Comments on: Whose Side is David Frum on, anyway?

By: GayPatriot » By Sponsoring CPAC, GOProud Helps Gays

GayPatriot » By Sponsoring CPAC, GOProud Helps Gays — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 00:46:31 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: GayPatriot » Does David Frum Have a Problem with the “Little People”?

Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:03:58 +0000

[...] Whose Side is David Frum on, anyway? [...]

By: Rick

Rick — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:30:14 +0000

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.

By: joe

joe — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 06:38:02 +0000

Frum is a laughingstock in conservative circles. He’s dangerous only to those that follow his confused counsel.

By: OldNuc

OldNuc — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 05:03:56 +0000

David Frum is a conservative progressive and that makes him very dangerous to the Republican party and conservatives.

By: ThatGayConservative

ThatGayConservative — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 03:25:17 +0000

So I guess some folk are willing to work with those who might have conflicting views of points.

You mean like the gay left supporting the DNC?

By: American Elephant

American Elephant — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:10:38 +0000

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.

By: Anon387823

Anon387823 — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:37:12 +0000

David Frum is the straight Andrew Sullivan.

By: Gene in Pennsylvania

Gene in Pennsylvania — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:23:16 +0000

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.

By: SoCalRobert

SoCalRobert — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:07:06 +0000

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.

By: Scherie

Scherie — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:55:20 +0000

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.

By: heliotrope

heliotrope — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:37:55 +0000

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?

By: rusty

rusty — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:06:54 +0000

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.

By: Bilwick

Bilwick — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:58:20 +0000

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.

By: j4140

j4140 — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:26:04 +0000

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.

By: The_Livewire

The_Livewire — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:40:00 +0000

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…

By: ThatGayConservative

ThatGayConservative — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:26:57 +0000

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.

What kind of serious though is required for, essentially, “bend over and bite on a pillow.“? How much “integrity” is required for that?

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.

For example…..?

If that means failure for America, so be it.

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.

Some of the braver souls in your camp even said so publically.

Such as…..

By: ILoveCapitalism

ILoveCapitalism — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:21:46 +0000

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.

By: ILoveCapitalism

ILoveCapitalism — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:19:14 +0000

“Does anybody seriously believe the Democrats wanted to negotiate?”

Well, actually, yes

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.

By: ILoveCapitalism

ILoveCapitalism — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:09:49 +0000

I do find it amusing when Tano, often one of the blog’s elite screeching name-callers, prattles on about respect and adult conduct.