Comedy gold: David Frum and John Ziegler argue over Palin’s influence
posted at 9:02 pm on November 17, 2009 by Allahpundit
It’s not comedy all the way through, but things turn festive around the 13-minute mark when Ziegler yells at Frum about the party needing to punish the “traitors” in its midst and embrace the “warriors.” Give credit to Ingraham for a brilliant bit of scheduling here: These two really are the most vocal spokesmen for their respective Palin factions, pro and con, on the right. It’s a treat to have them together this week of all weeks, and an interesting contrast in styles. Frum is trying to box while Ziegler is throwing roundhouses. Well worth your time, even if Frum does miss an opportunity to challenge Ziegler’s “warrior” ethos by noting how well Bob McDonnell did in Virginia playing it low key.
Lest you doubt Ziegler’s basic point about unfair treatment, please note that even “serious” newspapers are now running reviews of her book written by people who admit that they haven’t read it. I’ll leave you to Doctor Zero for your exit question.
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 2
There’s some truth in that – as to how McDonnell ran. But as others have pointed out, he was basically adopting Palin‘s playbook from Alaska ’06. Neither disavow your social conservative identity nor force it on anyone – win the election on the issues that matter most to the people.
CK MacLeod on November 17, 2009 at 10:20 PM
Good LORD.
Use a new picture! There’s only a bajillion to choose from.
GEEEZ.
powerpro on November 17, 2009 at 10:21 PM
Naw, Sarah is just being true to herself. That may not seem like much until one considers that most people spend big chunks of their lives trying to be someone else. A rarity indeed.
docdave on November 17, 2009 at 10:22 PM
I did not listen to the audio, but the entire thing evoked in me a very tired feeling, because we are concentrating on the wrong thing. The arguments are on which person we put in government, and which policy we should propose to gain a majority in government, when the real argument, the real battle, should be, like Tom Sawyer getting other kids to whitewash the picket fence for him, should be how to get the American people to do our work for us. For I believe that in our system nothing the people want as a mass can ever be denied for long.
Thus, in terms of operational art, the strategic center of gravity is the opinions and beliefs of America, and this why I have, from time to time, emphasized that the real strength of the left is its control of public education, academia, and the media, all essentially done on the sly, without public debate, in the time period of the 60s, 70s, and 80s. For they, by design or by chance, have now the Archimedean lever that can move any mass–eventually.
We have got to figure out how to present a sustained robust conservative case to the public; and we have got to make avowed conservatism acceptable in the mainstream of society, especially as seen on entertainment products such as TV and movies. This is why I have not accepted the NFLs rejection of Rush Limbaugh, as I view the cultural battleground as more significant than the political, and why I have been disappointed in the tepid response to date.
We assume wrongly if we assume forever will the strength of conservative opinion among the people be what it is today, for what in the culture at large is regenerating it? The schools? Academia? TV? Hollywood? Journalism? No, none of these. They are all, by and large, creatures of the left, putting out messages friendly to the left.
Thus, the fight over “purity from RINOism”, is, in a certain respect, a fight spurred on by a perhaps a subliminal realization that the GOP political nominee for each race has become the prinicipal means of getting the conservative values out before the public; the principal means of reinforcing and remembering the inherited wisdom of the past. If this is so, then I hope we can all admit we have a problem, because it is not the ideal vehicle, and certainly should not be the only one.
We, quite simply, need to start figuring out how to get the conservative/classic liberal message out in non-political settings, not as a means for politics, but as a viewpoint of life itself. And we need to be able to do this in areas where the natural inclinations of the people are not for it. And thus, in this respect, at a certain point I tire of the arguments over who the next nominee will be. For I can see Mrs. Palin doing as much good outside the arena as in. For Paul decided to convert rather than rule.
The battle before us now, the key struggle, is convincing the people of the value of what we believe, not in getting governors who would govern according to those beliefs, with an apathetic or contrary public who are as likely to be swayed by the liberal side as by any other. I believe this to be achievable, and perhaps the left does to–how else to understand the great amount of water-carrying by the media, or the near-totalitarian urges to purge conservatives from nearly all fields of public life–social, political, cultural. No–the cultural battleground is our true battleground, but we should seek to convert, not conquer. For it is the fear of being conquered and rule that causes some of the opposition.
To do otherwise than focus on winning the hearts and minds admits that we have already reached the dangerous position where to lose the government is to lose all; a belief that control of the government is the bedrock foundation of liberty, not the virtue of the people themselves; an admission that we do not have in the people enough common-sense to count upon in numbers to bring us back to our collective senses when we occasionally stray by choosing unwise governmental policies; and we are thus–as currently perhaps playing out–always one election away from disaster. If this is the case–and we are perilously close to it being so–then it should be the focus of our efforts, and less attention paid to “men (or women) on white horses” to come and save us.
Let us save ourselves, and how to do so should be the principal topic of conservative conversation, not who our nominee will be for a party, that perforce the current rules of politics, will always have to temporize unless we provide for them the strength needed to overcome. But to provide that strength we must convince–not cajole, mislead, or intimidate–our fellow citizens of the wisdom of what we say, and thus to that end we should put our minds. Find a way to build up your local institutions in a way conducive to your thoughts, and from that will follow all.
Horatius on November 17, 2009 at 10:25 PM
exactly. McDonnel won on the issues that were a top priority to the people. He acknowledged his social conservatism, which most in people in virginia as well as the nation share, but did not run on those issues because it is sound fiscal policy which matters. Frum would have people like Mcdonnel run out of the party because of his social views thinking that they are losing positions; they are winning positions as long as you don’t preach!
But I fear the Republicans will take the wrong message as usual from the McDonnel victory and run a bunch of tame campaigns in the years to come.
Daemonocracy on November 17, 2009 at 10:27 PM
How far is Frum’s head up this Presidents a**, and how credible is he any time he happens to stink up an interview or anytime he writes or anytime at all?
Speakup on November 17, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Frum still believes those idiot polls. That, and his dyslexic thought process, make him a perfect fit for another Bush-RINO administration.
The country is sooo ready for that.
Feedie on November 17, 2009 at 10:28 PM
I think I’ll skip directly to Doctor Zero.
FloatingRock on November 17, 2009 at 10:34 PM
Oh, it’s a Twitter thing—right you are, Doc!
FloatingRock on November 17, 2009 at 10:36 PM
All politicians are learning a big lesson. Be true to yourself. Don’t get all off into micromanaging elections.
A lot is way past their control. In the end, they have to go to bed with themselves.
AnninCA on November 17, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Actually, you posted this reply to a post with some passion in it, but that makes some good points.
The attacks by those who call themselves feminists against conservative women, and their defense of ill-behaving leftist men, is well known.
Good job missing the point, though – you’re maintaining your perfect record, I see!
massrighty on November 17, 2009 at 10:36 PM
What Frum does isn’t boxing. He throws a fey little slap while your back is turned, and then acts innocent when you call him out.
Jim Treacher on November 17, 2009 at 10:36 PM
I don’t really understand Twitter: so did @JTlol right that comment, or Digsby, or was it Doc_0? Or was the Doc responding to @JTlol or Digsby, and if so, who is the third person?
FloatingRock on November 17, 2009 at 10:38 PM
Sounds like a plan.
Jim Treacher on November 17, 2009 at 10:42 PM
A good way to think about Frum is that he is like an Ivy League-educated version of Levi “Ricky Hollywood” Johnston. No one gives a f*ck about him — as is appropriate — but he is artificially inflated to a supposed position of “importance” by a leftist media and establishment that is wont to prop up voices from the “other side” who will attack their own.
Like Levi, if Frum did not exist they would invent him. Or just find the next self-serving “conservative” willing to sell his or her soul as a whore sells tricks.
True conservative intellectuals, people such as Charles Krauthammer, understand the vacuity of this administration. And they rightly call it out.
People such as Brooks go on about creases in Obama’s pants. They are simply not credible, and should not be given voice beyond the leftist media that courts them.
Brooks, Frum and such are not intellectuals. They are, rather, pseudo-intellectuals. Elites, but not ones based upon merit. Particularly not Brooks.
PhoenixUniversal on November 17, 2009 at 10:42 PM
right = write… [blush]
FloatingRock on November 17, 2009 at 10:42 PM
What fight are you watching!?
Frum is doing what he always does, covers up and runs away, behind his smarmy weak jab. His retreat, as always, is cut off, then gets pummled by body shots, goes white as a ghost, gasps for breath and falls apart — the same death dance he performed in the Mark Levin and Hugh Hewitt bouts!
Frum’s a loser!
“Let’s Roll”
On Watch on November 17, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Sorry, but I never heard of the guy before coming to this blog.
AnninCA on November 17, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Stammer factor off the chart as Ingraham and Ziegler took turns squishing Frum with their little fingers.
Feedie on November 17, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Yesterday I asked when was the last time Frum was main paged on Hot Air? I didn’t mean to have him main paged the next day. How close is Al L. Ah to Frum? I’d like to hear Al L. Ah’s fluffy bunny defence of Frum. Has Frum ever laid out what constitutes a winning platform from his perspective? For that matter, has fluffy bunny ever laid out what he considers a winning platform? You are a pundit Al L. Ah. What keeps you from laying it out here for us to critique?
Americannodash on November 17, 2009 at 10:47 PM
I’m probably going to get attacked for saying this, but I sorta think Frum is right. I really like Palin, and what she stands for, but I really hope she is not our candidate in 2012. I’d vote for her, and do so willingly, but fear that she would be far too divisive to capture many of the independents.
roger wilco on November 17, 2009 at 10:54 PM
One day Frum and his twin David Brooks will wake up with mooseheads in their beds. They will never be heard from again.
donh525 on November 17, 2009 at 10:54 PM
So, you’re to blame for this outrage!
Frum’s moosehead can’t come soon enough!
Feedie on November 17, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Wapo printing a book review that brags about the reviewer not having read the book is actually Wapo’s way of saying how desperately they are in need of a government bailout. But the feds should save their money for a genuine newspaper and not just another collection of cryptic leftie opinion pieces.
snaggletoothie on November 17, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Frum is pathetic! I don’t know if I’d vote for her or not, I’m still Palin-neutral, (leaning against because she remained silent on the Honduras situation, not to mention other foreign policy matters), but then I also realize that her so-called “divisiveness” is mainly an invention of left-wing media, and most American’s simply aren’t politically aware enough to understand the propaganda war that has been waged against her. Once they get to know her, if they get to know her, everything that has gone before may be mute. The polls are practically meaningless at this point because they are based on a fiction.
FloatingRock on November 17, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Frum isn’t Brooks. Different creature entirely. David is, I think, addressing a real issue and real concern he has about the viability of conservatism–I haven’ been to his website since he left NRO, so I’m not exactly sure what he has been saying the last year, and from what I have read I’m not sure I agree with the solutions proposed or the tactics used by him, but nevertheless here is my basic understanding of the two men: Frum honestly wants a GOP win–if he seems tetchy, it’s because he is trying to get one in what he percieves to be a hostile and unfavorable environment that does not allow for the luxuries of the past (and perhaps there are some other factors thrown in). But at the end of the day, he is, believe it or not, a partisan, and a partisan for the conservative cause. Brooks is not, and does not want to be.
In short, Frum actually is trying to get the cause to win (though I’m not sure I’m too terribly enthusiastic about the means put forth for doing so), Brooks most certainly is not. Frum is a player, and believe it or not for the conservative side, Brooks is (at best), a “neutral” observer and commentator.
Take that for what you will.
Horatius on November 17, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Then the REAL challenge is to keep McCain and Grahamnesty and the Maine witches from going bipartisan to enlarge government further. We need to take these 4 out by 2014.
Sapwolf on November 17, 2009 at 10:18 PM
Yes the more i think about it the better or at least as good it would be for conservatism if the GOp does not take back the house outright but chages it enough to stop the madness.
unseen on November 17, 2009 at 11:14 PM
I agree that her divisiveness was a media invention, but that doesn’t mean it’s not real now. While they may have been responsible for it, like it or not it’s here to stay. She may be able to reinvent herself, and I hope she does, but as it stands now, she’s un-electable.
roger wilco on November 17, 2009 at 11:14 PM
Sorry, but I never heard of the guy before coming to this blog.
AnninCA on November 17, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Ann, that’s exactly as it should be. Frum is no one whom you need to know. Ditto on David Brooks.
They are only supposed “conservatives” so that the left can say that those on the right don’t agree with actual conservatives on issues.
Beyond that, there is little to suggest either of them. Brooks is a sociologist version of Richard Dawkins. “BoBos,” the book which made Brooks, is interesting from that perspective but not the stuff of rigorous scholarship.
I don’t begrudge Brooks, except as his false “conservatism” harms actual conservatism. He has a right to earn a living.
However, if I had the choice to read all of that which Brooks has written or Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism,” I would chose Goldberg’s tome in a heartbeat. Not because it attacks liberals, but because it is the product of intensive study and elaborates on ideas few know. Brooks’ books are coffee table books; Golberg’s book is one for a personal library.
PhoenixUniversal on November 17, 2009 at 11:15 PM
I’d think so. The election is like 3 years away.
Jim Treacher on November 17, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Here’s a bit of weirdness: the show I had been watching on DVR ended, and as I was queueing up the next one, live TV was on. Apparently, George Lopez has a stand up show he does before a live audience, and he spent the first 10 minutes ragging on Sarah Palin – and MEAN, too. Not just riffing. For instance, he was making some joke I didn’t get about Oprah having on the woman whose face was chewed off by the gorilla, but that the gorilla went crazy because she had Sarah Palin on. Then he went on to say Sarah was complaining, because that’s all she ever does, commented that she is so shrill, that McCain said campaigning with her was worse than the 5 years he spent as a POW. Then he started ripping on Todd for being a stay at home dad – called him a pu$$y!. Oh, yes, and he said if she got the nomination and won in 2012, he would leave the country – and so would all the Mexicans, and Hollywood, and even John McCain. The sad thing is, the jokes weren’t really even funny, they just sounded mean.
I just sat there and thought “wow” why are they so determined to destroy her?
Queen0fCups on November 17, 2009 at 11:20 PM
FloatingRock on November 17, 2009 at 11:25 PM
I haven’t REALLY looked into Palin at all. I voted for McAmnesty (and her) because they were the “Lesser of two evils”.
I have to say, though, while my cursory (at best) look at her indicates I agree with her more than I disagree. She does annoy me. Sorry to say it, but her voice reminds me of Chuck Grassley in female form. It’s something about the cadence and nasaliness that gets me.
Anyone else feel this way?
FloridaBill on November 17, 2009 at 11:27 PM
Especially people in the acting business. They don’t have a clue as to who they are and spend their whole lives pretending to be someone else, in hope of discovering themselves.
belad on November 17, 2009 at 11:31 PM
I doubt it. The blogger who post Frum’s articles here at Hot Air does it with such regularity that it’s pathetic. Al L. Ah may share a lot of Frum’s opinions [especially in regards to Palin] in particular areas. He may post Frum’s articles as a means of running interference for what he’s afraid to expouse here himself. Frum is probably closer to Al L. Ah than Al L. Ah will admit to us here at Hot Air. He’d rather witness Frum take the heat that expose himself to such ridicule.
Hell, Al L Ah is in his thirties and his claim to fame is the Dan Rather phoney document story. Al L Ah is a periphery pundit when it comes to conservative principles and strong women who are not afraid to articulate them. Frum suffers worse because his main theme is to attack people who are conservatives. I don’t understand anyone who still thinks Frum is a conservative. He is a BIG GOVERNMENT small “r” republican. Thats why the progressive democrat side of the main stream media will always want to know what he thinks. Just picture Frum with blonde hair & boobs but without having your father in the US senate.
Americannodash on November 17, 2009 at 11:46 PM
What you’re missing is that any conservative candidate will be painted by the media puppetmasters as being divisive and polarizing. ANY CONSERVATIVE.
Then they tell us who they can live with…who’s moderate enough for them…and then they insist that this is who the independents will flock to on election day.
This has been proven to be a lie over and over again. How many more John McCains do we need to endure before we recognize this trap before we fall into it?
We’ve seen what prevails…common sense conservatism that’s articulately spoken and honestly delivered. Reagan won by massive landslides when he did it… McDonnell won a massive landslide when he did it…
So how about we choose our own candidate and pick a winning formula rather than be suckered by the RINOs and the media puppetmasters into choosing a loser?
powerpro on November 17, 2009 at 11:51 PM
I think you read too much to review it.
aikidoka on November 17, 2009 at 11:59 PM
How is Palin divisive? Only because the govt. run media declares it to be so. Why is she divisive — because she had a down-sydrome child? That makes her divisive? Because she argued with the Democrats during the election when no one else would, while they were slapping McCain around at every turn? Why is she divisive? Because she was sued unmercifully by her enemies in Alaska? Why is she divisive? Because she stood for the people of Alaska against the corruption from both parties? I am so tired of hearing “divisive” and “controversial” applied to her. Having a Marxist for a President is controversial. Having a President who is a protege of Rev. Wright is divisive. Sarah Palin is not. It is just the Alinsky tactic that the left uses to marginalize her. And it bugs me when people from the right buy into it.
Christian Conservative on November 18, 2009 at 12:06 AM
The comedy is that bend over RINO Frum thinking hes conservative and represents many who are.
Hes beltway establishment first and foremost, hes way too enmeshed in compromise to see ideals as things of intrinsic value. Because he doesn’t fight for what he believes in his ideas are worth nothing because his ideals aren’t worth anything to him.
Id love to hear what Frum “believes” and how invested he truly is in fighting for them. I don’t think hes capable of understanding hes already given up.
Opportunity Costs on November 18, 2009 at 12:07 AM
Here\’s another one:http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/palin-and-the-attacks-carnivores
Phoenician on November 18, 2009 at 12:11 AM
Just picture Frum with blonde hair & boobs but without having your father in the US senate.
Americannodash on November 17, 2009 at 11:46 PM
/thread.
Doesn’t get any better than that, folks.
Well, unless Frum does a Twitter boob scrunch Twitter pic. LOL!!
Paul F. Villarreal
Conservative New Media
PhoenixUniversal on November 18, 2009 at 12:11 AM
They only get noticed by invoking someone else.
Like ghosts arguing about a mortal.
Doing the Ectoplasm.
profitsbeard on November 18, 2009 at 12:13 AM
I want to see a Frum/Brooks vs Levin/Ziegler tag team cage death match.
Having said that, Hugh Hewitt has already removed Frum’s spleen.
R Square on November 18, 2009 at 12:29 AM
I finally figured out why they (liberals & David Frum “republicans”) hate her so much. It’s so simple that it took me a while. But listening to Frum today put it all in focus. She is something he/they can never be, She’s honest! She doesn’t make decisions based merely on what’s in her best interest, or what’s in the best interest of the party. She knows right from wrong and she does what’s right, simply because it’s the right thing to do. What a novel idea, at least it is now-a-days. They hate her on so many levels it’s hard to sort them all out. But Trig exposes it all. They hate her for not aborting him. She had a choice and she foolishly wasted it on doing the right thing! They hate her for bring this child into the world that will burden their precious ‘Socialist Health Care’ system. Doing the right thing though, she considers Trig her responsibility, not theirs, making this one a twofer. The icing on all this; they are so infuriated by something that wasn’t a deliberate attempt to infuriate them. And that infuriates them even more. “Resigning as Governor was a huge tactical mistake. How dare you just go off and do what’s right. That’s unacceptable!” Doing the right thing, with absolutely no regard for their feelings. How inconsiderate! She’s an honest person in a world of politics where virtue has no value.
Pole-Cat on November 18, 2009 at 12:51 AM
I don’t really want to make this my “Defend David Frum” night, because that is not my great desire. And I can definitely say that I don’t think anything he has written in the last year (that I’ve actually read) has really captured my imagination, though I admit I haven’t really read much. And I’m not so sure that Levin or Hewitt are not right in the disputes mentioned–I read Levin’s response, and Frum’s initial that set off the response, as well as the Hewitt/Frum exchange, and have come to no final conclusion, except that people are definitely mad at him.
What I do want to do is say this–I do not believe this man to be a RINO who is advocating things so he can gain advantage with a “mainstream” media. On that he is solid. Well do I remember his outcry when Scooter Libby was convicted, and him saying that in the future cases like that should be tried in Utah, so the Democrats could get a taste of monolithic jury pools. So, while I do not know if he is a solid conservative I would hazard that he is a solid Republican–even if he would perhaps not. I don’t know. He, of course, can tell best what he believes and believes he is.
So I would say that if he is advocating RINOish things it is because he believes them to be the best and perhaps only way forward for the GOP, the same way a Salam or Douthat are. This does not mean I would necessarily agree with these prescriptions, only that I understand that he actually believes in them, and is not only sincere in those beliefs, but perhaps alarmed over them not being adopted.
Now, as to the manner of the delivery of those beliefs, well, I do understand there is some angst over that. I think I understand where he is coming from, and all I can say is that when one is seemingly alone and one doesn’t seem able to really get one’s view accepted or point across–don’t retreat into the easy sanctuary of smug arrogance, for that involves crossing and burning a bridge at the same time, it rarely being possible to go back. And with that, my defense, such as it is, of David Frum is done.
Horatius on November 18, 2009 at 1:07 AM
You da’ man, Doc.
You da’ man.
Saltysam on November 18, 2009 at 1:24 AM
I listened to the debate on Ingram’s show this morning while I was driving.
Frum “commenced” the book.
What an idiot.
Saltysam on November 18, 2009 at 1:27 AM
Sorry, I should probably have put ;-) in my earlier comment. The post was relevant to me because the twerp got on Ingraham’s show. Given today’s elite political standards, Frum is a menace who needs ridicule.
Can’t imagine what he does in AEI.
Mail room?
Feedie on November 18, 2009 at 1:42 AM
Ziegler: “Why can’t her poll numbers change, David?”
Frum: “They have hardened.”
COMMMENT:
Frum is your middle name Carnac? C’mon man. You can’t really believe the bullcrap you are spouting, can you?
The primary season doesn’t start in earnest until summer 2011 with the first GOP primary debate.
technopeasant on November 18, 2009 at 2:13 AM
FIFY
profitsbeard on November 18, 2009 at 2:18 AM
I don’t see what the big deal is about that: this morning, after meticulously fulfilling the filtration and hydrodynamic requirements, I initiated the coffee machine residing on a surface within my designated food preparation area. Shortly thereafter I sampled the resultant product and affirmed that it met or exceeded its thermal, caffeination and flavor potential.
Mmmm mmmm mmmm, it was adequately satisfactory!
Nothing special, just the cheapest Kirkland brand coffee available from Costco.
FloatingRock on November 18, 2009 at 2:21 AM
MC and Pamnesty sure ran an awful campaign. Its all perv Thompsons fault we had to have them.
PrezHussein on November 18, 2009 at 2:49 AM
If McCain was so bad why did the dumbwit from Alaska accept his invitation to be the VP candidate?
I mean the guy is a RINO, right? True conservative did not realize that? Dumb woman!
rightistliberal on November 18, 2009 at 3:09 AM
If conservatives are so bad why are you commenting on a conservative blog, dumbwit?
FloatingRock on November 18, 2009 at 3:12 AM
Holy crap. That was funny.
Geochelone on November 18, 2009 at 3:17 AM
Ok, not nearly as good as the Mark Levin takedown of Frum which was awesomely epic, but funny hearing Zeigler freak out on Frum. Frum always sound like he is incontinent.
Also, WHY IS THE WAPO LETTING THAT FREAK WONKETTE REVIEW ANYTHING DEEPER THAN A MAXIPAD AD????
di butler on November 18, 2009 at 3:46 AM
Frum is a typical elitist a$$hole.”I am dedicated to electing a republican”–Bull,we the people are dedicated to electing anyone who represents our values.
In the words of Jim Coronet,if Frums” brain was gasoline,he couldn’t power a flea’s motorcycle around a raindrop”.
Typical elitist a$$wipe,knows the answers,but answers the wrong the question.
DDT on November 18, 2009 at 3:48 AM
Frum thinks his Schmidt doesn’t stink.
Geochelone on November 18, 2009 at 6:20 AM
No.
Onager on November 18, 2009 at 6:55 AM
Nope!
Jenfidel on November 18, 2009 at 7:10 AM
Ana Marie Cox
Rule of thumb for any writer: KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE.
Cox’s penchant for sophistry blinded her from the next rule of thumb: WRITE ABOUT WHAT YOU KNOW.
Palin did.
Cox did not.
maverick muse on November 18, 2009 at 7:24 AM
Frum thinks his Schmidt doesn’t stink.
Geochelone on November 18, 2009 at 6:20 AM
bwahahahahaha!
maverick muse on November 18, 2009 at 7:25 AM
Schmidt is prime example of the intolerant and self righteous Republican “purist” (he represents purity in his own mind and amidst his own ) repudiating others for lacking sophistry.
WHAT A JOKE!
As if there’s a shred of sophistication in Schmidt’s mannerisms. He lacks all tact while projecting the epitome of tacky. He’s simply the unemployed LOSING bulldog that presumed sophisticates contract for hire. Given his 2008 campaign management performance, this blustering bully proved NO LOYALTY TO PARTY PLATFORM. He sabotaged his own ticket that was his job to market. Schmidt’s style fits into Obama’s camp. Bad news follows Schmidt who produces it.
maverick muse on November 18, 2009 at 7:37 AM
Agreed…
Furthermore, he should limit himself to running campaigns at the county level in solid blue districts.
jerrytbg on November 18, 2009 at 7:47 AM
Dumb quote of the day. When you’ve written a thesis that a woman’s place is in the home you have no choice but to hope no one pays any attention to your social conservatism.
Basilsbest on November 18, 2009 at 8:09 AM
Another reason this is a dumb quote is that it presents a false narrative of the essence of Palin. Sarah certainly lives her social conservatism, as modified by her modern feminism, but she doesn’t try to impose it on anyone else. If abortions are reduced during her Presidency it will be because she leads by example not because of legislative compulsion.
The implication that a Palin Presidency will impose conservative values on the population is Frum’s big lie(repeated by Allahpundit). Values can’t be imposed. They can only be adopted.
Basilsbest on November 18, 2009 at 8:18 AM
Go play in your liberal sandbox. Un conservatives are having an adult discussion.
docdave on November 18, 2009 at 9:12 AM
I don’t think Sarah herself is at all divisive. I do think the country is highly polarized. But it’s not about Sarah.
AnninCA on November 18, 2009 at 10:08 AM
They were.
Agreed. Whether Sarah becomes the 2012 nominee or not, the fact is she is giving a voice to a segment of the country that simply didn’t have one before she came along. No one listens to middle- or working-class Americans in the Midwest, non-Pacific West or non-Florida South. Remember “How will it play in Peoria?” Obama and his ilk couldn’t care less about how anything plays in Peoria. Neither did Bush. Clinton maybe used to, but sold out as soon as he discovered how much
betterricher life was in D.C. than Hope, Ark. Our congresscritters get themselves elected and promptly sell out. It’s a disease. By not being elected, Palin can avoid selling out. She has an enormous megaphone to let D.C. know what Peoria really thinks and the backbone to not let criticism shut her up. At this point, who cares if she can win the nomination? She’s doing awesome things right now!alwaysfiredup on November 18, 2009 at 11:06 AM
Frum sucks, why did Laura even bring him on…?
Tim Burton on November 18, 2009 at 1:40 PM
I tend to think of our current period, up to the 2010 elections as PALIN seeks and destroys the elitist vermin that infest both political parties and their media whores. Post 2010, PALIN prepares for the Presidency, 2012 & after SARAH storms the country and drives the rats into the sea! The US once again prospers in joyous freedom and goodness.
el Vaquero on November 18, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Wait, so you’re saying the anti-Palin person is being calm and rational while the pro-Palin person is being emotional an irrational? Who could have predicted this?
orange on November 18, 2009 at 2:51 PM
No.
Jim Treacher on November 18, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2