Whose Side is David Frum on, anyway?
While David Frum frequently posts intelligent policy pieces advocating conservative reforms and regularly makes thoughtful comments lambasting big-government Democratic initiatives, all too often he buys into the liberal narrative, you know those Administration talking points, about the GOP. One such talking point is that while President Obama reached a hand out to the GOP in an attempt to work with them, Republilcan legislators replied by turning their backs (or spitting in his face).
Yeah, to his credit, after taking office, the President did meet with House Republicans, but the Democrat also retorted, “I won,” when Republicans raised concerns about the cost of the “stimulus.” Democratic intransigence notwithstanding, Frum buys into the Democratic narrative and blames Republicans for Democrats’ unwillingness to compromise. He even blames the Administration’s decision to impose carbon controls by administrative fiat on the GOP’s efforts to block cap and trade. (He fails to mention Democrats from coal-producing states who have raised concern about the regulatory scheme.)
What other conservatives liken to Mafia tactics, Frum ascribes to GOP rejectionism:
The furious rejectionist frenzy of the past 12 months is exacting a terrible price upon Republicans. We’re getting worse and less conservative results out of Washington than we could have negotiated, if we had negotiated.
If we had negotiated? We? Huh? Does anybody seriously believe the Democrats wanted to negotiate? Let’s see, they crafted the “stimulus” package without seeking input from the GOP, then moved heaven and earth to get a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate. Just last week, “no Republican lawmakers were on the list of attendees” at the President’s job summit.
Hardly evidence of an Administration eager to compromise.
Instead of offering even one hint of concern about Democratic intransigence in his blog post today, Frum blames those pesky Republicans who don’t live in Washington, D.C.: “But, it’s the rank-and-file who are the problem here!“
Seems like Frum wants the GOP to adopt the tactics of Republican congressional leaders in Bush’s second term who showed little concern for the rank and file’s concern about government spending. Maybe there’s a reason Frum stopped calling his blog New Majority.
Far from “systematically working through the concerns, the issues and the alternatives,” Mrs. Snowe added, Democrats have instead favored “artificially generated haste” and settled on a strategy “to ram it, to jam it” through Congress. The Senator detailed her good-faith participation in the “group of six” on the Senate Finance Committee, which met some 31 times over the spring and summer and reflected “the kind of extensive, meticulous process that an issue of this magnitude requires.”
Read the whole thing!
31 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
sometimes folk need to buck up and step across the aisle, without fear of namecalling . . . doesn’t take much to show up at the party without an invitation.
Comment by rusty — December 10, 2009 @ 9:18 pm - December 10, 2009
Can you tell who a person sleeps with, or “lives with” in their head, by whose narratives they buy into? I say yes.
Frum’s view,
…is rubbish. You can’t negotiate with committed leftists, because they don’t negotiate: they only take whatever you’ll give, like Hitler (who BTW was a leftist).
George Washington was asked about compromise once. His answer was:
“If to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair.”
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 10, 2009 @ 9:27 pm - December 10, 2009
Thanks Dan for catching this.
Frum has caught between a rock – principled Conservatives – and several very hard places: The first is his early adoption of the Left’s AGW hypothesis and proposed Big Government “solutions” – the notion that “conservative Republicans can do it better”, as it were, than liberal Democrats. The second hard place for him is this notion that conservatism – the defense of Liberty – wins via “compromise.”
To the first idea – that we can “get” more conservative results his way – is just laughable on it’s face. A gentle turn left is not more conservative… it’s less Statist. Loss of Liberty is still a loss.
Which brings us to Frum’s Second failure: We advance by defeating Liberals and Statists, not by adopting the great Canadian art of “legislative compromise.” We “get” conservative results – increased Liberty – when we force Democrats and Statists into a compromise over exactly how much shrink in Government occurs as we push-back, hard.
I think, too, there’s a third hard place for Frum, and it’s killing him: Sarah Palin. I’ve never seen such penis envy…
It’s not just Frum. There’s a cadre of spoiled elitist “conservative” wannabes that includes the likes of fellow Canuck import David Brooks. They’ve adopted many of the premises and social views of the Left. Their disconnect with the Tea-Party phenomenon caught them totally unprepared.
Comment by Ran / Si Vis Pacem — December 10, 2009 @ 10:16 pm - December 10, 2009
Frum is a menace. He is a Big-Government Republican, a defender of all the policies that lost Republicans the majority, and someone who is desperately trying to ensure that Big Government Republicans KEEP control of the party. As such, he’s been trying to blame conservatives, particularly social conservatives (a point if not identical to, then very similar to your own position) for the GOP losses that they had nothing to do with, and his ilk had everything to do with.
Comment by American Elephant — December 10, 2009 @ 10:27 pm - December 10, 2009
Ran, that’s an interesting hypothesis. Confused men, dare we say “emasculated”? … faced with a clear, strong woman who BTW is quite a bit better than they are at cutting both wild animals and government budgets… equals hours of comedy.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 10, 2009 @ 10:30 pm - December 10, 2009
David Frum’s Canadian political roots enable him to spew a particular brand of bias that’s compatible with the other bigoted pundits seated at the tables of MSNBC and CNN. He’s lucky he resides in the States… any where else , and they’d have him singing soprano by now.
Comment by Spartann — December 11, 2009 @ 12:18 am - December 11, 2009
The real sad thing about Frum is that he does occasionally have some really good ideas. Ran, good comment, didn’t know Brooks was also a Canadian, insteresting, very insteresting.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 11, 2009 @ 12:50 am - December 11, 2009
“too often he buys into the liberal narrative, you know those Administration talking points, about the GOP.”
Dan,
Why is it that you are so manifestly unable to accord anyone, who happens to disagree with you on something, the basic level of respect that you demand for yourself – that they might well be a serious thinker, a person of integrity, and one who comes to their opinions sincerely.
Everyone must agree with you, or be a tool of the evil forces, spouting
talking points.
You know, in life, you can’t really expect to get more respect than you are willing to give. You are a frequent whiner about how you as an individual, and as a gay conservative, are not treated with the respect you deserve. Why not show everyone how it is done?
Comment by Tano — December 11, 2009 @ 12:51 am - December 11, 2009
“Does anybody seriously believe the Democrats wanted to negotiate?”
Well, actually, yes. If you look at all of the polling on this, a very strong majority of Americans beleive that Obama and the Dems reached out to Republicans and were met with absolute opposition.
I find it hard to imagine you would deny that. It has been a consistent strategy of your party, from day 1, to do everything possible to undermine the administration. Failure for Obama was job 1. If that means failure for America, so be it. Some of the braver souls in your camp even said so publically.
Comment by Tano — December 11, 2009 @ 1:02 am - December 11, 2009
Tano, do you live to provoke my laughter? Where do you come up with your silly notion that everyone must agree with me or be a tool of evil forces. Go follow some of the threads to my posts where I frequently use the expression “fair point(s)” to address a thoughtful comment of a critic.
And, as to #9, no, rather, it has been a consistent strategy of your party to feign extending an olive branch while only pay lip service to compromise and only making cosmetic changes. Please address the actual points I made above about the “stimulus,” etc.
The media has portrayed the GOP as intransigent while it’s the Democrats who have been unyielding.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 11, 2009 @ 1:18 am - December 11, 2009
You know, in life, you can’t really expect to get more respect than you are willing to give.
Which explains why Obama gets none.
Perhaps if the whining, screaming children of the Obama Party would start acting like adults rather than blaming Republicans for all of their problems, they might demonstrate that they are worthy of some respect.
Case in point:
Why is it that you are so manifestly unable to accord anyone, who happens to disagree with you on something, the basic level of respect that you demand for yourself – that they might well be a serious thinker, a person of integrity, and one who comes to their opinions sincerely.
Practice what you preach, hypocrite.
But that’s the point. Liberals like yourself, Tano, could never live under your own rules. That’s why you don’t pay taxes, that’s why you don’t follow ethics laws, and that’s why you are receiving taxpayer money under a government contract to propagandize for Barack Obama in direct violation of the law. Now we just see it in your whining that Dan should “respect” others while you yourself sit here and insist that anyone who disagrees with you is not serious, has no integrity, and came to their opinions insincerely, out of racism or whatever.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 11, 2009 @ 2:03 am - December 11, 2009
I do find it amusing when Tano, often one of the blog’s elite screeching name-callers, prattles on about respect and adult conduct.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 11, 2009 @ 2:09 am - December 11, 2009
Ah. Something where Tano and I can agree. You see, I do believe the hard Left wants to ‘negotiate’ (scare quotes). They want to negotiate whenever, wherever, and because it will mean that THEY WIN.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 11, 2009 @ 2:19 am - December 11, 2009
To say it another way: Poison is always in favor of ‘negotiating’ or ‘compromising’ with food. Because the end result will still be poison.
Case in point: The ‘public option’ as the Left’s ruse for destroying the private insurance industry and forcing our society, over time, to single payer. Of course the Left wants to ‘negotiate’ over that. Of course.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 11, 2009 @ 2:21 am - December 11, 2009
What kind of serious though is required for, essentially, “bend over and bite on a pillow.“? How much “integrity” is required for that?
For example…..?
Liberal policies are, and for the most part, always have meant failure for America and her people. Slavery, segregation, poverty, economic depression etc. Now, they want to add another failure in health careless, massive debt, massive taxes etc. etc. etc.
He’s doing a damn fine job of it on his own.
Such as…..
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 11, 2009 @ 2:26 am - December 11, 2009
Easy to understand.
We may disagree with David Frum, but we still count him as ‘one of ours’ and accept he has the occasional good idea.
Now look at the left’s respect of Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller…
Comment by The_Livewire — December 11, 2009 @ 6:40 am - December 11, 2009
these bills are awful and detrimental to our country. No amount of “negotiation” is going to improve or change anything. They need to be killed not tweaked. They are the dictators; our side is allowed to carry their water if we like. Anything more than that and let the attacks (racist, sexist, homophobe, mean-spirited) begin.
Comment by j4140 — December 11, 2009 @ 9:26 am - December 11, 2009
In the Fifties “liberals” (i.e., State-fellators) used to call people like Brooks “responsible conservatives.” “Responsible” meant “no threat to us.” In honor of Brooks and Frum, I call ‘em “Uncle Daves” –polite, deferential, well-mannered “house” conservatves, who love their ‘Massa ‘Bama and would never think of doing anything to harm the Plantation.
Comment by Bilwick — December 11, 2009 @ 12:58 pm - December 11, 2009
GoProud is a co sponsor of CPAC. . .Among the other co-sponsors are anti-gay groups Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family, the Alliance Defense Fund, and the National Organization for Marriage.
So I guess some folk are willing to work with those who might have conflicting views of points.
Comment by rusty — December 11, 2009 @ 3:06 pm - December 11, 2009
Rusty,
What constitutes an “anti-gay” group? Are they single issue groups organized to undermine gays or incarcerate gays or exterminate gays or what? Or are they multi-faceted groups who do not, say, support gay marriage?
Comment by heliotrope — December 11, 2009 @ 5:37 pm - December 11, 2009
I can’t get over Frum’s remark about Sarah Palin’s popularity. He said something to effect that she gives off sexual vibes. What kind of sexist bullsh** is that? Although I’m not a Republican, if that’s the best the party has to offer, they are in serious trouble.
Comment by Scherie — December 11, 2009 @ 7:55 pm - December 11, 2009
Frum’s one of those Republicans who cares mostly about getting the right invites from people whom, for reasons that escape me, he sees as superior.
Tano – when the Dems squeeze out these monstrosities behind closed doors, change the locks, call us Nazis or “deniers”, and refuse to make 2,000 page bills available for evaluation until a few hours before a vote (and then in a form that’s unreadable), I don’t see a party interested in any good faith negotiation.
I don’t want the GOP “reaching across the aisle”. They’ve been reaching for years only to find a bloody stump remaining.
In my benighted way of thinking, some things just aren’t negotiable.
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! – Barry Goldwater
The GOP has not always been on the right side of things but, for now, it is.
Comment by SoCalRobert — December 11, 2009 @ 8:07 pm - December 11, 2009
Ok do you think Frum, Andrew Sullivan and the likes of David Brooks are invited to NYT fancy dinners and DC events? I do, thus their “woo is the republican party” mantra.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — December 11, 2009 @ 8:23 pm - December 11, 2009
David Frum is the straight Andrew Sullivan.
Comment by Anon387823 — December 11, 2009 @ 8:37 pm - December 11, 2009
I wonder if the Supreme Court of the United States or say the population of the State of California and Maine are anti-gay groups, ‘cus they opposed gay marriage too.
Amazing how if you dont agree to everything a victim group wants, you immediately become a racist, sexist, homophobe, etc…
Gawd it just makes me embarrassed to be gay.
Comment by American Elephant — December 11, 2009 @ 9:10 pm - December 11, 2009
You mean like the gay left supporting the DNC?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 11, 2009 @ 10:25 pm - December 11, 2009
David Frum is a conservative progressive and that makes him very dangerous to the Republican party and conservatives.
Comment by OldNuc — December 12, 2009 @ 12:03 am - December 12, 2009
Frum is a laughingstock in conservative circles. He’s dangerous only to those that follow his confused counsel.
Comment by joe — December 12, 2009 @ 1:38 am - December 12, 2009
You cannot negotiate with liberal fascists any more than you can negotiate with Stalin, Mao or Ho Chi Minh. They won’t negotiate unless they know they have you in a losing position. Frum is too stupid to get this. As are GOP leaders. The entire history of the GOP after Franklin Delano Stalin is one long series of negotiations over surrender terms.
Comment by Rick — December 12, 2009 @ 6:30 am - December 12, 2009
[...] Whose Side is David Frum on, anyway? [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Does David Frum Have a Problem with the “Little People”? — December 12, 2009 @ 5:03 pm - December 12, 2009
[...] much to correct those prejudices still present in pockets of that movement. Indeed, some groups, as one of our readers points out, who continue to promote such prejudices are also cosponsoring the conference. Let us hope the [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » By Sponsoring CPAC, GOProud Helps Gays — December 12, 2009 @ 7:46 pm - December 12, 2009