Great post. I've never consumed even five seconds of Glenn Beck product. I'm fond of Frum but with reservations. The best example of fear we've seen from the left in the last year was their response to Palin. All that ferocity came from pant-wetting terror.

What I don't get is why everybody wants a party that perfectly reflects their views. Well, it's obvious why people would want that, but the fact that there isn't such a party doesn't mean that something's wrong in terms of the way we run our shop. 'The Libertarian Party' always sounded like a contradiction in terms.

Remember when the Republicans used to have heroes like the John Wayne knockoff, Ronald Reagan? Now their heroes are soft-serve doughboys like Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck.

They don't stand for anything these days, except whatever it takes to get themselves back in control. You sometimes point out in your columns that once someone becomes desperate to find love, they also become least likely to find it. The conservatives of today are focused only on returning to power. As such, they are now in the position when they're least likely to get it.

Frum should shut up and stop claiming to be a conservative. He and his ilk are a large part of the reason that the Republican party has gone soft.

Patrick - comparing Limbaugh to Hannity is evidence that you've listened to neither. Please stop repeating Media Matters' lies about Limbaugh. It makes you look lazy.

Frum is annoyed because Beck is getting the audience Frum believes he deserves. Frum, Noonan, Parker, et al are upset that their wise counsel is ignored.

Well, it could be that the world is full of idiots who won't listen to wise old you, but it is possible that the rubes didn't like what happened when they listened to wise old you, voted for change and like what they're getting now even less.

If the customer isn't buying, you've got two choices, namely change what you're selling, or change customers.

The establishment ought to be pissing themselves. There is a lot of anger at the way they are destroying our future with their reckless spending. Oh, it's still peaceful, but then close to 85% of us are still employed. It's a good thing Bernanke says the recession is over. I hope he's right.

brian writes:

Frum should shut up and stop claiming to be a conservative. He and his ilk are a large part of the reason that the Republican party has gone soft.

Patrick - comparing Limbaugh to Hannity is evidence that you've listened to neither. Please stop repeating Media Matters' lies about Limbaugh. It makes you look lazy.

It is evidence of nothing that I compare the two, except in your mind. I've listened to both quite enough in my time, and I've read Limbaugh's See, I Told You So and Hannity's Let Freedom Ring and found them both to be appalling crap. Just because you see nuanced shades of dishonesty where I simply choose to see unmitigated bullshit without needing to define each type, doesn't mean I'm lazy.

OK, Where is the bullshit from either? I don't like Hannity's combative style, but I don't know that he's a liar. I know Limbaugh isn't.

And if you think Limbaugh is interested in returning the Republican party as it is presently constituted to power, you're wrong. He was on the vanguard of hitting Bush for not controlling spending from his own party out of some misguided attempt to "change the tone in Washington".

If you think that the Republican party in general and Frum, Parker, etc. in specific are conservative in any sense of the word, you're off your head. THEY want to return to power, consequences be damned. They aren't interested in reducing the government or its influence, they just want to be the ones driving the agenda. Instead of nanny-state socialism, they want daddy-state "go to your room"-ism.

Either way, both groups think that government knows best, and I know for a fact that government doesn't know shit.

The R-Party may commit seppuku in the coming 2012 election. Usually, after defeat, political movements and parties "go back to the base."
The base now of the R-Party is the Sarah Palin crowd.
It's is too bad Palin in fact committed seppuku with her, "I am not a quitter but I am quitting my job as Governor" speech.
The present-day R-Party is dangerous, I contend. As in after six years of R-Party domination (House, Senate, White House and Supremes, 2000-2006) we were stuck in an endless war in Iraq and our financial system collapsed. The worst recession since the Great Depression. It happened on the R-Party watch.
That, after the Clinton years, in which the Dow tripled, inflation was low, the federal budget was running surpluses, and we were in no wars. The best administration ever, in terms of results.
The R-Party record is one of unmitigated disaster.
The crazies in the R-Party are scary on an individual level, but I suspect they repel more people than they attract, so they will ultimately doom the party to another rout 2012.
I just hope the R-Party dudes keep showing up at political or policy events wearing guns. I guess they plan to contribute to the conversation that way. How pleasant. It is an interesting way to make a point. What is that point, do you imagine?

Both parties suck. On a local level here in NY, we had our Senate cost us millions of dollars while they refused to work because they couldn't figure out which party was in charge. The Republican party staged a coup and aligned itself with two disgusting Democrats. One has been facing various ethics charges for years and always manages to get off. He is facing more currently. The other is facing felony Domestic Violence charges. There is videotape which a judge refuses to make public but states that it makes one's blood boil. These are the men that the Republican party chose in their desperation to win the majority back. Forget what the voters wanted. Forget the millions of dollars it was costing tax payers while they fought back and forth and locked each other out of the Senate Chamber. It was never about the constituents. It was about the power.
On a national level it is the same thing. Does anyone really believe that anyone but a Democrat or Republican could ever be elected as President? Does anyone believe that these people haven't sold out to make it to that level? I always hear Conservative or Liberal as though it has to be one or the other. It has become so extreme and its no longer about an issue, but about which side wins and gets the power. It seems now that when you vote, that there is no degrees to any issue. If I vote for a candidate who is pro-choice, does it necessarily mean I have to be against the death penalty or vice-versa? Do people really believe that all Republicans are only for the wealthy and don't care about the less fortunate? Do they really believe that all Democrats are bleeding hearts who want to steal from the rich and give to the poor?
We may have Independents and Libertarians, but do they really have a voice? Its time we change this two party system going on and its time we hold all incumbents responsible for the state of our country. The change that we need is not about our President being Republican or Democrat but about our President actually being about what the people in this country want.

I laughed out loud when David Frum wrote "we conservatives". He is not one. He is absolutely not one.

It is not my intention here to defend Glenn Beck or the GOP. But I will absolutely defend the vast majority of people who protested on 9/12 and at the teaparties before that. Their hearts & minds are clear. They are not being blindly lead around by Beck or anyone else for that matter. They love their country and don't want to wholesale change it into something else entirely.

I very much agree with Kristen's opening line: "Both parties suck." The same can be said for all political parties in Canada, the UK, and I suspect many other countries these days.

Nowhere do I see political parties that are truly advocating for smaller, less encroaching government. That's why I believe the majority of people who believe in liberty are seeking.

In my view, the biggest divide in America is not Left vs. Right. It's Up vs. Down. Here's a column that describes this very succinctly.

That, after the Clinton years, in which the Dow tripled, inflation was low, the federal budget was running surpluses, and we were in no wars. The best administration ever, in terms of results.

And since it was all based on fraud, it imploded less than six months after his successor was inaugurated. That's right, the economy was already in a backslide before 9/11. That's when the fraud that was required to get the NASDAQ over 5,000 couldn't be maintained any longer and it fell to its natural value around 2,000.

Had nothing to do with who was in power. Had to do with the fact that funneling IPO money into fast cars, loose women, and high-grade cocaine is an unsustainable business model.

What is it with you guys? You hate Frum: We get it. But he's got a body of conservative writings to his credit that you just don't have. I just finished this last week, and you can believe it: He's conservative. That he might disagree with you on this matter or that doesn't mean you get to fold your arms and shoot your nose in the air and exclude him from the six-grader's treehouse club. It certainly doesn't mean that anyone should be impressed if you do.

So who offers these critiques?

First, the transplanted Canadian (Frum) is critiqued by a homeboy who apparently finds no instruction from events in his own country, while his gaze at our capital is unblinking. This amuses the shit out of me.

Secondly, a man who thinks assets have "natural value" wants to discredit an accomplished Republican figure as insufficiently conservative.

Dumbfounding.

Ewww, Robert, I also felt "disgust" as I read this:

"Most of us pinch pennies, worry about feeding our kids, watch healthcare payments devour our paychecks, and live just a few checks away from being homeless."

... from someone with FOUR kids??? Discover birth control, lady, and maybe you wouldn't BE just a few checks away from homelessness! Who is going to take care of those four kids if you DO miss a few checks? Don't start sucking off the welfare teat and then call yourself a self-reliant conservative.

Christian Science Monitor indeed - being a Bible-thumper does not make her a conservative.

And just for the fun of mixing it up...

I've heard Frum complain about the 'conservative-entertainment complex' a couple of times. Maybe he shouldn't: We've all had a lot of fun ridiculing media dinosaurs in the last few years, and there's no reason to stop now. But it would take many, many thoughtful works from Glenn Beck to convince me that his was a more richly, righteously conservative mind than is Frum's.

The problem with chirping at Frum (or anyone) this way—

> Frum is annoyed because Beck is
> getting the audience Frum
> believes he deserves

... is that you can say it about anyone, anytime. It instantly chokes discussion of a topic. You're essentially saying "Opinions are a like assholes, because everyone has one"... Without acknowledging that some opinions are backed up with something better than shit.

It's a perspective that views all of this as a sports contest, or as a Vegas wager on the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. To complain that these people say what they say only to win your love is to assume that you should find comfortable amusement as your opinions are molded, just as people enjoyed "American Idol" with more gusto than they used to find in "Who Wants to Be A Millionaire".

So I think Frum's right to worry about it... A little bit. But the responsibility to avoid becoming fascinated with such personalities doesn't rest with the Republican party or the Democratic party or the conservative or the liberal. It's an individual responsibility.

A lot of these media figures can be rollicking good fun in small doses. (I'll always treasure the Youtube of the first John Stewart segment after the Cheney shooting: "Let's remember, John, at the time the shot was fired, everyone believed that quail were hiding in those bushes!")

Entertainers have airtime to fill, they have column inches to fill, or they have luncheon speeches to write. They're not being paid for reflection, they're being paid for product.

People entranced by them on a personal level, whatever the political leanings, are doing their own awareness a disservice. If you agree with anyone that desperately, or even want to –especially someone distributed so profitably– your mind is probably tightly closed. The solutions to our problems will not come to us through proper selection of brand names.

brian writes:

OK, Where is the bullshit from either? I don't like Hannity's combative style, but I don't know that he's a liar. I know Limbaugh isn't.

You know Limbaugh isn't a liar? If you're mind is that closed to the possibility, you're hopelessly brainwashed.

There are scads of websites out there that expose Limbaugh's lies for what they are, and ditto with Sean Hannity. But since you asked about Hannity, I could give many examples. But let me pick the one that disgusts me the most.

Haitian immigrant Abner Louima alleged police brutality, including being sodomized with a wooden stick. Hannity immediately came to the defense of the police, alleging that "Lying Louima's" (as Hannity started calling him) injuries were the results of gay sex acts, and he and his producer sang a parody of Lionel Ritchie's "Three Times a Lady," referring to Louima: "You're once...twice...three times a liar."

One small problem. Justin Volpe, the police officer accused who appeared regularly on Hannity's show during the trial, confessed to sodomizing Louima.

And of course, Hannity was all over the airwaves the next day, apologizing profusely for maligning and attacking Louima repeatedly.

Did you believe that last sentence? Boy, you're gullible. On the contrary, Hannity denied all wrongdoing. In fact, when a listener called in and confronted him on his vicious attacks on Louima, Hannity insisted that he only provided objective commentary, "I just reported on it."

I'd say that qualifies as a pretty craven example of a face-saving lie.

By the way, Justin Volpe is now serving a 30 year sentence without the possibility of parole.

A few choice nuggets of Limbaugh lies.

LIMBAUGH: "Banks take the risks in issuing student loans and they are entitled to the profits." (Radio show, Summer/93)

Student loans are federally insured. No risk is involved to the bank.

LIMBAUGH: Comparing the 1950s with the present: "And I might point out that poverty and economic disparities between the lower and upper classes were greater during the former period." (See I Told You So, pg. 84)

Income inequality surpassed that of the 1950s in 1982 and rose to an all time high in 1992, per the Census Bureau.

LIMBAUGH: "The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe." (Radio show, Spring/93)

BULLSHIT! The lowest income quintile in the U.S. averaged around 5226 dollars when Limbaugh made this bogus claim. The average European family averaged over 19,700 in U.S. dollars. (And they have socialized medicine, too!)

LIMBAUGH: "There's no such thing as an implied contract." (Radio show, Spring/93)

Duuuuuuuh. 1 year of pre-law would tell you that there is.

LIMBAUGH: "It has not been proven that nicotine is addictive, the same with cigarettes causing emphysema [and other diseases]." (Radio show, 4/29/94)

Surgeon General Koop's 1988 report stated conclusively that nicotine is addictive, causes emphysema and is linked to a plethora of illnesses, and included thousands of studies from many countries, proving the very thing that Limbaugh claims hasn't been proven.

LIMBAUGH: "Most Canadian physicians who are themselves in need of surgery, for example, scurry across the border to get it done right: the American way. They have found, through experience, that state medical care is too expensive, too slow and inefficient, and, most important, it doesn't provide adequate care for most people." (See I Told You So, p. 153)

Nope. Most of them get it in Canada.

LIMBAUGH: "Do you know we have more acreage of forest land in the United States today than we did at the time the constitution was written." (Radio show, 2/18/94)

Do you know that Limbaugh is full of shit? Did anyone really look at a major city, imagine what used to be there before that city, and not realize that Limbaugh is making up lies out of whole cloth? 850 million then, 730 million now, and this doesn't take into account that much of this "forestland" is actually single species tree farms.

LIMBAUGH: "There are more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived or at any other time in history. Does this sound like a record of genocide?" (Told You So, p. 68)

Like the forestland lie, this one is so obvious, Limbaugh should have been totally embarrassed. U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs estimates Native American population between 5 and 15 million. Late 1900's, due to genocidal policies, that population dropped to 250 thousand. Today, making a comeback, there are around 2 million who can claim Indian ancestry.

LIMBAUGH: "Anita Hill followed Clarence Thomas everywhere. Wherever he went, she wanted to be right by his side, she wanted to work with him, she wanted to continue to date him.... There were no other accusers who came forth after Anita Hill did and said, 'Yeah, Clarence Thomas, he harassed me, too.' There was none of that." (TV show, 5/4/94)

Actually, Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas never dated, according to both of their testimonies, and two other women did come forward and allege sexual harassment against Thomas.

LIMBAUGH: "You know the Clintons send Chelsea to the Sidwell Friends private school.... A recent eighth grade class assignment required students to write a paper on 'Why I Feel Guilty Being White". '... My source for this story is CBS News. I am not making it up." (Radio show, quoted in the Chicago Sun-Times, 1/16/94.)

Oh, yes he is making it up. CBS denied ever running such a story. And Sidwell Friends has denied ever issuing such an assignment...which would have been something of a challenge for the 28% of their student body that weren't white.

LIMBAUGH: "You better pay attention to the 1993 budget deal because there is an increase in beer and alcohol taxes." (Radio show, 7/9/93)

No, there wasn't.

LIMBAUGH: "Those gas lines were a direct result of the foreign oil powers playing tough with us because they didn't fear Jimmy Carter." (See, I Told You So, p. 112)

The first and worst of the gas lines occurred during NIXON'S administration, not Carter's.

LIMBAUGH: "For the first time in military history, U.S. military personnel are not under the command of United States generals." (TV show, 4/18/94)

Ever hear of Lafayette? French general, during the American Revolution, led U.S. troops. How about Steuben? Prussian officer during the same period. How about Marshall Foch, during WW I, or Montgomery during WW II? (What a friggin' dumbass!)

This one is laugh out loud hilarious in its stunning dishonesty and hypocrisy: Limbaugh often tells his audience that he doesn't make personal attacks. When a caller had a problem with Limbaugh's ad hominem attacks, Limbaugh responded with a denial: "Give me a specific example: who, what, when, where, and what exactly did I say?" (Radio show, 2/18/94)

One hour before he took that call, Limbaugh was talking about a 5,000-year-old man found buried in ice on the cover of Time Magazine: "This is just what Sally Jesse Raphael looks like without makeup!"

"Kurt Cobain was, ladies and gentleman, I just--he was a worthless shred of human debris..." (TV show, 4/11/94)

"When a gay person turns his back on you, it is anything but an insult ; it's an invitation." (Summer/94) (Remind me to never turn my back on Limbaugh. I wouldn't want him to think he was invited to anything.)

"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream."

"Why is it that whenever a corporation fires workers it is never speculated that the workers might have deserved it?"

When a Mexican national won the New York marathon: "An immigration agent chased him for the last 10 miles." (USA Weekend, 1/26/92)

"If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people--I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs, let the kinds of jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do--let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work." (Radio show, Fall/93)

Oh, noooooooooo...Limbaugh never makes ad hominem attacks. He's much to high-minded and honorable to do such a thing.

And he never, ever tells lies. Of course not.

Patrick, I'm not going to bother to address every point you made, but the bulk of them are cases of being wrong, not being a liar. And I never said he didn't attack people. There's nothing wrong with personal attacks. Sometimes an asshole needs to be told he's an asshole.

Unless, of course, to you being wrong == lying. In which case there's nothing I can do for you.

Now, let's compare Limbaugh's record with, say, Dan Rather. Who knowingly and intentionally attempted to influence the outcome of a presidential election with fraudulent documents, and continues to this day to insist that those documents were genuine.

Of course, if you just want to talk about wrong and its impact, we can talk about Newsweek. Newsweek published a single-sourced story about Koran defacement at Gitmo. Five minutes of research would have shown them that they'd been punked. They published anyhow, and people died.

How many people have died on account of what Limbaugh says.

So take Media Matters and shove it someplace dark and moist. Limbaugh's got a better record than the mainstream media. And I'll take his leadership over any Republican presently in office. At least he knows what he believes in, and it isn't buying votes with other people's forcibly appropriated money.

Oh, by the way - you're an asshole.

Lord, you hate to be proven wrong, Brian.

When Limbaugh claims he doesn't make ad hominem attacks, yet I can point out a few of them, some of them carefully constructed, such as when he called Chelsea Clinton "the White House dog," then he is indeed lying when he says he doesn't make personal attacks.

Is Limbaugh totally devoid of common sense? What on earth made him think that there's more forestland than there was in this country than when Columbus landed, when much of the U.S. was precisely that: untouched forestland? He's simply wrong when he said that? No. I refuse to believe that anyone could actually write that statement down in a book to be published, and not question the veracity his statement, in a country as densely populated and urbanized as the U.S.

And Limbaugh works three hours a day. He has ample time to check the facts of his claims. Not impressed by lack of responsibility. Sorry to hear you take it so hard when your hero has been shot down. After all, even you have conceded that some of these statements are in fact, lies, since you say that the "bulk of those cases are him being wrong, not a liar." And the rest of them are, in fact, instances of him being a liar?

No, his lies just threaten the very livelihood of some people, such as how all classes supposedly received some relief during the Reagan administration, with the poorest income quintile received the greatest relief. Never mind that he had to include the Bush years to make his point, and he conveniently left payroll taxes out of the equation, both of which would have shown that the poorest income quintile, and the second poorest as well, were both screwed sideways by Reaganomics.

So, don't tell me that Limbaugh's lies aren't dangerous. He's harmed more people than Dan Rather ever could.

And by the way, your personal attack wasn't called for. You demanded proof; I gave it. For this, I'm an asshole? No, you're an effeminate little pansy for crying like a baby someone supplies the evidence that you demanded.

Crid, I view Mark Levin as a stalwart conservative. He views Frum as a RINO poster boy. Various commenters on NRO's "The Corner" have said similar things about Frum. They're all wrong and you're right? Give me a break!

One thing I am most curious about is this statement of yours: "[Robert] finds no instruction from events in his own country". Precisely what lessons have I missed about what's going on here in Canada?

For the record, though I've been fortunate to not have grown up in a communist country and experienced those real terrors, I've keenly followed what has gone on here in Canuckistan near the beginning of Pierre Trudeau's socialist experiment. He nearly bankrupted my country and did in fact do great damage to the work ethics and political views of a great chunk of the population. Thankfully many others have also recognized the Great Lie that is socialism and turned the tide ... somewhat. Not enough though, which is why we're in the horribly intractable political situation we now find ourselves.

What right-minded Canadians understand though is that individuals cannot expect to take more from their society than they contribute to it. I strongly suspect that too many Americans on the Left side of the political spectrum have yet to learn this lesson.

Beck gets results. Frum gets desultory.

> Precisely what lessons have I
> missed about what's going on
> here in Canada?

So you admit you're not getting enough action at home? You're in love with your neighbor's wife, Robert. Her supple, pouting breasts, her fulsome, creamy thighs... The dance of her eyelids and the songbird in her laughter... I think you should either make a move or get over it. It's unseemly, and sooner or later your children are going to figure it out, like that congressman who was hitting on the pages in the 1980's. (Here in the 'States, I mean. I'm sure you remember....)

> Beck gets results.

Yeah, he's a superhero. Be sure and buy a t-shirt and lunchpail.

> Re: The present-day R-Party is dangerous, I contend. As in after six years of R-Party > domination (House, Senate, White House and Supremes, 2000-2006) we were stuck in an > endless war in Iraq and our financial system collapsed. The worst recession since the > Great Depression. It happened on the R-Party watch.

In my opinion what's most dangerous is that both major political parties are being increasing dominated by ideological sorts and/or unprincipled people determined to stay in power at all cost. In this environment, polemicists like Limbaugh and Beck, and dangerously ignorant buffoons like Palin increasingly reflect the overall tilt of the Republican party. But the Dems have their people who are seriously askew in their polemicism, too, and more and more their base is getting away from the mainstream. If they keep to their current course, they'll lose a lot of Independents.

I'd sad to see all this negativity on both sides, it makes it so much harder for Congress to do decent work.

I think my state's republican senator (Voinovich) has bucked that trend throughout his career as well as any current members of the U.S. Senate. I sure hope someone who's as practical as he is will take his place, but am not optimistic (he retires after '10.)

---
> That, after the Clinton years, in which the Dow tripled, inflation was low, the federal
> budget was running surpluses, and we were in no wars. The best administration ever, in
> terms of results.
> (Posted by: i-holier-than-thou at September 19, 2009 11:21 AM)

On the other hand, it was in 2000 that sweeping financial deregulation legislation was passed by overwhelming vote in Congress and signed into law by Clinton. A big backer of this at the time was Robert Rubin, then Treasury Secretary. I suspect that this act, more than any single act, got the ball rolling to the disaster than hit in 2008. Also, most of those congressmen supporting more lenient standards for government-backed home loans by federal agencies were Dems, many of the bleeding-heart variety. And like another poster pointed out, the recession of the early part of this decade got underway right about the time Clinton left office. (The 2001 recession, IMO, was largely a product of excessive speculation in the stock market.) The pols - and Alan Greenspan - also made the mistake that growth and federal budget surpluses would continue indefinitely into the future, despite massive past evidence that business cycles always stick around & gov't revenues always drop significantly during recessions

As to war during the 1990s, well there were the interventions in the Balkans.