|
Readers weigh in on the Rush-bashing. A selection of letters on Mark's posts Kuhner’s Odd Rant, Devastating Wit, The Rush Wars and Rush to Judgment.
Re: Kuhner's odd rant
IF COOL WERE ALL…
I still don't get how Frum made Obama's coolness and great family life and treatment of his wife and fitness such a hallmark of his praise when he not only endorsed but I believe actually worked for Rudy Giuliani's campaign.
The same Rudy, who while I too supported him and still think he'd be a great President, certainly isn't an examplar of any of that. Look at all the negatives Frum listed against Rush: Cigars, Bombastic, Sarcastic, Bad history withwomen, out of shape, language, etc... They all apply in greater measure to Rudy and he had no problem working for him.
If the Mr Clean thing is so important they don't come more white bread and Norman Rockwell than Mitt Romney and he didn't back him.
Also, when it comes to physical attractiveness, physical fitness, clean living, lack of smoking, dedicated family life, loving spouse and parent, there's really no better example than the one Republican he seems to constantly denigrate.
Very strange.
Also strange how he never mentions that it the Iraq War which he ardently backed and pushed for that really was the downfall of the GOP, along with the economy, but the war opposition started things.
Instead, it's all Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh's fault. The highest unemployment and worst GDP and Market performance in 25 years had nothing to do with it. Having a President with the lowest approval rating in US history had nothign to do with it. Being associated with a war that 2/3 of voters oppose had nothing to do with it. Being outspent by an unprecedented amount of close to 300 million dollars had nothing to do with it. Having a Republican and Conservative who until he was the only one left standing was depsised by large segments of the party and the movement and seeming took pleasure and made his career in sticking it to the base had nothing to do with it (and who still managed to get 90% of the GOP and close to 80% of conservatives). Having a candidate who inexplicably fell apart with that whole suspend the campaign and lead the bailout talks and made his name opposing pork and spending but then when it came down to nutcutting time joined forces with Bush and Obama to back a 750 Billion spending spree opposed by a majority of voters had bothing to do with it.
Nope, it was all Rush and Sarah's fault.
Please.
“Keyze”
THE SUNSHINEY BUTTERFLY KINGDOM OF HAPPY TIME
Dunno who Kuhner is (don't read papers, etc. hell I didn't even watch TV except the last couple years, I'm an old school dusty tome type), but he has a point in some sense. On one end, like F.A. Hayek wanted, we need to persuade academics (so called high-brow, high society bourgeois types) of the benefits of conservatism [classical liberalism] and the free market have to society. So it's good to tear down those high places the academics like to worship at, like central planning. If it's allowed to be considered as an honorable practice then the very fact we have central planning will more than likely destroy the principle of liberty, ergo it's no longer conservatism as the driving force to govern; intellectuals love central planning. Central planning gives a chance to act out fantasies and imaginations of creating a perfect society or at least shaping and bending industries to your own intentions. Usually mixing any part God into such imaginations is an iniquity. Let’s make ordinance after ordinance through municipal and county, state and federal to negotiate our republican form of government out of existence, and lets design them all so that they have to kowtow to Washingmachine, D.C. to launder all the money and strain it through all kinds of bureaucracies that are designed to undermine personal freedom. This way all the states can just be branches of the federal government--the tail instead of the head.
I've had enough of the plans and policies from either side, what about you? It seems like all that's taking place in the intelligentsia on either side is who gets to be the bigger fascist, let's nationalize everything, just go for it! - this whole frog-lobster in a slow boil mid-pattern pot is driving me nuts. I don't care about what some academic definition of socialism or fascism is, the fact is the only thing that seems to be on the agenda is a collective corporate state.
Do we have to imitate the waterless clouds that follow the wind everywhere? We don't really need to make any argument for or against an issue if we can say that to even argue the issue betrays any accomplishment to be had. If I bargain on a battlefield chosen by my enemy it doesn't put me in a position of strength. When it comes to domestic policy and issues could we stop being the equivalent of a Jimmy Carter (and Barack Obama) on foreign policy? I'm sure if people understood that all of these things going on in domestic side are taking away option after option until we have just two left...a new dark age, or a new global tyranny (sure, laugh if you want).
Of course the tyranny is going to be called something else, like the sunshiney-butterfly-kingdom-of-happy-time.
You know what? I don't care. If people want, or want their children to decide between which to inherit, do whatever you think is right in your own eyes. I'll choose another inheritance, thank you.
Feh! I can't keep anything straight in my head anymore, everything gets bent under the crushing gravity of the supermassive black hole of government encouraging chaos. I read a sci-fi author once while in school, Roger Zelazny, I'm going to use an image from his writing. We're being forced to walk this Logrus of constantly evolving morals and codes of government. Talk to Jonah, maybe he's read the whole Amber series.
JT
ELKS CLUB
Reminds me of a great line from an otherwise terrible movie, "City Heat", with Burt Reynolds and Clint Eastwood. Eastwood plays a tough city cop. He's interrogating a dumb mob button man.
Eastwood: “I don't like guys of your ilk. You know what an ilk is, don't you?”
Mob Guy: “Yeah, it's a big deer.”
Anyway...
LKG
Salem,Oregon
Re: Devastating wit
DEMOCRATS ATTACK PRIVATE CITIZEN
Aside from your very valid observation that the winning entry can be read in a way completely contrary to its intent, what is the billboard's actual purpose? Rush is a private citizen who has no official connection to the Republican Party at all. He's influential, sure, but if the Republican Party is totally under his sway why aren't we now celebrating the first months of, or the fact that we almost had, a Fred Thompson administration? Rush (rightly) railed against John McCain as Republican standard-bearer. So Rush is basically what he is, a private citizen who is listened to by a large part of the conservative movement but is certainly not the "leader" of the Republican Party.
This campaign is therefore a well financed attack on a private citizen by the Democratic Party. There's a guy in my office who's a real pain in the ass. Do you think I should ask the Democratic Party if it will put up a billboard calling him a schmuck? I mean since defaming a private citizen is now something they do, how could they object?
Edmond D. Smith
Putnam, Connecticut
THE ENEMY THEY NEED
"I think both sides of the Democrat coalition are going to be unhappy with him in the years to come, and the rest of us can just sit back and watch them have a go at each other."
The Left knows they can't afford to let that happen. That's why they have to pull Rush into the game, as if he were a minority party capable of blocking their legislation. Any group without an external enemy will always disintegrate into factions, particularly one like the Left whose raison d'être is hatred. Any utopian movement runs into the same barrier. "Americans didn't vote for a Rush to failure" by the way, doesn't even make sense, much less prompt laughter. It's completely incoherent. Al Frankel's "Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat idiot" remains, I think, the standard against which the persuasiveness, elegance and wit of all Rush criticism must be measured.
Ezra Marsh
Baltimore
GREAT PUBLICITY
As a marketer I can hardly think of a better promotion for Rush's show than this idiotic billboard. One wonders what this is supposed to accomplish. Listeners of the show will of course continue to listen, and non-listeners will probably feel compelled to at least check out "enemy." Undoubtedly some of them will enjoy it, thereby increasing his popularity. Brilliant!
p.s. I loved "America Alone."
Tom Dillon
Re: The Rush Wars
THE LEAKY BUCKET
To John O’Sullivan’s point, that conservative "reformers" should be required to produce some elementary arithmetic showing that all the people turned off by the "reforms" will be replaced by at least the same number of people plus one.
The appeal to moderate conservative reformers like to describe their approach as the Big Tent but I concur with O¹Sullivan’s point and refer to it as the Leaky Bucket.
The leaky bucket concept is used in Marketing and customer loyalty. It generally pertains to the proposition that if you change your product in an appeal to new customers, how many of your loyal customers (i.e., rock ribbed conservatives) are going to bolt?
Additionally, the “reformers” may be trying to cure a nonexistent problem. Before we jump on to the “Big Tent,” all moderates’ welcome notion, let’s determine the extent of the impact of two other factors:
1. A described once-in-a-lifetime economic mess taking place under an incumbent Republican president with no certainty of a solution, and
2. The first Black American presidential candidate.
Keep in mind, the number one issue cited in the exit polling was the economy.
Mike
NEW RUSH FANS
In regards to David Frum: I would like to turn John O'Sullivan's question on its head: who new does Rush Limbaugh bring to the table? Get back to us on that one.
Allen M. Hodges
THE BEST FORM OF DEFENSE…
Mark - I think you are one of the best writers in the world and value your opinions & observations.
As a loyal Rush listener, the brouhaha over his influence is maddening; in that once again, for the umpteenth time, we are letting the #$^@# Democrats frame the debate and put the issue on the table. (which you duly noted was Steele's problem; Why did he accept the premise Hughley brought up in the first place - it was democrat talking points, orchestrated and contrived and he should have noted it as such and ended it there.)
All we ever do as Republicans, now & when they were in power, is defensively react to Democrat mud-slinging. Why are we always on the defensive? Why are we defending things that don't need to be defended? Why are we never on the attack?
One of the biggest things that bothered me about GWB was his refusal to take the fight to the left. They were just as much or enemy as Iraq/Al Quada was/is. He fought the war over there, but didn't fight it here. He let them dictate the message; he should have called them out for their treason. McCain did the same in his run.
Rush is one of the few leaders that refuse to cowtow to their agenda and sticks to his principles. Were it the same for our political leaders.
Mark Bruni
THE GREAT ONE
How great is Rush that, in only two weeks time, the cover of Newsweek went from proclaiming "We Are All Socialists Now" to a censorship band over El Rushbo's mouth reading "Enough"? Thank God for Limbaugh in these extremely tough and insane times. Who else but him could get the average American's opposition to this governmental recklessness spread across the cover of a liberal rag like Newsweek so quickly?
Eric Meichsner
ONE OF THE STRENGTHS OF THE PARTY
I don't get it. The Democrats are attacking Rush because he is one of the strengths of the Republican Party. Rove was a genius because he could attack a strength and weaken it. Why are Republicans giving up their strength?
Derek
DOUBLE-BANK SHOT
“Perhaps, in his hectic round of promotional interviews, David Frum could find time - just for eight or nine seconds, say - to offer some thoughts on why the President's administration is not as 'honed' as his physique.”
A double-bank shot in the side pocket. Beautiful. Two well deserved targets.
Robert
COURTING THE MSM
Following his appearance on Chris Matthews, it appears that David Frum has a hint of Sally Field about him. Gripping his Oscar for Norma Rae (cover story in Newsweek) in one hand, and his Oscar for Places in the Heart (Hardball appearance) in the other, you can almost hear him declaring to the MSM, "You like me, you really like me!"
In the meantime, I eagerly await his next Newsweek cover story taking the Obama administration to task. Think I'll have to wait long?
Rob Dyer
TIRESOME WIMPS
Delighted to see you give Frum your toughest shot to date. He and Brooks, and others, are tiresome wimps who seem enthralled with their genuflectual unipartisanshit agenda.
But why the panic on the soft right? They had their ideal candidate in "no-Wright-stuff" McCain - a dud and a half as a candidate, detested by the vertebrate- right - .and he was even ahead of Obie (thanks to Sarah) untlil the banking stuff hit in mid Sept.
John Gross
Quebec
ALL ABOUT HIM
I have to say, I stopped reading David Frum's Blog on NRO the last 6 months of 2008. I had decided, that despite being well written, it was increasingly about, well, him. I would not even click the link. No way was I going to provide positive click stats.
The bile about Palin: his candidate did not win. Sore loser. The bile about Rush: Rush's influence is bigger than Frum's. Sore loser.
Frum is not really a conservative: he is just pro-Frum. And a sore loser.
Glad he is gone from NRO. Sorry he needs the attention and sees that throwing rocks through the window as the only way to get it. Perhaps a new edition of one of his books is about to release? Or a new book? Or a new cable show in Canada? Or a contract with CNN as the tame, house "conservative"?
Whatever. Now he is aiding and abetting the enemy. I call on you to keep him away from the campfire, someday, when the weather turns cold and the wolves howl in the night.
Robert Arnold
Sonoma, California
THE ‘SENSIBLE’ STRATEGY
Frum seems to have walked straight out of the drama that afflicted the Progressive Conservative Party not that many years ago. He and his ilk were content to adopt the trappings of a "sensible, moderate" B-team to the Liberals, yet practised the sort of retail political panache that could not even sell beer on a troop train. While the Red Tories detested the grassroots of the Reform Party as too common for their tastes, these volunteers shamed those Tories with their prodigious efforts on the ground and the ability to pull in real votes.
And to think Frum was the man who organized the Winds of Change conference aimed at pulling the PC Party out of the clutches of the Red Tories. How does one keep him down on the farm after he's seen gay DC?
Paul A. Canniff
St John's, Newfoundland
SNOBS
It strikes me that the largest motivator for Mr. Frum's and Mr. Brook's "reform" agenda is snobbishness (snobbery?). They clearly view themselves as very sophisticated, and like those who share that (apparent) sophistication. Anybody who smells of middlebrow (or worse) cultural affinity is to be shunned.
I think that what they are about is reinventing Country Club Republicanism, with a slightly more urban/progressive/crunchy con feeling. It smacks of (almost) pure style, and zero substance. Which explains their attraction to President Obama.
Rush will clean their clocks.
Patrick Shanahan
SELF-PROMOTION
The last time Frum got any mainstream attention was when he labeled Bob Novak unpatriotic. (One of NR's worst moments, btw). The guy is as much as self-promoter as Rush. Only difference is that there is not a single drop of disingenuousness in Rush's self-promotion, and he's actually good at it. Frum wants to rides others' coattails. Whether it's Novak, Rush, or Bush (by writing his White House "memoir," as if anyone believes that a junior speechwriter was really on the inside). My advice: don't take Frum half as seriously as he takes himself.
Sean Fouts
ADDLED AND ANGRY
Speaking as a charter dittohead (started listening on 7/4/88), I can say only that I was not thrilled with Rush's CPAC performance last weekend. He looked like an angry, sweaty, flailing, scattered, slightly-addled man--in short, exactly the image the Left has of him. If he's the face of the GOP, we're in the wilderness for decades. Ask yourself this: would Ronald Reagan have put on such a performance?
Steve
Cape Cod
CORNER CLUB
Thanks for being the one guy on The Corner willing to question Frum's intentions. I love NR, but sometimes feel too many contributors are unwilling to challenge, or forcefully argue against their friends and former colleagues.
Chuck Baylot
San Jose, California
HIS HAIR IS PRETTY HONED
And how strong was Frum's support for Romney? Romney should be perfect: trim, wealthy, and conservative. Maybe too conservative?
Richard Gasparotti
NOT A FIGHT WORTH HAVING
I'm trying to see David Frum's side in this Rush mess. He is (was?) a conservative; his bona fides are impeccable. But David lost me in his encomium to our gym-rat-in-chief when he wrote that Obama's "worst vice [is] an occasional cigarette."
Hmm. Lying to us about earmarks is a good thing? Being a lefty's lefty may seem not so bad, but his programs, if enacted fully, will bankrupt us. That's kinda sorta not so good. My late blessed mother would have said something about going to hell if you were so much in debt.
Then there is Obama's general pridefulness, except, of course, when he reminds us as to how humble he really is. My catechism may have been old-school and a long time ago, but I vaguely recall that pride was one of those seven deadlies...
Rush is not and never claimed to be a political leader. He is a commentator. A great commentator, true. This is not a fight worth having, and David is off my list of regular reads.
John Rich
Arlington, Virginia
DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED IN DAVID
I am a NR subscriber and a Rush 24/7 subscriber. I am profoundly disappointed in David Frum. I thought his book, The Right Man, was a good read that provided an invaluable service to the conservative cause. He had always been a first rate contributor to NR and my sense of the man was that it would be quite something to know him personally. I must presume that his feelings towards Rush are heartfelt but I cannot understand the cause. At least David has left NR thereby allowing me to stay on as a subscriber.
Art Gilbert
CONSERVATIVE NO MORE
Can you please mention around the NRO office that David Frum is NOT a conservative and people should stop listening to him.
John Reid
Victoria, British Columbia
Re: Rush to judgment
BACKSHOOTER
In addition to your brilliant observation of Michael Steele's character and unpreparedness for the RNC Chair, let's not forget that Steele was the craven back shooter exposed as the anonymous source for the Wa Post article, distancing Republicans from Bush in his 2006 Senate race.
This is not an encouraging start.
Name withheld
SOURED ON THE RNC
Totally agree with you on Mr. Steele. I had some hope when he ash-canned all the folk at RNC HQ. However, his downright uncalled for remarks about Rush totally soured me, once again, on the RNC and any hope of a "conservative" Republican Party. They can squirt up a rope and suck on the wet end if they think I'm going to give them any of my money (what little will be left when Obama gets done confiscating it.)
George Hawks
Southlake, Texas
SNEERING DERISION
Truly have enjoyed your various guest hosting for both Hugh and Rush.
Re: your Corner post today about Mr. Steele's squalid statement about Rush and then his "sorry" response to the deserved criticisms he received.
What is it about most elected republicans that serve in Washington? If you recall, Sen. McCain had the same sort of ignorant, dismissive view of conservative radio talkers. Only he added an additional dash of sneering derision towards them.
When you see a so called "respected" (by the media, of course) Republican on a Sunday show or in some sort of interview or in one of those televised exhibitions they call congressional committee meetings it is painfully obvious that these people aren't remotely acquainted with what we regular, everyday, working in the private sector Republicans are dealing with. Further, and more importantly, these folks are so uninformed. They only know what their staffers have boiled down for them. As you accurately pointed out about Chairman Steele's comments, their views of (and lack of understanding of) vital concepts like the Laffer Curve, the actual history and success of, supply side economics vs. a demand, Keynesian approach are formed by listening to mocking sound bites from the dominant liberal media.
If any of our elected representatives spent just a few hours a week pod casting Hugh Hewitt, listening to Rush or reading the Corner they would be better able to intelligently tackle the problems facing our nation. And with just a little courage and reading they could make Schumer look like the loony demagogue that he is.
There are a few notable examples and a hardy three cheers for them.: Sen. Coburn, Rep. Cantos, etc.
Mr. Steyn, the point here is that getting up to speed on rational, debated conservative thought is not that difficult. That is, if one is interested in the least. Basically the equation means less navel gazing at the WaPost and NYT and getting more info from other places.
Respectfully but still a huge fan,
Griff
Aurora, Colorado
THE YOUTUBE ERA
Just read your blurb on the Steele v. Rush dust-up. I would make one slight change. I do not think Michael Steele never listens to Rush. I think his error was on forgetting that it is the youtube era. He was on Hugley's show (a place he is effective as other Republicans are not) and simply pandered to that audience in order to make his points. He accepted the premises because he felt fighting them there was not worth it and would undercut his other points. The problem is that you can no longer say one thing to one group, and another to another group without both finding out about it. I would imagine the overlap between Rush and D.L.'s audiances can be measured in single digits (individuals not percentages).
John J. Vecchione, Esq.
Fairfax, Virginia
|
