David Frum doesn't have many friends left at NRO

It appears that way. David Frum has been very busy lately, making the talk show rounds and discussing his dislike for Rush Limbaugh. What I find interesting is how the public support for him at NRO has faded and many have openly argued against his views.

After Frum left NRO, he still had many friends who would link to his new website and bring his articles up as topics of discussion. But his recent harsh criticism of Limbaugh, including personal insults, has made him lose even his staunchest holdout supporters. The last straw seems to be that he wrote an article for the current issue of Newsweek, flinging more personal insults at Limbaugh about his appearance and past drug abuse. But probably the most constroversial aspect was the Newsweek cover - a photo of Limbaugh - menacing, where they added tape over his mouth and the word "ENOUGH!" written over the tape.

The image of a person with tape over their mouth is horrifying. It is the graphic representation of denying someone their basic human right to use their voice. I'm surprised an editor let it through. This particular photo, in context, is one that discourages a political discourse of differing opinions. I would even go so far to say that it disallows free speech. A publication, discouraging free speech. No wonder newspapers all over the country are going bankrupt.

Frum's article being the force behind the cover photo is what I believe made some of his friends at NRO publicly distance themselves from his views. Frum also appeared on Chris Matthews' show and allegedly claimed that Limbaugh is racist, or has racist tendencies. At NRO many statements of "David Frum is a great friend of mine, but..." are posted. And yesterday, Andy McCarthy wrote probably the most scathing criticism I've ever read there. This gives me hope that they're not as quick to embrace moderate-conservatism as I thought.

Here are a few articles where I noticed that they finally broke with Frum:

Frum, Rush, Rudy [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Congratulations David Frum [Andy McCarthy]

The Rush Slow Crawl To Judgment [Jonah Goldberg]

Re: The "They did it" presidency [Mark Steyn] (at the end)

That Newsweek Cover [Ramesh Ponnuru]

Re: That Newsweek Cover [Mark Steyn]

The Rush wars [Mark Steyn]

Rush on Our Minds [Jay Nordlinger]

We need to come up with a name, how about RSNOB or SNOB(r) for Republicans who exclude from the party

Rush Limbaugh's comment "I want the President to fail" has ignited a firestorm across the political spectrum. It infuriated the Left, obviously. But it also jabbed the sleeping giant elephant in the room with a big stick, and started an open civil war between elite Republicans and blue-collar Republicans.

Many on Right are upset about Rush's comment.

John Derbyshire:

"...perhaps the worst effect of Limbaugh et al. has been their draining away of political energy from what might have been a much more worthwhile project: the fostering of a middlebrow conservatism."

"There's nothing wrong with lowbrow conservatism. Or, to quote my actual words in the piece: "There's nothing wrong with lowbrow conservatism. It's energizing and fun." But where's the middlebrow counterweight?"

Readers in response to Derbyshire:

"I now wince when I see American conservatism being defined by Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, and other noisome sorts. They peddle anger and a dumbed-down patriotism."

"As conservatives form circular firing squads, your piece is of the type common a few months ago when certain writers, normally on the Right,discovered that Sarah Palin was not their kind of person, a bumpkin who couldn't find her way around the finer parts of Manhattan."

David Frum:

"On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of “responsibility,” and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him.

And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as “losers.”"

Michael Steele:

"Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes it’s incendiary, yes it’s ugly."

So - our economy is in the toilet; our personal freedoms are quickly going down the toilet; our Constitution is being flushed down the toilet, and John Derbyshire is worried that there's no "middlebrow" conservatism?? David Frum is idealizing Obama? Michael Steele, the RNC chairman, publicly stated that he thinks Rush Limbaugh's show is "ugly?" What is wrong with this picture?

I just quoted those, but there were so many more "Republicans" like Derbyshire, Frum and Steele commenting on the Rush, Palin and Jindal type personas in the party. What a bunch of snobs. Seriously, they are petty, juvenile snobs.

There isn't political party that so often says "you're not good enough for us" like the Republicans do. Palin, Jindal, Rush, they have ideas. They have conservative principles. Jindal and Palin are actually implementing good fiscal conservative policy in our country and these snobs have the audacity to say "you're not good enough for us. We don't want you to lead us." Who cares what the person looks like, what they eat, how they speak, what nationality they are, how much money they make, where they went to college, how many kids they have, where their kids go to school - as long as they have smart, conservative principles and are able to work hard to get them implemented?

This is just my opinion, but Democrats seem much more accepting of diverse groups in their party. Why? Because when they're united they win. When the truth came out about Obama's ties to Jeremiah Wright, I didn't hear massive amounts of Democrats on the Left screaming about how he wasn't representing the party in the correct manner. And look what happened - he won! And even if they have internal arguments about policy or leadership, they usually put up a strong united front in the MSM. They usually say something like "I disagree with ____, but I understand where he/she is coming from."

CLARIFICATION: I'm saying Democrats present a united front to MSM and the general public. I know during primaries and elections they try to take down each other in shady ways, dig up dirt, expose information, etc. I'm just talking about public perception of the party as a whole, and lefty pundits' non-criticism of them. Sorry. I'm making it more confusing than it is.

Republicans really need to stop with the exclusionary tactics. The precious few Republican journalists in MSM need to be united in their beliefs so we can, you know, win some seats in 2010 and hopefully have a good strong candidate for 2012. These SNOBS really need to shut their mouths or get out of the party.

NRO subtly shows their dislike of Palin

On the heels of Palin's State of the State Address, in which she outlined her conservative views and actions for the state, one of National Review Online's blogs, The Corner, had a post titled:

"Palin's Wardrobe"

The post is a status update of where Palin's RNC clothes are. That's newsworthy right? The title is misleading. It leads you to believe there is some drama on Palin's side of the story, that there is continuing "bad blood" between the RNC and Palin. That is not true. Palin returned her clothes and the RNC simply has done nothing with them. There is nothing newsworthy about this story whatsoever. The only point of posting this was to make readers remember that Palin received clothes in the first place, that they cost lots of money and there was controversy during the campaign about it. It's misleading because they failed, again, to report that Palin didn't even want those clothes.

I question the timing of this post. After weeks, maybe months, of not discussing this stupid wardrobe story, NRO decides to post about it a day after her State of the State Address, thus deflecting any positive attention she might have received that day.

What's worse is that NR's post also links to the new website of a former NR staffer, David Frum, who is on the record as a Republican who cannot stand Palin. They're plugging Frum's new website and sacrificing Palin in the process.

This is unfortunate. I can understand HuffPo, or any other MSM outlet running this story. But it's sad that NR, that used to be the premiere Republican news outlet, decided to go in this direction. What they're saying is they don't want someone with Palin's views and ideals representing the Republican Party. Since Palin leans very "right," and is a fiscal conservative - to me it says that they are not as "right" or conservative anymore.

I realize that NRO shouldn't be endorsing politicians without question, and that's not what I'm saying they should do. However, this misleading post almost goes into "smear" territory, and I don't think Palin deserves that. I also realize NRO is a collection of several writers, and not all of them agree with this. But did they have to link to David Frum to get that extra jab in? That was unnecessary. This post really highlights how there's little direction or leadership in the current state of the Republican Party.

the corner
Friday, January 23, 2009

Palin's Wardrobe [David Freddoso]

The story about Sarah Palin's wardrobe was one of the most overblown of the 2008 election cycle, and unfortunately it came at the expense of a more thorough look at the serious problems with Obama's record. Yet clothes-gate did raise a very legitimate question: Just how well are the Republican Party and Republican campaigns spending donors' money?

Here's an additional, frustrating angle to the story: Palin has returned the clothes to the RNC as promised, but they're inside trash bags at the RNC, collecting dust.

01/23 03:12 PM