Posted on 03/13/2009 12:12:53 PM PDT by lifeisacarnival
Frum's embrace of various liberal positions doesn't make him a dummy, or an unskilled writer, or someone who should be excluded from a necessary conversation among self-identified conservatives about the direction of their wayward movement. It just makes him rather hubristic to envision himself as a general giving marching orders, or as a pope issuing excommunications, to a movement he no longer has much use for.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
"Peeking Out From the McCain Wreckage: Mitt Romney"
"Someone's got to say it: IS MITT ROMNEY RESPONSIBLE FOR OBAMA'S VICTORY?"
"Vanity: Team Romney Sabotaged Palin and Continuing to Do So?"
I can think of other self-styled conservatives who've voiced similar disagreements. He's not the "only" one by far. But coming from the Reagan administration (as did Peggy Noonan), MSM pundits and Democrat political operatives see him as carrying some weight. We see differently...
"When liberals adopt you as their token conservative, kiss your credibility among conservatives goodbye and say hello to writing gigs at the Atlantic, appearances on Keith Olbermann's program, and lectures at the Kennedy School of Government. David Brooks, who serves as the house conservative to both PBS's News Hour and the New York Times op-ed page, could have told David Frum this. To be the liberals' favorite conservative is usually an indication of just how alienated from conservatism one really is."
I would only add that the reason this is happening is a lack of political leadership among conservatives at the national level. Into the vacuum have stepped soi-disant (sorry for the French, but it works, trust me) "conservatives", who in reality are East Coast media "Republi-pundits" who tend to look down their noses at real conservatives, frequently from 30,000 feet.
David Frum also argued that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and that we found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - we just don’t acknowledge them. He isn’t always wrong.
Maybe it's just a phase - he must be approaching 40.
Flynn manages to bash Rush and Bush as well...I wasn’t too impressed with this piece.
“David Frum also argued that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and that we found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - we just don’t acknowledge them. He isn’t always wrong.”
Name the genius making the decision to not acknowledge the WMD in Iraq?
Perhaps more than other factor, this decision opened the doorway to Bush’s decline in approvals, and the four year drumbeat about Iraq, etc.
Name the genius. Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Card, Rove?
Frum and bebe buckley can take their act on the road together.
No, it makes him a neocon.
“Unstated is that the situation also presents an opportunity for a writer to land space in a mass-circulation liberal magazine by trading on his credibility as a “conservative” voice to mouth ideas soothing to the editors at that mass-circulation liberal magazine.”
Fortunately, that credibility is only good for a few pieces. The libs will continue to use it though, and Frum will be (is now) the same inside joke that is David Rodham Gergen.
There wasn't anything that could not be debated by the liberal press.
I'll give examples from my imperfect memory. We found and examined mobile labs, photos of which Powell had used as evidence. They could have been used to make biological weapons in the field, or they could have been used to fill balloons with hydrogen. Guess what our press concluded? We found more than 500 shells containing chemical warheads. Sounds like a stockpile to me - but not to the press. They hadn't been found in one place. These were “old” rounds that preceded some agreements, blah blah blah. We found hundreds (thousands?) of tons of uranium that could be used for warheads or dirty nukes. So what? Asks the press. Saddam was allowed some uranium. It's a matter of how much, and when he bought it. We found an incredible amount of pesticides at military facilities. Even if all these barrels were properly and honestly labeled, real pesticides are excellent precursor materials for nerve agents to be used against humans. We found uniforms for soldiers to protect them when they used biological and chemical weapons. A few Iraqi scientists volunteered rare, active, dangerous, biological agents that they were told to hide in their home refrigerators. None of this mattered to our one party press.
The press would never find a smocking gun, no matter how clear the evidence. The press determines the topic and the ground-rules for debate. They chose WMD stockpiles, and they chose rules that made WMDs non-existent.
WMDs were only one of the many the reasons why both the Clinton and Bush administrations, and successive Congresses, decide that we should depose and try Saddam Hussein. Clinton gave peace a chance and he failed. Bush realized that war was the answer and he succeeded.
Bush and company should have spent more time cleaning up the historical record. It seemed like they were always ready to move on, leaving it up to "history" and other impartial pundits to set the record straight. Maybe they will be vindicated in 50 to 100 years.
David Frum was never really a conservative guy! He played one for political opportunism and now primarily is the house conservative on liberal platforms. Don’t fret for him though, chances are the pay is excellent.
To the David Frum’s of the world, credibility just don’t pay.
David Frum was also the loudest, most constant voice on the ‘conservative side’ against Harriet Myers, and against the Dubai Ports Deal.
I will always wonder if Justice Ginsberg might have retired if Myers had been seated, and then President Bush would have gotten Sam Alito seated also. We’ll never know.
Frum, Noonan, Buckley, Parker, Brooks - if they'll rejoin the conservative movement when it becomes more approved by the liberals who are paying their salaries then I don't think we really need to worry about them rejoining at all.
Just between the two of us and all our friends here, I’m glad Harriet Myers wasn’t chosen. She is, by all accounts, weak and ineffective. John Roberts is head and shoulders above her.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is tragically ill and will be replaced by BHO, so expect hard left. A 10-25 year set back for the pro-life, pro-small governemnt cause. The Republican missteps over the last several years are very very expensive.
If only those oh-so-smart "conservatives" would look at what is happening to this country by the Democrats in power instead of focusing on Rush or the "social" conservatives they want to expel, they might be an asset to the country. Instead, they are part of the problem.
She is, by all accounts, weak and ineffective.
*****?????*****
By all who’s accounts? David Frum and the other beltway elites, perhaps?
Harriett Myers is weak on the important issues of the day and is a sop from the Bush White House. She would have been worse than Souter and Breyer. She’s a pro-abortion lefty at heart.
On what do you base your statement about Harriet Myers’ heart? I based mine on her public statements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.