. Lets start a fundraiser for Palin’s PAC by bashing a car with a bat: $1:00 per swing. All in favor of using Bishop’s vehical say aye.
(nothing personal Bishop, just throwing it out there)
FontanaConservative on March 8, 2009 at 1:28 AM
Your analogy is like saying if everyone drove the speed limit we wouldn’t need speed traps. It is true and correct.
And in a perfect world we wouldn’t need hard currencies. But we live in an imperfect world in which Obama has just spent $7 trillion in 6 weeks almost guaranteeing hyperinflation within the next decade.
angryed on March 8, 2009 at 1:28 AM
Well, yeah, in theory you could avoid most inflation if the process of expanding the money supply were sufficiently structured against ever doing so, cause you’ve also gotta deal with the inflation arising from expected likelihood expansions in the money supply. I guess the question it comes down to is whether you think it’s likely enough that issues of expanding the money supply can be insulated from those of populist persuasion, even when they would spend us into insolvency, or whether you’d do better to just take it out of their hands entirely. I mean, ultimately there’s no way to guarantee no inflation. If you’ve got one commodity backing the currency it’s all tied to all future changes in the supply and demand of that commodity, if you have a basket of generally stable-valued commodities you’d have to develop a mechanism for replacing commodities if their value ever ceased to be stable, and that mechanism would inevitably be abused by those that wish to manipulate the value of the currency, and if you have a free floating currency then you have all the risk coming from the possibility of printing more of the currency, and so you’ve just gotta decide which sort of inflation is least likely. I’d say I like the idea of institutional mechanisms to keep politicians away from manipulating currency values combined with backing the currency with a basket of commodities like gold would be best, but a lot of it’s a matter of opinion.
galenrox on March 8, 2009 at 1:28 AM
I agree. It wouldn’t be. But it would seem that way to many, and if it were any other topic they’d be right. That’s why it is difficult to sway public opinion on the issue, although I think that some progress has been made. Since it appears that in recent decades they’ve maintained a majority, any headway in this area will need to be incremental. I realize that the pro-life movement doesn’t like this but it’s the world we presently live in and needs to be accounted for.
Federalism is the most viable means to speed up progress on life issues.
FloatingRock on March 8, 2009 at 1:30 AM
funky chicken on March 8, 2009 at 1:09 AM
I just want to be sure you understand my point is that the party out of power has to defend their WHOLE position to the very extreme. The Democrats have done such a good job that even you funky chicken think that the debate is at the extremes of the prolife position when in fact if you look at the line it isn’t even close to a reversal of Roe vs Wade.
The debate will be reframed now. It will make no sense to those choosing in the middle if Democrats point to an postion like no abortion in the case of rape when on the Floor of the Congress they have been debating the Freedom of Choice Act.
You won’t even score any points talking about abortion in the case of rape because it is so far from the current debate. Ironically we all forget but the democrats will have to start putting up. Think Gays in the Military for Bill Clinton. Was that an issue discussed under Republicans? No. We are entering an era where the debate is how left does the middle want to go and we shouldn’t worry about issues on the right that moderates disagree with us about becuase they are effectively off the table for now and NEW ones from the left ARE ON THE TABLE.
Conan on March 8, 2009 at 1:30 AM
I was not aware that the GOP had any such demand. As far as I know, the GOP is anti-Roe, leaving the states to decide for themselves about abortion (as the determination of the beginning of life belongs in the same place that the determination of the end of life resides – the states). As to whether anyone is pro or anti-abortion is a state-level issue.
But, when GOPers do address the nationwide issue of abortion, they tend to do it in the correct manner, by proposing a Constitutional amendment (a la Huckabee).
Me, I’m very, very anti-Roe (as it is a piss-poor decision based on fairy tales and elves in the Constitution), but don’t have much of an opinion on abortion, as relates to federal governance, other than it doesn’t belong there, at all.
progressoverpeace on March 8, 2009 at 1:31 AM
David Frum and his ilk watch videos like that and masturbate as if they were watching porno.
doriangrey on March 8, 2009 at 1:32 AM
O.K. heres a random topic to discuss. Lets start a fundraiser for Palin’s PAC by bashing a car with a bat: $1:00 per swing. All in favor of using
Bishopgetalife’s vehical say aye.FIFM
This could be better
FontanaConservative on March 8, 2009 at 1:33 AM
Maybe I’m newer to the site than you and I’ve missed something, but is AP pro-choice and pro-cap and trade, cause I haven’t noticed that.
And pro-global warming? Do you really think it’s wise to make one’s opinion as to which climatological model is the most accurate an issue of partisan orthodoxy? I don’t like cap and trade, or most environmental regulations, but once you’ve gotta start considering things other than science in deciding which science is the most accurate I start to get nervous. And presuming two issues outweigh all of the others seems like a surefire way to make sure we never are in the majority again, cause coalitions are built around people who agree on most things, not everything.
galenrox on March 8, 2009 at 1:34 AM
Not exactly, but I freely admit that I started with an unrealistic example just to establish one end of the argument.
Now, here we have problems with fiscal policy. The government can still go into debt, with or without a hard currency. There are other controls that need to be established for fiscal policy, but they are separate from the monetary issue. There are some interrelations, but they are essentially separate.
progressoverpeace on March 8, 2009 at 1:35 AM
DUDE
angryed on March 8, 2009 at 1:35 AM
Heh heh heh I was going to suggest we use Allah’s car, but what beta male from New York owns a car… ;p
doriangrey on March 8, 2009 at 1:35 AM
Is that an odd Karma Chameleon reference?
disillusioned on March 8, 2009 at 1:36 AM
If the GOP’s only strategy for winning is to embrace, or at least condone abortion, then they have lost my vote. I will abstain.
jimmy the notable on March 8, 2009 at 1:36 AM
doriangrey on March 8, 2009 at 1:35 AM
Ha, sad but true.
FontanaConservative on March 8, 2009 at 1:37 AM
You’re right. What I omitted was the fact that once this money is spent, the only way to pay it back is by hyper inflating the currency….which with a hard currency, could not be done.
angryed on March 8, 2009 at 1:37 AM
Nah, I don’t want to smash his moms car. Maybe it’s not her fault…
FloatingRock on March 8, 2009 at 1:38 AM
Good call. AP may be more of the Peter Parker type.
disillusioned on March 8, 2009 at 1:38 AM
Besides which God is already obviously punishing her by having forced her to have a baby… That refuses to grow up….
doriangrey on March 8, 2009 at 1:40 AM
If that doesn’t deserve a rimshot, I don’t know what does. Bravo, good sir.
galenrox on March 8, 2009 at 1:40 AM
I agree that that’s exactly the question.
That’s a very reasonable position. It’s not exactly my preference (I still lean to a pure fiat currency with only abstract, institutional controls) but some sort of structure along the line you describe is pretty good.
progressoverpeace on March 8, 2009 at 1:41 AM
Exactly. It’s something that need to be massaged back into the national skin. If we’re gradual about it, they won’t draw back immediately. What we need to do is appeal to the most immediate positives that federalist approaches would bring after an election. Once people start returning to the idea of self-reliance, before long, the abortion debate will be much easier to approach and push forth on.
MadisonConservative on March 8, 2009 at 1:41 AM
Deathtomediahacks car??? capitulus’ car??? I don’t know there has to be some troll’s car we can total for money and venting.
FontanaConservative on March 8, 2009 at 1:43 AM
Personally I lean towards a fiat currency predicated upon the value of an hours labor by the least skilled worker.
doriangrey on March 8, 2009 at 1:44 AM
I nominate Drywall.
jimmy the notable on March 8, 2009 at 1:45 AM
I nominate benny shakar with Drywall as a backup.
MadisonConservative on March 8, 2009 at 1:46 AM
Right. But I am of the mind that we could stop that same monetary inflation through rules governing currency production just as easily … well, almost as easily :)
We are in total agreement that some form of restrictions need to be in place to ensure the stability of our currency. Hard backing is a sure way to achieve that (again, assuming that no super-lode is ever found, though galenrox’s idea takes care of that, to some extent), but I think we can do it with rules which allow for better economic growth (without destabilizing the currency at all).
In either case, if the politicians spend it all (and then some) then there’s either hyperinflatino or a default coming. Fiscal policy DEFINITELY needs some restrictions put on it, but that is a much thornier issue, I think.
progressoverpeace on March 8, 2009 at 1:47 AM
jimmy the notable on March 8, 2009 at 1:45 AM
I nominate Karl Marx’s car (if he is still around). If not I nominate capitilus.
FontanaConservative on March 8, 2009 at 1:47 AM
Anythings possible…
FloatingRock on March 8, 2009 at 1:48 AM
I definitely see merit in where you’re coming from, because if you take away the possibility of the government expanding the money supply a fiat currency is far better as it isn’t subject to the seemingly random factors which influence the supply and demand of any commodity. As I see it, if there’s any means to print more money, which realistically has to be there in some way, then that option will exist to avoid fiscal insolvency and the government will spend accordingly. When you have a basket of commodities with the means of maximizing independence of managing the float minimizes the influence of the populists on the money supply while minimizing the influence of random market factors through diversification (but I guess the other side of the coin is that it would be susceptible to both inflation from the populists and inflation from the markets).
Eh, it’d be better if we could just count on the government to just respect the significance of monetary and fiscal discipline, but c’est la vie.
galenrox on March 8, 2009 at 1:50 AM
I’m pretty sure thats the one thing we can count on them never doing.
doriangrey on March 8, 2009 at 1:51 AM
A balanced budget amendment would do the trick.
angryed on March 8, 2009 at 1:53 AM
Yeah, I’m holding out for that like I’m holding out for Santa Clause to answer my letters I wrote when I was little.
galenrox on March 8, 2009 at 1:54 AM
Yea right…../s
doriangrey on March 8, 2009 at 1:54 AM
I’m all for it, hell, you could even throw in a clause that allows a 1 year deficit if it’s offset in the next year by an equal + interest surplus the next year to appease the Keynesians and it’d be a head and shoulders over the ad hoc fiscal policy we’ve got now.
galenrox on March 8, 2009 at 1:57 AM
Except that that supposes that politicians would actually, you know follow the law.
doriangrey on March 8, 2009 at 1:59 AM
Only if it was enforced by Skynet. If humans are involved somebody will eventually screw it up.
FloatingRock on March 8, 2009 at 1:59 AM
How often does AP or Ed tell someone to stop posting off topic posts. I went back to the Terms of Use policy to see if I violated anything. Call me a noob, but I want to stay on their good side.
FontanaConservative on March 8, 2009 at 2:00 AM
Yeah, it would work about as well as the Second Amendment worked in DC the last 30 years.
MadisonConservative on March 8, 2009 at 2:02 AM
Well it might not work 100%, but it would at least make the swine on Capitol Hill work a little harder to spend my great grandkids’ money.
angryed on March 8, 2009 at 2:03 AM
I don’t want to end up like SaintOlaf.
FontanaConservative on March 8, 2009 at 2:03 AM
Pretty much never that I recall. If people are having fun and posting that’s what really matters, I think. When a thread is old or late at night, especially on weekends, it’s common for people to treat them as open threads, although it’s best not to hijack a thread unless everybody else seems to be OK with it.
That’s just my opinion, though.
FloatingRock on March 8, 2009 at 2:04 AM
Thanks for the reassurance, even if it is just a guess.
FontanaConservative on March 8, 2009 at 2:06 AM
I’d agree to that, although there should be a national emergency clause with fairly specific standards, such as war.
But such a clause, which is important, IMO, would be abused. For somebody like Obama everything would become a war.
FloatingRock on March 8, 2009 at 2:06 AM
I would tend to agree with that opinion, but I’ve only been here a couple three years so what would I know…. ;p
doriangrey on March 8, 2009 at 2:07 AM
It would certainly go a long way to keeping things in line and keeping the size of the federal government small. I am also in agreement with FloatingRock’s emergency clauses additions.
The big wild card would still be THE COURTS!! They seem to have a penchant for making rulings that cost scads of money, and they don’t care at all about it. But that’s a topic for another day.
With that, I’m calling it a night. Thanks, folks. Very good discussions.
progressoverpeace on March 8, 2009 at 2:14 AM
Back to the topic of Rush as a spokesman for Republicans. I find in quite looney to think so. Looney may be a good reference here seeing how well the Canadian conservative party is doing. Relegating themselves to a continual minority party is not the way. I’ve heard various calls here for Republicans to break ranks between RINO’s and conservatives, but that’ll really acheive nothing but many more sour years of Dem control. I’m not claiming to have an answer here, but I don’t see Rush leading any charge. I don’t disagree with some of his fiscal conservative thinking, but just the method used for explaination.
disillusioned on March 8, 2009 at 2:18 AM
If it’s a fresh thread with a lot of activity, though, most people tend to stay on topic or on a related topic. It’s best not to go off topic then unless, for example, you’re bringing up some interesting news that just hit the wire that you think people might want to be made aware of.
FloatingRock on March 8, 2009 at 2:19 AM
FloatingRock on March 8, 2009 at 3:19 AM
Got it. So just go with flow of the thread, stay on topic, and if the time is right or something comes up I can write something new without interfering with other people’s ability to post on topic with the current thread. Does this sound right?
FontanaConservative on March 8, 2009 at 2:25 AM
Sounds about right to me. :)
FloatingRock on March 8, 2009 at 2:30 AM
FloatingRock on March 8, 2009 at 3:30 AM
Alright, well good night y’all from California.
FontanaConservative on March 8, 2009 at 2:32 AM
No, there are multiple varieties of kryptonite. Red, green, and gold kryptonite. I don’t know what the gold kryptonite does, but red makes Superman change personality, and green weakens or kills him.
Don’t you watch Smallville?
Frivolous on March 8, 2009 at 2:33 AM
I’ve never seen anyone reprimanded for going off-topic. Unless you are spamming, pretty much anything goes at HA. I mean, look at the post at the top of this page:
What the hell is this guy talking about? I have no clue, and I can’t imagine how its related to Rush. But it doesn’t seem to bother that many people.
jimmy the notable on March 8, 2009 at 2:35 AM
Oh, and you have a lot of flexibility responding to trolls. :)
Goodnight
FloatingRock on March 8, 2009 at 2:36 AM
My last post (for real, this time!)
Here’s what happened:
Someone wrote that Rush was a big supporter of the Bush family.
I said that that was a case where I disagreed with Rush because I found the Bush family to be globalists and I despise globalists. This was offered as a counter-example to AP’s claim that us Rush supporters agree with him on everything, all cult-like.
Then, someone asked if I was a Paul-nut, because I found globalists to be dangerous people. I said, “No,” but I respected some of his ideas, like his monetary views, though I was against hard currencies. It took off from there.
progressoverpeace on March 8, 2009 at 2:40 AM
And if pressed you could always say that the root of the argument about Rush is the direction of the Republican Party, and monetary policy is one facet of that equation, as is abortion.
And the comments above about raising money by smashing GetALife’s car were funny, and people like to laugh at trolls.
FloatingRock on March 8, 2009 at 2:40 AM
Good point. There tend to be spin off conversations as a thread evolves.
There are so many exceptions, no wonder staying on topic isn’t enforced.
Besides, none of this had anything to do with SaintOlaf’s unpopularity.
FloatingRock on March 8, 2009 at 2:50 AM
Rush Limbaugh is TOO PRO-LIFE and TOO ANTI-GLOBAL WARMING for the Frumster to regard him as a spokesperson for Conservatism.
And by “Conservatism”, I mean the brand of Conservatism which Frum thinks should be promoted and marketed.
Frum’s “conservatism” = Democrat-lite (like McCain but more liberal). Yes, Frum wants a Republican MORE LIBERAL THAN MCCAIN to run for president in 2012.
That conclusion is inescapable based upon what Frum said in the discussion with Levin.
TheMightyQuinn on March 8, 2009 at 3:41 AM
I’ve been a Dittohead for 17 years and I can’t think of a single person that thinks Rush is always right, including myself.
Jenfidel on March 8, 2009 at 3:50 AM
Did someone hijack Allahpundit’s login?
Or did he just go off the deep end and decide that both sides have no evidence, no facts, and no logic and this is a “my god is realer than your god” type argument?
Hey AP, nice job. I think you’ve pretty much insulted everyone who has posted on any economic/stimulus based thread in the past couple months.
gekkobear on March 8, 2009 at 3:57 AM
Thanks for making me cry… I wouldn’t say I am the most anti-abortion person out there… but damn.
Ampersand on March 8, 2009 at 4:01 AM
If you had followed those threads you’d realize that some here do know enough.
FloatingRock on March 8, 2009 at 4:06 AM
I though “oddball” was a character from Kelly’s Hero’s
Allah,
With all due respect – its an honor and a priviledge to watch you tangle with the masses here
Rush is allways right in debating the democrats – that being said – he sucks at juuuust about everything else
EricPWJohnson on March 8, 2009 at 4:25 AM
There’s a fine line to walk here. I don’t think it’s wise to go bash Rush, Coulter & co. because they seems too inflammatory. Let the left do that. Even if the above mentioned can have strong statements from time to time, most conservatives don’t disagree with the substance or at least some of the substance. Although we should feel free to disagree with each other, as you mention, we should foster conservative ideas and principles. Pointing out every one of Rush’s flaws doesn’t produce the ideas needed.
Gingrich has been at least trying to come up with conservative solutions to the problems we face. He even talks of making the tent bigger, but he does this in a non-”Steelean” way. He believes that conservative principles can be attractive to conservative democrats and moderate/centrist voters.
Upstater85 on March 8, 2009 at 4:36 AM
Oh, look, an anti-Limbaugh article, and oh, look, it’s written by a guy condemned by actual conservatives. I mean, you can always count on David Frum to provide a sincere analysis of a political issue. Bringing up Limbaugh’s weight and drug use like the trolls we get right here? That’s the kind of hard-hitting insights that he must surely be paid thousands for. Oh, he chose a nice picture, too. Makes Rush look hideous.
Can’t wait for the next “Ohnoes, Limbaugh is exploading the partey” post, AP. Wonder who the author’s going to be. Cindy Sheehan? Robo-Lenin? Obama?
R. Waher on March 8, 2009 at 4:44 AM
When people like Brooks, Frum, Parker, C. Buckley, and the like set out to tell us how to “redefine the conservative brand,” I wonder why we would entrust those who were never fully on board with conservative ideas ought be the ones we consult about the movement’s future.
`
Any idiot could understand what Limbaugh meant by “I hope he fails.” Anyone who could not is too stupid to worry over.
`
The left knowingly distorts his meaning, and limp-wristed, weak-kneed pseudo-conservatives scramble to “nuance” his words and criticize him for not being sufficiently mealy-mouthed.
`
It’s okay if someone doesn’t want to be a conservative. It’s a free country. But it is rather nauseating when self-described “conservatives” perform their obeisances to the altars of political correctness and the One True Path of Moderation.
`
Go blow it out yer old wazoo.
Adjoran on March 8, 2009 at 5:09 AM
I don’t give a rat’s backside how he said it, he’s right and he’s the only one with guts enough to tell it like it is.
rplat on March 8, 2009 at 6:03 AM
I don’t give a rat’s backside how he said it, he’s right and he’s the only one with guts enough to tell it like it is.
rplat on March 8, 2009 at 6:03 AM
I don’t give a rat’s backside how he said it, he’s right and he’s the only one with guts enough to tell it like it is.
rplat on March 8, 2009 at 6:04 AM
I would like to state three points very clearly:
First, Rush Limbaugh is not a spokesman for the Republican party, he is a spokesman for conservatism. The Republican Party has not been truly conservative since Newt Gingrich was declared persona non grata. So Rush does not speak for Republicans or the Republican Party.
Second, the Republican Party is enduring this crisis because they have a void of conservative leadership and talent in critical places within the party. I am not saying there is no leadership or talent in the Republican Party. I am saying that the people that are running it right now either have no talent or leadership qualities, or they are not conservative. The “moderate” Republicans are about consolidation of power. So they attempt to marginalize conservatives in in the Republican party to do that. So Rush is currently filling the void that they have left for the conservative Republicans.
Third, no amount of arguing or attempting to marginalize Rush will matter. Most conservatives are pretty savvy about what being a conservative means. We will not accept a moderate in conservative clothing, as we have been getting from the Republicans for a long time now. If the party will not give us an official spokesman then you deserve having Rush set your image and agenda for you. It is being done out of the incompetent management of the party not because of some power play.
Hawthorne on March 8, 2009 at 6:16 AM
Wonder how many of the commenters actually read the whole article….
Bradky on March 8, 2009 at 7:18 AM
David Frum is a querulous douche.
Jim Treacher on March 8, 2009 at 7:19 AM
Rush is not the leader of the Republican party. However, he is the leading voice of the conservative movement in America. I agree with him most of the time, certainly more often than I agree with faux conservatives like Frum, Brooks, Noonan, or Allahpundit.
By the way, when I say he is leading voice of the conservative movement, don’t just take my word for it:
Dear Rush,
Thanks for all you’re doing to promote Republican and conservative principles. Now that I’ve retired from active politics, I don’t mind that you have become the Number One voice for conservatism in our Country.
I know the liberals call you “the most dangerous man in America,” but don’t worry about it, they used to say the same thing about me. Keep up the good work. America needs to hear the way things ought to be.”
Sincerely, Ron
Phildorex on March 8, 2009 at 7:46 AM
Pretty big balls for someone who fell for the language of the cult of “Yes we can” to bemoan the so-called cult language of others.
JimRich on March 8, 2009 at 8:19 AM
Bravo! Frum sounds like an idiot claiming to have all the ideas to save the GOP in 2012, when he has no idea what exactly the political landscape is going to be. Who is he to assume that Obama won’t overreach, making Rush the moderate one of the two? If, by 2012 we are all living off of rationed food, with our guns taken away, and having the government sending everybody to seminars on how to correct our thought patterns, we would be better off identifying with Rush rather than trying to figure out how to be more like the socialists.
Joe Caps on March 8, 2009 at 9:07 AM
I HOPE HE FAILS.
“He” being the indisputably Marxist President we just elected.
The One who just spent a few trillion dollars as a down payment on socialized medicine, on liberal spending programs that Democrats have been after for a decade and nationalizing the auto and banking industries.
“He” who has promised to “make energy prices skyrocket” with his stiff environmental taxes, and is making good on those promises now, even though people are losing jobs and their life savings.
“He” who squandered political capital during an economic crisis, so he could attack a radio personality instead of solving our country’s problems.
“He” who was too “tired” or drunk to properly receive our strongest ally, someone who’s favor he should cultivate as a NATO ally while we’re at war in Afghanistan but who was instead treated like any of “190 other countries,” in the words of a State Dept official who “reacted with fury.” I know I certainly expect a diplomat to react that way first.
I am embarrassed for my country, and I want this President to fail, if he insists on “remaking” America. I don’t share this vision of his, and I never will.
I BELIEVE IN A FREE AMERICA BEFORE I BELIEVE IN OBAMA.
chunderroad on March 8, 2009 at 9:29 AM
Why should they? Frump’s a lightweight.
chunderroad on March 8, 2009 at 9:32 AM
I didn’t have an extra hour to read through all the comments, so forgive me if I repeat other’s thoughts; This is all so stupid. AP tosses out a bucket of chum while using his own snarky tone and HA gets several hundred comments defending Rush Limbaugh- Get over it AP. We like Rush, we agree with him, you can pick apart his words, you can second guess how it SHOULD have been said, you can call him an “entertainer”, but the bottom line is, he speaks for most of us. If I had his ability to articulate my thoughts, I’d never shut up! He’s not wrong, and the left’s twisted panties are proof enough of that.
anniekc on March 8, 2009 at 9:39 AM
Okay Republicans. Go ahead and follow the Beltway Pundits’ lead and become Democrat-Lite…and never win a National Election again.
kingsjester on March 8, 2009 at 9:46 AM
David Frum On The Death Of Conservatism – The Plank
Frumster, heal thyself.
DannoJyd on March 8, 2009 at 10:02 AM
Get over your jealousy Allahpundit.
Rush has clarity about conservatism and he expresses it perfectly.
Since he is also an entertainer, he does not speak as a politician would speak.
We like the humor.
Get over it or THIS site will lose it’s audience.
notagool on March 8, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next »