Are Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter Good for Conservatives? Horowitz vs. Frum, Round Three – by Jamie Glazov


In this special edition of Frontpage Symposium, we continue the debate between David Horowitz and David Frum that started off about the role of bold talk radio hosts in the Conservative Movement’s quest to defend America. Horowitz and Frum disagree about whether Fox News’ Glenn Beck is an asset or a liability. On September 25, they fought Round Two of this debate. Today they join us for Round Three, as the debate enters a new terrain. . .

FP: David Frum and David Horowitz, welcome back to Frontpage Symposium.

David Frum, what is your response to David Horowitz’s comments in Round Two?

Frum: David, I gather you’re declining my invitation to sponsor a joint study of the 9/12ers? Too bad! Leaving these issues unstudied makes us vulnerable to convenient myths.

For example:

You claim that the same-sex marriage issue won the 2004 election for George W. Bush.

This is almost certainly not correct. The 2004 election turned on the state of Ohio, site of an intensely contested same-sex marriage voter initiative. Yet when you compare the votes cast for Bush in 2000 and 2004, you see that Bush’s vote increased much less in Ohio than it did in the rest of the country. In fact, there were 39 states where Bush’s vote increased more than it did in Ohio – and 31 of those states had no SSM initative on the ballot. (You can see the evidence in attractive graphic format here)

You claim that phones “began ringing off the hook” with Sarah Palin’s selection as vice president. If you mean to say that Palin added to John McCain’s vote, this statement is again almost certainly wrong.

No national candidate has ever recorded as steep a decline in public approval as Sarah Palin did over the 10 weeks between  the Republican convention and voting day, 2008. In the single month of September, her approval rating among white women dropped by 21 points; among white independent women, by 24 points.

Palin’s unpopularity did something that no previous vice presidential nomination in had ever done: she dragged the whole ticket down with her. As Palin’s numbers plunged, John McCain’s followed hers down. He began his poll decline on Sept. 3, two weeks before the failure of Lehmann Brothers. Palin’s single worst poll of the campaign, in mid-October, coincided neatly with McCain’s By contrast, Biden’s and Obama’s approval numbers moved quite independently of each other.

(The blogger Ezra Klein has some interesting charts on this last point here.)

You say: “In fact, the party identification poll numbers for Republicans are currently rising right alongside and in step with (and because of) the rising Fox ratings.”

That’s unlikely to be correct either.

Republican identification remains lower today (27%) than as recently as 2005 (35%). Democratic identification is slightly higher (35% vs. 33%). GOP numbers look better in the fall of 2009 than they did in 2008 only because of a small shift in the number of independents who say they “lean Republican.” (From 12% to 15%.)

(These are Gallup numbers, and you can see them here.)

Is Fox driving this shift? It’s hard to imagine so. The Fox audience is an intensely committed Republican audience: almost 90% voted McCain-Palin in 2008. Independents just aren’t watching. They are much more likely to be affected by such facts as the miserable employment numbers than Glenn Beck’s monologues.

The false premises in your argument lead you to erroneous conclusions.

You think that conservatives lose when they are insufficiently vocal, insufficiently confrontational, insufficiently mobilized.  You see a national majority in Palin’s politics of cultural grievance, and the paranoid alienation Beck offers his Fox television audience. But the evidence is against you on all counts.

Angry protest politics did not work for the Left in the 1960s. Angry protest politics will not work for the right in the 2000s.

That’s not to deny the importance of this bloc of voters or the significance of their concerns. Rather, I’m saying that we have to join this bloc to the other blocs conservatives also need – married women, the educated, upwardly mobile immigrants. The wild, extreme and sometimes racially tinged talk we unfortunately hear from the most visible personalities on the right is detrimental to this effort.

Who should understand this problem better than you, with your long study of the failure of left radicalism. Nor have you been shy about emphatically warning conservatives about the dangers of thinking the enemy of my enemy is always my friend. Reviewing your friend Ann Coulter’s book on Joe McCarthy, you said:

“The problem with Coulter’s book is that she is not willing to concede that McCarthy was, in fact, demagogic in any sense at all, or that his recklessness injured the anti-Communist cause. Ron Radosh, Harvey Klehr and John Haynes have distinguished themselves as historians by documenting the Communist menace that many liberals discounted. But they have also documented the irresponsible antics of McCarthy, which undermined the anti-Communist cause. Coulter dismisses such conservative criticisms of McCarthy as caving in to the liberals. She is wrong.”

With just a few changes of name, I’ll let those wise words stand as my summation of the challenge presented to contemporary conservatism by Glenn Beck and the inflammatory personalities of talk radio.

Horowitz: You’ve gone over my head with this one David, or maybe it’s around the bend. Or off the deep end. What are you expecting the joint study of 9/12ers to show? That they had AK-47s concealed under their parasols?

What really puzzles me is how you could imagine that attitudes registered in polls of participants in an event which took place in September 2009 might have anything to do with election results in Ohio in 2004 or nationally in 2008? Polls register what’s happening in the present moment. They tell you nothing about the future. Just ask George Bush. Political results are determined by the way you fight the battle, not the way you shuffle attitudes that are set in stone (the point is that they’re not).

I don’t have my polling data in front of me for the 2004 election, but I will bet you anything that the record Republican turnout which won that election was driven by the defense of marriage initiatives in key states like Missouri, and what you say about Ohio doesn’t change my mind on this for reasons too tedious to go over. There were many states up for grabs in that election and the only force I’m aware of in the Republican party that can get tens of thousands of precinct workers to care about who wins is the religious right. Conservatives are by nature not joiners, not activists, and unless they have a religious passion they generally don’t get passionate about political issues enough to knock on doors. I can see this with my own eyes. I don’t need polls to tell me.

Also the Sarah Palin you see today, not to mention three years from now, bears little relation to the Sarah Palin who was thrust suddenly and without preparation — and in a fashion unprecedented in American political history — from obscurity to the center of the national spotlight. I think she handled herself extraordinarily well in that experience given the way the incompetent and malicious McCain team failed to protect her. But she undoubtedly carries some heavy baggage from it. At this point, I think she’s doing a fine job remaking herself – no thanks to conservative snipers like yourself. Whether she succeeds is going to be up to her. But she generates an enthusiasm that no centrist Republican does, or probably can (although that too remains to be seen). The difference between you and me is that I want to see her get her fair shot and you don’t.

BTW your account of Palin dragging McCain down is ridiculous. First, it was McCain who dragged Palin down by putting her in front of the network sharks unprepared. Second, despite the savagery of the campaign against her, she remained so popular among the Republican ranks that McCain would not let her campaign on her own but insisted she be at his events so that weakness of his personal support would not be exposed. Third, in McCain’s fall to Palin in the final weeks aren’t you forgetting the Lehman collapse and the financial crash – not to mention the absolute incoherence of McCain in the debates? (Which contrasted dramatically with Palin’s performance against Biden.) Or do you think McCain’s offer to bail out $300 billion in bad mortgages was an innovative idea for a Republican candidate? I could go on and on but why bother? I don’t know a single conservative – or even Republican – who was enthusiastic about McCain. Whereas Palin’s supporters remained enthusiastic for her right to the bitter end. Your passionate dislike of Palin is fogging your lenses and causing you to rewrite history.

And why is all this so important to you now anyway? We’re three years out from the next election. Let the candidates show their stuff. If you think Palin is such a menace that you have to snuff her at the starting gate you obviously have no confidence in the good sense of the Republican electorate, and that my friend is a serious problem indeed.

I do think that Republicans need leaders who are strong, passionate, and credible to Republican constituencies, and who can ignite their passions. But you are putting words in my mouth when you say I have decided that Palin is the one to forge a Republican coalition that will take us to victory in 2012. I think Sarah Palin is an extraordinary woman who, along with George Bush, has been the target of one the two most hateful political campaigns in modern times. And Bush was utterly destroyed by the Democrats’ attacks so that he did not really have a second term — which is a good deal of what we are suffering from now. And which shows that such attacks work.

Sarah Palin has shown herself to be a resilient woman who will not fold under attack (and this puts her head and shoulders above McCain and most other Republicans). Her mettle is about to be tested. I want her to have that test. I guess you and Republicans like you are part of the test since you are determined to smite her in advance. Unlike yourself, I am a big tent Republican and think the coalition is strengthened by competition.

But contrary to your suggestion I do not know at this point who would be the best Republican candidate for 2012. A lot depends on events. A lot depends how candidates like Palin, Huckabee, Pawlenty and Romney handle themselves in the face of events. I think Republicans generally want a fighter. You can be a centrist and a fighter. Why not? But in the first nine months of the Obama Administration, it is Palin who has set the standard in facing down the Left.

You say that angry protests did not work for the Left during the 60s. Are you forgetting that our angry protests were aimed at the Democrats and that by destroying the Democrats we elected Reagan governor of California, and Nixon president in 1968? Psychotic anger worked for the Democrats in 2006 and 2008 and brought them victories in Congress and the White House. What can you be thinking?

When you refer to wild, extreme, sometimes racially tinged talk coming from the Right who are you talking about? Certainly not Palin or Huckabee, the two leading candidates of the religious wing of our party, who are models of public decency. Who then? And what racially tinged talk? Some Georgia congressman whom nobody can name and who didn’t realize what he was saying when he said it? By contrast, the Democratic Party is teeming with racists, which doesn’t seem to hurt them among so-called liberals. There is no George Wallace (a Democrat) in our ranks, nor for that matter a Maxine Waters, a Diane Watson, a Cynthia McKinney, a Charlie Rangel, all raging racial demagogues. That being the case why should you worry about fringe behavior at all, particularly when Republicans across the spectrum are so well behaved?

It seems to me you are suffering from a kind of political Stockholm syndrome. You inhabit a mental universe shaped by media like Newsweek and the New York Review of Books, in which you are a hostage of the Left. As a result you’ve absorbed some of their attitudes, and look at Palin and other non-U conservatives through their eyes, instead of your own.

Since you’ve dragged my friend Ann Coulter’s name into this, let me say as I said on Larry King Live (with Charlie Rangel’s eyes rolling skyward off the screen): Ann Coulter is a national treasure. She is a sword of justice relentlessly skewering liberal hypocrites. I love Ann for that alone. And she is wittier than her opposite numbers – Al Franken (God help us) and Bill Maher. Unlike them she is a big hearted and civilized human being, which is what a conservative should be. By contrast, Franken and Maher are typical liberals: mean-spirited, bigoted and personally nasty (although Maher seems to have a soft spot for Ann,) and moral half-wits. Coulter may be wrong about McCarthy, and she and I will disagree on this without it altering one iota of our affection for each other, just as Glenn Beck and I will probably disagree about Cass Sunstein. But unlike you I see Glenn and Ann as two champions of our cause, and regard it as a troubling blindness on your part that you can’t appreciate this.

Editor’s Note: The subject of Horowitz and Coulter’s disagreement about Senator Joe McCarthy was recently discussed at NewsReal Blog here, here, and in a special guest blog by historian Ron Radosh here.

  • russp

    I'm just waiting for David Frum to announce any day now that he is really a gay liberal and has been one all along. I can understand that he might have some quibbles with Beck and Coulter — I do myself. But how a real conservative could possibly want to disown them is just inconceivable. I think he's the next David Brock.

    • Petra

      The Multi-culti crowd simply refuses (probably due to ingrained self-loathing)to listen to the logic that you have so aptly described above, which cancels any further need for discussion.

    • muschi

      The Counterfeiters

  • 2maxpower

    David Horowitz 3 …David Frum 0

    ..Mr. Frum you seem to be an elitist, and do not like people to be blunt with the truth. I don't see how the truth can be otherwise. I don't doubt you mean well and even may be a conservative.

  • bubba4

    Give it up Frum…you guys are having two different conversations.

    You are talking about the reality of politics and Horowitz is shoving all his chips into the center and betting that his bizarro world will win the day.

  • monte

    Horowitz trumped Frum !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Susan Salisbury

    Meanwhile Palin's book is number one at Barnes and Noble, Borders, and Amazon. And its not even out yet. That widespread enthusiasm is why she is good for the Republican party.

  • HGG

    I've never heard of Frum before.

    Which is sad. Pathetic hatemongers like Beck overshadow smart conservatives like Frum.

  • Proxywar

    Study the 9/12er? Get off your arse and go to the protests. Some of them are brand spanking new to expressing their views publically. My parents go to their meetings like every week. I have attended one of them. Infact, I'm going to one today. For you to condem people you won't even meet publically meet with is Ivory tower elitism at it's finest.

    Are you trying to call my parents kooks?
    Are you trying to call my parents racists?
    Are you trying to say my parents aren't critical thinkers?
    Are you trying to say my parents are religious kooks?

    Because none of those stereotypes fit in general for the 9/12ers.
    Everyone is much different, they share their limited government ideas, nothing more nothing less. Being a 912er is like being a Mason only your the COMMON MAN anyone can join and there are no rituals and secrets. Grow up, you elists snob.

  • Proxywar

    I support gay rights, but that doesn't make anyone homosexual.

    Frum is good with the facts but his problem is he protects the party-line instead of the principles of conservativism. I don't see any liberals denouncing Alan grayson.
    Therefore, Frum doesn't understand what it will take to defeat the left where as
    Horowitz gets it. Though I disagree with Horowitz on Sarah palin, that doesn't mean I disown him.

    There is nothing wrong with beck other than he crys on air and tried once to label obama a racists. Other than that, he comes correct with the facts, only in a different style than the more formal Frum.

    • püppi

      People today are still discussing her "death panels". Even those that know Frum likely can't even tell us what he's written, maybe even in this article. Ideas move people.

  • Proxywar

    “Conservatives are by nature not joiners, not activists, and unless they have a religious passion they generally don’t get passionate about political issues enough to knock on doors. I can see this with my own eyes. I don’t need polls to tell me.”

    Data-based evidence trumps your personal experiences.
    No amount of grandstanding and wishful thinking will disprove Frum here.
    You should of come more prepared.

    Plus, I am pretty much an atheist-conservative who doesn't need religion for motivation. I find it a little disturbing you think the masses need to be manipulated by religion to do stuff. Religion for you = ends justify the means?

  • Proxywar

    “I think Sarah Palin is an extraordinary woman who, along with George Bush, has been the target of one the two most hateful political campaigns in modern times. And Bush was utterly destroyed by the Democrats’ attacks so that he did not really have a second term — which is a good deal of what we are suffering from now. And which shows that such attacks work.”

    Yet you want more abuse by giving Palin another shot? I like you david. I really do, but think this one over. You do some really good work, But I have to ask are you a masochist? Perhaps, your just getting too old for the game?

  • Proxywar

    “Sarah Palin has shown herself to be a resilient woman who will not fold under attack (and this puts her head and shoulders above McCain and most other Republicans).”

    Mccain = Still in congress. Just advised Obama on the war.
    Palin = nolonger governor, wrote book for profit.

    She's always been about the money, Mr.horowitz, that is why she used tax payer money to build her home. She don't care about conservatism or Alaskans. She cares about one person and one person only Sarah Palin. She's exploiting her 15 mins of fame. Nothing more, nothing less. Stop making yourself look so foolish by protecting her. You are much smarter than this. Bush was unfairly attacked, Sarah Palin was rightly attacked. She can't even be compared to Bush.

  • Proxywar

    “Palin, Huckabee, Pawlenty and Romney”

    I won't vote for anyone of them.

    “she and I will disagree on this without it altering one iota of our affection for each other, just as Glenn Beck and I will probably disagree about Cass Sunstein. But unlike you I see Glenn and Ann as two champions of our cause, and regard it as a troubling blindness on your part that you can’t appreciate this.There is no George Wallace (a Democrat) in our ranks, nor for that matter a Maxine Waters, a Diane Watson, a Cynthia McKinney, a Charlie Rangel, all raging racial demagogues. That being the case why should you worry about fringe behavior at all, particularly when Republicans across the spectrum are so well behaved? Franken and Maher are typical liberals: mean-spirited, bigoted and personally nasty (although Maher seems to have a soft spot for Ann,) and moral half-wits.”

    Here is where I totally agree with Horowitz

  • cedarhill

    A favorite Coulter quote of mine is “facts are to liberals like kryptonite is to Superman”. The simple fact is Palin is rabid base of conservative America. I bought her book pre-release. Enough folks bought it pre-release to make it number one on a couple of well-known booksellers. All the other GOP politicians simply do not connect with the typical American.
    It's good she polarizes. Better a direct confrontation. People today are still discussing her “death panels”. Even those that know Frum likely can't even tell us what he's written, maybe even in this article. Ideas move people.
    The Tea Parties are looking for a leader that supports fully their passions. The GOP had best nominate a person equal to or better than Palin or they're toast in 2012. After all, how many of you will donate or even vote again for another John-Maverick-McCain or George-Compassion-Bush.

  • Flowerknife_us

    In my view, for what it's worth, Sarah Palin represented the average American who had no desire to become a ward of the State. They saw in her the only defense against a candidate who was putting their hopes of making it into the upper middle class pointless. The Demoncrats made it quite clear the upper middle class was going to get soaked. There-by killing any “hope” or incentive in advancing ones lot in life. Nor should we overlook the entire Demoncratic platform that would and has raised the cost of living for all Americans.

    Mrs. Palin represented everything one was lead to believe the Feminists wanted to become. A Woman who could bring home the Bacon, fry it up in a pan, and never, ever, let you forget your a Man.

    Mrs. Palin will show us in time if she is worth the support of the Conservative vote. Meanwhile, never forget, there is nothing worst than a Woman Scorned.

    Blacks, Wards of the State and the Far Left got Obama elected. Let us face reality. They were the only Voting blocks who stood to gain by Obama's election. 52% of the Vote is only a landslide in the eyes of the Left and their Media investments.

  • stevefromerie

    Actually conservatives can benefit greatly from being out of Washington. Heck. I think a great trend for the next fifty to a hundred years is to have Republican men make their wives run for office while they secretly infiltrate the corporate dens which secretly power the Democratic party. Karl Rove can turn all of his power into getting his Texas trust funds and the News Corps sycophants to power at MSNBC! Yes, Mr. Olbermann, it is great that you have your own voice. You know what's better? When you work for me and have to do everything I tell you.

    Women are the natural diplomats and accountants and would fit into Washington, ie the place that get's blown up first, much more better. Let men make things that blow up and let beautiful women do all the talking. Welcome to America!

    Really. Do you want nasty old men as the face of America, or the college coeds. Harry Reid's busy-body legislature act is not cute and quickly wears thin.

    Now before all the feminists get out of control, I want them to turn to a special feminists corner on Washington Week, circa 2007 where the feminist back down faster than all get out. Yes, VMI's all fun and games until you learn that out in the real world there is worst pain than giving birth, like realizing your party somehow back-stab and stranded you as that Iranian 9″ rod of molten copper hits your groin.

    Yes Mr. Moore. There are worst things than capitalism. Heck, I will grant there are even worst things than Catholic Hell, like the Terrifying Theater of the Absurd as outlined in the film “The Counterfeiters” which you greatly take part in. There's capitalism Mr. Moore, and then there is capitalism.

  • 2maxpower

    Proxywar …Obama is a racist. as shown by deeds and words.

  • krz1

    Is David Frum good for conservatism ?

  • David Thomson

    David Frum is not good for conservatism. He is like the guy who concedes the game before it even starts. Who pays attention to him? Few Americans have ever heard of Frum. His blog is essentially ignored. It gets very few hits. Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter rock. David Frum barely wiggles a little bit. His interpretation of conservatism is a sure loser.

  • davidforsmark

    1, It wasn't Sarah Palin who announced that the campaign was pulling out of Michigan on the eve of the VP debate, the first time in the history of presidential politics that a campaign was inept enough to wave that kind of white flag in public.
    2. It wasn't Sarah Palin who announced she was suspending the campaign so she could run back to Washington, try to duck a debate, and vote for an immensely unpopular bail-out of Wall Street– something the opponent was able to do without nearly the fuss. The above 2 points were unprecedented bungles and worth at least 5 points in the polls.
    3. McCain's crowds increased by a factor of at least 5 with Palin by his side. Without her, his rallies were yawners.
    4. Frum HAS to know that the biggest difference in Ohio between 2000 and 2004 is a scandal-plagued Ohio Republican Party and huge increase in unemployment. There was NO place in the United States where same-sex marriage was a drag– so to speak– on the Republican ticket..
    5. McCain's Captain Queeg-like performance in the debates, with his rictus grin and sneering manner were huge factors.
    6. At a time of 4 dollar gas, McCain's energy policy was indistinguishable from Obama's, taking away Palin's one area of expertise from campaign usefulness.

    Frum's objection to Palin is not about substance, it's about his own quest for relevance. It's his bid to be David Brooks, to be accepted with the snobs. Unfortunately for him, it's a limited and full market. So he's flailing around saying “Look at me, look at me!” I'm smarter than those Tea Party-loving rednecks.”

  • ARGON500


  • USMCSniper

    Listen up Liberal elitist girls and girly men, your mother should have perhaps spanked you more after all. Or it must have been your potty training or lack of, because you’re trashing any conservative woman because she doesn’t share your elitest liberal ideology. You can’t hack it that Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter are women, and conservative women to boot., who is following her dreams and who shows that yes, a woman can have it all, a family and a career.

    What pushes liberal women over the edge is when they ask their gilded mirrors who is the most “intelligent” girl in the world:

    Mirror, mirror, on the wall
    Who’s the most intelligent women of them all?

    Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter, you catty bitches.

  • Tar_and_Feathers

    I have reservations about the concept of “good for conservatives.” To me that phrase seems to imply that other people beyond our control will make or break the conservative movement. The argument reduces us to spectators rather than participants.

    While one might be able to make a strong case for politics being nothing but a voyeuristic sport with no more relevance than call-in sports radio, there's a little Pollyana inside my skull trying to convince me otherwise.

  • Robert Madden

    David Horowitz is the Susan Boyle of conservative commentary. I love the commentary, but please don't make me look. It hurts my eyes. I have no such issue with Sarah, Ann, and dare I mention Michelle?

  • aliceg

    Wake up Mr. Frum. David H hit it out of the park. Come down from the throne of Mount Olympus. If you had participated in the 9/12 rally in D.C. first hand you would understand the kind of people that make up the “likely voters” of the conservative base. Intelligent, well informed, law abiding, and all of them cheered loudly when a man with a huge Pro-Palin sign ran by the crowds like an olympic torch carrier. I think it's time for you to get out of your office and begin an American Road Trip.

  • Gylippus

    Sarah Palin is exactly the kind of leader (principled and fearless) that Conservatives need. I find it strange that Frum seems to want to shunt her aside. As Horowitz says, let the electorate decide for itself. Liberals reacted against her so strongly precisely because they see a strong leader, capable of uniting Conservatives.

  • Bellerophon

    Frum came armed with statistics for which Horowitz was unprepared. This was not unexpected as Frum has no principles except “win”. Horowitz has principles but sees politics as a battle divorced from principles since ultimately, in his view, ideas have no power to motivate people to act.

    Frum's case, though apparently fact based, disintegrates upon a closer look. McCain committed political suicide when he voted for the TARP. While it was Palin who was seen as naive and ignorant, it was McCain's incredible ignorance of economics that ultimately did him in.

    Clueless and spineless, McCain folded under pressure from Paulson's gang of rent seeking investment bankers at Goldman Sachs. What else could be expected from a man whose claim to fame was that he “reached across the aisle? (Don't confuse McCain's extraordinary physical courage as a POW with moral courage, they aren't related)

    The moment it was revealed that the “Maverick” had no independence, McCain's campaign was over. When Paulson made his preposterous bid to become economic emperor of the US McCain was leading at the polls. Within a week McCain had slipped back below Obama.

    Palin's effect was overall positive but definitely less positive at the end of the campaign than at the beginning. Her ignorance was demonstrated and harped upon by the establishment press from the moment they heard her name.

    The good thing about Palin is that ignorance is curable and from what I've read lately she has made considerable progress in this area. Unfortunately for the Republicans cowardice has no remedy.

    Is Coulter a help or a hindrance? Helpful up to the moment she decided to attack evolution. Showing a complete ignorance of science is not a way to establish the scientific credentials of the Republican party. This is especially important now when “Cap and Trade” is being argued. Evolution is scientifically defensible, the CO2 Theory of Global Warming is not. If you attack both, you discredit yourself on the second issue by denying the first.

    Beck? He has done more to expose the nature of Obama's minions to the American public than anyone else. This is yeoman work and he deserves the fame and accolades he has received for it. However, putting the defense of liberty on a religious basis makes it appear that there are no reasons to defend liberty in the natural world. In the long run this will hurt more than it will help. “National Review” tried this and ultimately gave up defending liberty.

    Under the reign of George W Bush, with assists from William F. Buckley and Irving Kristol, the Republican party rid itself of the Goldwater/Reagan liberty wing thereby becoming Democrat-Lite. Gay marriage and foreign policy are the only things that distinguish Tweedle Dumb from Tweedle Dumber. The Religious Right's Pyrrhic victory was the undoing of the Republican party.

    What neither Frum nor Horowitz are willing to face is that the Republican party is dead and that the assassin was George W Bush. Bush's big deficits made Obama's huge deficits acceptable. Bush's senior drug program made government run health care acceptable. Bush's “stimulus” program made Obama's wild giveaways acceptable. Bush's faith based initiatives made giving money to proselytizing community groups acceptable. What is ACORN if not a proselytizing community group?

    Bush did all of these things to try to build a “consensus” that would keep the Republican party in perpetual power. Did it?

    The defense of liberty requires consistency not consensus.

  • MarilynA

    Both of you are missing the real point of why Obama won the last election. The Republican Party thought, just as they thought in 1996 , that the election was a shoo in because Dem Candidate was so unpopular and/or unacceptable that in 1996 they gave the nomination to Bob Dole, who was obviously too old to run, because he “deserved it” for his national and war service. In 2008 they gave the nomination to another “war Hero” John McCain, who was also too old to run. I actually held my nose and voted for McCain because I disliked him so much, but could not take a chance on getting an avowed radical extremist as President.. My extreme distaste for McCain was the result of his tying up Congress for weeks with his assinine “Campaign Finance Reform bill, which gave George Soros and his rent a mob gang of 527's control over our elections and disenfranchised the American people, and there by gave the Dems time to bribe that turncoat Rep Senator to switch parties giving the Dems control of the Senate. At the time Dem bigwigs visited McCain in Arizona because they thought McCain too was going to switch parties. McCain changed hsitory by working with Soros to help the Dems take over the Senate. McCain's reputation of being a poor loser and getting revenge indicated that he was unfit to be President. As for the much maligned Joe McCarthey…First the
    entrenched communists in our government did it to McCarthy to discredit what he was revealing about the power and influence they had over our government policies, and then they did it to J. Edgar Hoover, who should be one of our historical Patriot Icons for his almost single handed protection of this country during WWII. The real reason for Hoover's personal destruction , after his death, was to discredit the information in his FBI files about the radicals who were intent on destroying America as we know it and institute a totalitarian Socialist regime like in their beloved USSR. Hoover's reputation was destroyed based on the story that someone, who was dead and could not confirm or deny saying it, had told someone else that Hoover had been seen wearing women's clothing. On this hearsay evidence, which is not legal in any court, America has been convinced this man was a homosexual. Notwithstanding that being Homosexual is now celebrated as the only “normal” lifestyle that is celebrated with parades, fetes, and special legislation. Apparently is it only bad when they can convince people that one of their targeted for destruction people is one.

  • brimp

    Palin was unprepared for her TV interviews. She looked unprepared. Still, the only reason I voted for McCain was because Palin was on the ticket. McCain was dispensing BS almost as much as Obama. Palin has potential to be another Thatcher. A Palin/Paul v Hillary/Rendel contest in 2012 would be very interesting.

  • VN_Vet

    Do you see this Frum? The commiecrats love you.

  • VN_Vet

    You're a bore. Or worse, a Libertarian.

  • VN_Vet


  • VN_Vet

    Liberals are intimidated by strong women.

  • etyetydfghfghdfg

    PALIN!!! Most conservatives and 90% of ALL the American women will vote for you!!!

  • colby52

    And this is why Republicans will never get back to power. Frum is totally correct, but you people like most Tea baggers believe want you want to believe and will even acknowledge the points made by some one you disagree with.

    The problem with the majority of conservatives is that they never take the time for any self reflection. The other sides ideas are bad period, what ever the idea is. Are Ideas are the best, becasue we said so. Tea baggers and the like are sheep that don't think.

    Do you people go to work and dismiss your co-workers ideas, or your sposes ideas? This is strictly political. I do not know anybody in any party that is 100% right or wrong all of the time.

  • VN_Vet

    If the republican party is dead, I believe the assassin was Libertarians, who in practice are not that much different from leftists (extreme right and left of the political spectrum, united in nihilism, paranoia, conspiracy, isolationism, potheads, democrat and de facto democ-rat voters, etc.). Your seemingly avid support for a strong Christian like Reagan is apparently a charade. If Libertarians and Leftists had an ounce of good in them they would do the free world a favor and fall on the sword.

  • gfw88

    Frum is exactly the kind of RINO that we need to purge. The Republican Party will rise or fall on the backs of conservatives, of the crunchy variety. No more RINO wimps!

  • VN_Vet

    ah la Mark Foley. I agree with everything you said, especially your appraisal of John McShame, except I don't think McShame and Dole were too old to run. But neither of them were conservatives.

    Ditto on McCarthy and Hoover. Accusing anti-communists of being homosexuals was a common communist ploy. Today we know, via defecting KGB agents and other means, that the communists planted all kinds of misinformation that they knew a friendly press and leftist dem party would pick up and run with.

  • VN_Vet

    “A Palin/Paul” LOL That would surely be one way to finish her off.

  • VN_Vet

    That's what the Tories were saying in 1775.

  • VN_Vet

    Yes, we don't need Frums in the republican party. Maybe we should forego the use of the acronym RINO for FRUM in denoting republicans in democ-rat's clothing.

  • patriotwork

    Frum,Brooks,McCain,and other reach-across-the-aislers are the soft underbelly of the Republican Party.

  • Carterthewriter

    The argument that neither Ann or Sarah are not gaining in stature amongst the majority of Americans is demonstrated by the populer responses to their most recent publications, not on polls slanted to minimize their effectness in our society, today!

    It is unfortunate for the the New York Times, that their best seller listing has had the dubious task of supporting this fact.

  • gullyborg

    Not only number one, but beating the new Dan Brown, which is already on shelves.

  • Bellerophon

    You are confusing Reagan's religious beliefs with his governing. If you read “Reagan in His Own Hand” you would know that he mentions God only two or three times in the book. These statements were very close to “God wants everyone to be free”, hardly a biblically based theory of government. Jefferson and Paine said similar things and neither was a Christian in the modern sense. Every one of Reagan's arguments for limited government was based on facts and reason.

    “If Libertarians and Leftists had an ounce of good in them they would do the free world a favor and fall on the sword.”

    If you think that people who believe in liberty are the same as left wing statists then you beyond hope.

    I see that you are an exceptionally honest in admitting that you want your enemies dead since you can't produce an argument against them. There is only one proper response to that but Frontpage would no doubt edit it out (and properly so).

    Go hold a Requiem Mass for your dead party. Maybe God will hear your prayers and raise it from the grave!

  • Bellerophon

    Historically, the Republican Party was always the party of big government. Nixon expanded the welfare state faster than Johnson. Hoover's policies were indistinguishable from Roosevelt's except for the size.

    Goldwater and Reagan were the exceptions, not the rule. The mainstream Republicans hated them. Read what Nelson Rockefeller (a Republican) said about Goldwater at the 1964 convention. Bush the elder said that Reagan believed in “voodoo economics”.

    What people don't seem to realize is that Bush, McCain and Romney are the real Republicans, Reagan and Goldwater were the RINOS. The party is dominated by big government types. Romney implemented compulsory medical insurance, a disaster that is destroying Massachusetts. Bush had Medicare part D and “No Child Left Behind”. McCain has “Cap an Trade” and campaign finance reform.

    Perry may be the best governor in the country but he's being challenged by KBH who is no one's idea of a free marketeer. What possesses the Republicans to even allow him to be challenged? Texas is weathering the recession better than most. Maybe Perry really does believe in small government and that's not about to be tolerated by the RNC.

    Which Republican led the charge against the TARP? Oh yeah, that's right, none of them. (Ron Paul doesn't count, he's hated more than any Republican, mostly by other Republicans). Some Republicans voted against it but they said nothing until it was obvious that the dumbest, most destructive piece of legislation in 50 years was going to pass. How could they denounce the TARP as pure idiocy when their standard bearer, McCain, voted for it?

    If courageous men like Goldwater and Reagan could not turn the Republican Party around, what on earth makes you think that the gutless wonders of today can? Is Michael Steele your idea of a hard fighting, principled, limited government Republican?

    Maybe you think that “this time things will be different”?

    It seems that half of the people on this forum suffer from “Battered Republican Syndrome”. No matter how badly they are mistreated by their party, like battered wives they stay with their tormentor. Each time you can hear them saying that the last beating was because “The party was drunk (with power). It's not their fault, it's ours. We didn't support it enough. It really is a good party it's just that it does some bad things sometimes.” Yeah, sure.

    It's way past time for “The Burning Bed”.

  • VN_Vet

    Ronald Reagan: 1980:

    The time has come to turn to God and reassert our trust in Him for the healing of America…our country is in need of and ready for a spiritual renewal.

    Oct 4, 1982: Designating 1983 as the national “Year of the Bible”: Public Law 97-280:

    Whereas the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people;

    Whereas deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation;

    Whereas Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States;

    Whereas many of our great national leaders, among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson, paid tribute to the surpassing influence of the Bible in our country's development, as in the words of President Jackson that the Bible is “the Rock on which our Republic rests;

    Whereas the history of our Nation clearly illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the teachings of the Scriptures in the lives of individuals, families, and societies;
    Whereas that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people:

    NOW, THEREFORE, be it Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized and requested to designate 1983 as a national “Year of the Bible” in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.

    Published in 1983 Reagan wrote: “Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation”:….My administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning.

    January 25, 1984: Second Inauguarl Address:

    America was founded by people who believed that God was their rock of safety. I recognize we must be cautious in claiming that God is on our side, but I think it's all right to keep asking if we're on His side.

    August 23, 1984:At the Ecumenical Prayer Breakfast at Reunion Arena in Dallas:

    In 1962, the Supreme Court in the NY prayer case banned the..saying of prayers. In 1963, the Court banned the reading of the Bible in our public schools. From that point on, the courts pushed the meaning of the ruling ever outward, so that now our children are not allowed voluntary prayer.

    We even had to pass a law—pass a special law in the Congress just a few weeks ago–to allow student prayer groups the same access to school rooms after classes that a Young Marxist Society, for example, would already enjoy with no opposition.

    On January 25, 1988, wholly concurring with the law, Public Law 100-307, May 5, 1988, declaring the first Thursday of each May be recognized as a National Day of Prayer, Reagan signed the bill into law:

    “Let us, young and old, join together, as did the First Continental Congress, in the first step–humble, heartfelt prayer. Let us do so for the Love of God and His great goodness, in search of His guidance, and the grace of repentance, in seeking His blessings, His peace, and the resting of His kind and holy hands on ourselves, our Nation, our friends in the defense of freedom, and all mankind, now and always.”

    Reagan said:

    “There are times when I'm in church, I think God might recognize the magnitude of my responsibilty and give me an extra portion of His grace…and I don't feel guilty for feeling that way.”

    Reagan wrote:

    “The family has always been the cornerstone of American society. Our families nurture, preserve, and pass on to each succeeding generation the values we share and cherish, values that are the foundation of our freedoms. In the family we learn our first lessons of God and man, love and discipline, rights and responsibilities, human dignity and human frailty.”

    Ronald Reagan pushed for a voluntary school prayer amendment.


    Thomas Jefferson:

    In 1774, while serving in the Virginia Assembly, he personally introduced a resolution calling for a Day of Fasting and Prayer.

    Wrote the Declaration of Independence:

    When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal statiion to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitles them…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…etc…appealing to the Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions…and for the support of the Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.

    Then Jefferson proposed that the new seal of the United States be: The children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night.

    As Governor of Virginia (1779-1781) Jefferson decreed a day of: Public and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God.

    From the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C., a quote from his:Notes on the State of Virginia:

    God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.

    In 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote at the occasion of the Kentucky Resolution: No power over the freedom of religion is delegated to the United States by the Constitution.

    In a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush (a ancestral uncle of mine) , Sept 23, 1800, Jefferson wrote: I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

    On April 21, 1803 to Benjamin Rush: My Views..are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions.

    In 1803 he signed an indian law that included annual monetary support to a Catholic missionary priest of $100. And three times renewed a 1787 act of Congress in which special lands were designated: For the sole use of Christian Indians and the Moravian Brethren missionaries for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity.

    On the occasion of his 2nd inauguration, March 4, 1805, Jefferson declared: …I need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessities and comforts of life, who covered our infancy with His Providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join with me in supplications that He will, etc………

    In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government.

    On March 4, 1805, Jefferson offered A National Prayer for Peace:

    Almighty God, Who has given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable ministry, sound learning, and pure manners.

    Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride and arrogance, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitude brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues.

    Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those to whom in Thy Name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the nations of the earth.

    In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.

    On April 10, 1806 he admonished all officers and soldiers, diligently to attend divine services.

    In the catalog Jefferson had prepared, listing all the books in his library, he wrote this on the title page:

    I am for freedom of Religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another…

    Jefferson stated: A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian; that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.

    Jefferson said: I have always said, I always will say, that the students perusual of the sacred volume will make better citizens, better fathers, and better husbands.
    1) The doctrines of Jesus are simple and tend to the happiness of man.
    2) There is only one God, and He is all perfect.
    3) There is a future state of rewards and punishment.
    4) To love God with all the heart and thy neighbor as thyself is the sum of all.

    I'm getting tired of typing and there are 3 more pages of examples, and this is getting long.

    The religion of other Founders such as Washington, Madison and Adams are legendary. Jefferson was in France during the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and Madison became known as the Father of the Constitution.

    “I see that you are an exceptionally honest in admitting that you want your enemies dead since you can't produce an argument against them.”

    Noooo..enemies of liberty and the United States.

  • VN_Vet

    LMAO. They're coming to take you away, hey, hey!

  • VN_Vet


  • VN_Vet

    They wouldn't review Mark Levin's book, 'Liberty and Tyranny', which has sold over a million copies, will they review Sarah's book? If so, fairly?

  • imgood

    David Frum–like David Brooks, Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, and other wine-and-cheese Republicans–is profoundly addicted to the adulation of the intellectual left, for whom he is a “reasonable conservative.” It is thus unsurprising that he would vigorously defend a leftist law professor like Cass Sunstein. Along with other legal leftists, such as Bruce Ackerman, Sunstein sought a strategy to deny President Bush's judicial appointments during his first term. Other comments by Sunstein suggest that he is an anti-hunting abolitionist, and that he supports appointing guardians and providing “counsel” to animals entitled to bring suit. He would thus appear to be an excellent fit with the far left, highly-politicised Holder Justice Department.
    As zealously as Frum defends an academic leftist like Sunstein, he equally zealously attacks such stalwarts of the conservative movement as Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, and Palin. Frum has contributed less to the conservative movement than any one of the above, let alone all four. That fact notwithstanding, or perhaps because of it, Frum goes out of his way to detract from their accomplishments. With respect to Palin, it was probably asking too much of her to resurrect the moribund McCain campaign. Nonetheless, she made a diligent effort. Her speech to the convention electrified the audience, giving McCain his first lead in the polls in some time. McCain maintained a small but persistent lead in the polls right up until the collapse of Lehman Brothers. There may have been nothing he could have done about it, but his incoherent, seemingly panicky response exacerbated his problems. McCain's woeful performance throughout the remainder of the campaign doomed his candidacy and inflicted upon America an administration that seems determined to push socialism upon America.
    Interestingly, McCain is precisely the type of candidate that you would expect Frum to support.
    Most exit-polling suggests that Palin's presence on the ticket marginally benefitted the ticket; this was following nearly ten weeks of non-stop savaging by the media, whose uncritical support of Obama was noted by even a few media liberals.
    Horowitz' comment that one Glenn Beck is worth 10,000 David Frums is, in my opinion, equally applicable to An Coulter and Sarah Palin (Limbaugh is worth 50,000 Frums).

  • Bellerophon

    Jefferson rewrote the Bible by removing all of the pornographic, mystical and downright fiendish sections. He never accepted the divinity of Jesus nor did he think that the Bible was divinely inspired. By the standards of modern evangelists Jefferson was anti-Christian. You will be hard pressed to find a single Founder who believed that Christ was the son of God although many if not most of they would describe themselves as Christians.

    Writing to his nephew Jefferson said “Fix Reason firmly in her seat and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god, for if there be one he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”

    That was advice to a relative that Jefferson never expected to be seen by anyone else. It was not a letter to a known religious man who could hurt Jefferson by revealing the contents to the public.

    Jefferson had reason to fear the religious elements in the US at the time. His public proclamations differed greatly from his private communications to trusted friends. He was the man who, with his friend James Madison, disestablished the Church of Virginia.

    If you think that Jefferson had nothing to fear from Christians then consider what happened to Jefferson's friend Thomas Paine.

    Paine wrote “The Age of Reason” in which he argued that the Bible was not written by the alleged authors and contained mostly nonsense broken up by disgustingly violent passages. In the true spirit of Christian tolerance they retaliated by burning his book and imprisoning his publisher in England. After Paine died American Christians stole his bones, apparently determined to punish Paine after death. I guess they didn't trust God to avenge Himself.

    The bigotry of colonial Christians is well known but denied by the Religious Right. John Jay, co-author of the Federalist Papers ran for governor of New York on a platform that included expelling all Roman Catholics from the state and seizing their property. There was nothing unusual about Jay, bigotry of his kind was the accepted norm.

    Sectarian fights were rampant in the colonies. Each established church fought to maintain its state financed monopoly. If you wonder why the language of the First Amendment forbids any law “respecting an establishment of religion” you have to understand that Christians feared nothing as much as another Christian sect different from than their own. They were terrified that one of the sects would establish itself as a national religion and would then proceed to do to the other sects what they had done within their states.

    Does Jefferson's public expressions make more sense now? When asked while president why he carried a Bible to church when it was known that he was critical of its contents Jefferson replied that he was president of a “Christian” country and that carrying the Bible was a sign of respect. Was it respect or fear?

    Jefferson famously said “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” That statement bordered on blasphemy and Jefferson was reviled for it.

    Can anyone who actually knows the kind of religious bigotry that pervaded early America still believe that America was founded upon Christian principles?

    Despite the eventual disestablishment of every state church the bigotry continued for well over a century. In 1872 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that Catholic students in public schools could do their mandatory Bible reading from the Douay Bible since the Catholic Church does not recognize the King James version as a valid translation. Seems pretty reasonable right?

    Apparently not because the ruling resulted in 22 deaths and 2 buildings burned to the ground in the ensuing riot.

    Atheists were forbidden to vote as recently as 1963. In prior years their testimony in court could be disallowed on the grounds that without the threat of punishment after death they had no reason to tell the truth. Atheists who were beaten and robbed were not allowed to swear out a complaint against their attackers.

    There is no way that a philosophy of individualism could arise in a country dominated by Christianity. Even though there were sects claiming an individual “right of conscience” it was never the dominant sect that proclaimed it. Only the powerless sects were interested in religious liberty. Fortunately for America reason prevailed against the bigotry of religion and religious freedom was accepted.

    You can quote all you want but no words can change the facts of life in 18th century America. America came into existence not because of Christianity, but despite it.

    Since you are so fond of quotes here are a few to demonstrate that the Founder not only weren't good Christians but feared it. Of course all of these quotes were not public utterances but private communications:

    John Adams:

    “Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery…”

    “The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?
    – John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815″

    “As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?
    – letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816″

    This last one is truly precious:

    “God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.”

    Adams was referring to the incarnation of Christ and did it in a state where by law you could not hold public office if you denied the existence of the Trinity.


    “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect.”
    – James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr., April 1, 1774

    “Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which pervades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there can not be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest.”
    – spoken at the Virginia convention on ratification of the Constitution, June, 1778

    They sure don't sound like modern evangelicals, do they?

  • Bellerophon

    “LMAO. They're coming to take you away..”

    Don't laugh your a$$ off, there will be nothing left.

  • VN_Vet

    A few things you write are true. Such as the 1st amendment to the Constitution abrigating the practice of established religion among the various colonies.

    And yes Paine misinterpreted the French Revolution, which he assumed was fought on the basis of Christianity like the American Revolution, but in fact was the opposite (although both were fought for freedom). His treatment there and the bloodbath that followed the French Revolution caused him to write The Age of Reason. But due to his misguided thinking, and misjudging of just how religious the United States was, he was no longer welcomed in this country. He basically became a man without a country. And greatly regretted to his dying day having ever written The Age of Reason.

    Otherwise you write bunk. What you are basically saying is that Jefferson's public religion, which was greatly demonstrated over many years, was the opposite of his private (disdain) for religion. Can you be that stupid to believe that? Half of what we know of his public religion comes from letters he wrote to contemporaries (and half from speeches he gave). How could he pull it off? Writing to some people of his belief in religion and in Jesus Christ, and to others the opposite. It would be like a liar trying to remember to whom he told his lies in order to keep them straight. And it would depend on complete cooperation from the people he (supposedly) revealed his disdain to to keep the secret. Do you really think all those Founders, who were elected and appointed to high places in our government for at least the first 30 years of our Republic could have fooled the people that badly. We know from Alexis de Tocqueville's narrative: 'Democracy in America' that the people of the United States were very religious (much more so than today) and he declared after his research that of all things, our great institutions, even our Constituion, he declared it wasn't until he heard the firey sermons from the pulpit of it's churches that he understood what made United States great. He said that Americans couldn't think of government and religion separately. That they went hand in hand. And you would have us believe that these people were dupes and were being led by atheists, or at least people who were wary of Christianity?

    Jefferson stated he was a Christian. I believe him. Since he was the most equivical of the Founders I believe most of them were. Jefferson wasn't present at the Constitutional Convention, but of the 55 delagates that were there, all were believers except for possibly 3 deists. There were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Lutherans, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 Unknown and the possible 3 deists. Although Franklin is often listed under this category he was probably a Christian by the time of the Convention, contrary to his younger days. And of course even deists believed in God. When scholarship was done on everything the Founders wrote and talked about during their lifetimes it was found that fully 34% came from the Holy Bible. The Founders juxtaposed several sources during the founding of our nation, such as John Locke, Adam Smith, Blackstone, etc., but the Bible was their chief inspiration. The overwhelming majority believed basic doctines of Christianity and were active in Christian churches. Even the few who didn't believe the basic doctrines of Christianity, nonetheless believed the basic values of Christianity were true and were good for society.

    “You can quote all you want but no words can change the facts of life in 18th century America. America came into existence not because of Christianity, but despite it.”

    I don't know if you've been propagandized or if you are the propagandist, but It's this kind of convoluted thinking in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, on religion and many other things, that I've come to expect from Libertarians (big L). It's why I think of you as wingnuts and why the Libertarian Party will and should remain in obscurity.

    If you aren't the propagandist, check out John Eidsmoe's 'Institute on the Constitution'. Book or video series.

  • robertslucker

    This no effect again we already get the result right?

  • Proxywar

    Just because Frum gets few web hits doesn't mean he isn't correct. He's making alot of sense.

  • Proxywar

    I think you pretty much nailed it.

    I will have to remember the name “Bellerophon”.

    Though as Frum clearly showcased Palin was the bigger albatross, but I would also agree mccain didn't help matters by suspending his campaign to go back to washington to help hammer out a stimulus plan when noone cared if he was there or not. It also didn't help when he said “the fundamentals of our economy are strong”. However the evidence clearly shows no one wanted to gamble on his sudden death and being left with a Palin presidency. Anyone with half a brain can see why mccain lost.

    Beck is to be respected because he is hostile to the left, so I agree with you here, but he really needs to make it clear to his audience yes I believe in God, but that doesn't mean you have too, he should say all you have to agree with is limited government, American exceptionalism, and the free-market.

    I went to a tea party today and the people there are doing really good things but God is too involved. I wish more Agnostic or Atheist speakers who are not Anti-others belief in God were there to speak on behalf of the movement. Where have the Ayn Rand conservatives gone?

    One thing I did notice at the tea party that made me pause was a T-Shirt they were selling that read Abolish the Fed and below it was a picture of JFK. I thought how strange. Then I heard the girl who was a year younger than myself who was selling this T-shirt say JFK wanted to Abolish the FED via Executive Order No. 11110. I then said to myself: OH BROTHER, NOT THIS CONSPIRACY THEORY AGIAN. I then engaged her in a debate and proved to her that “Executive Order No. 11110″ was not an order to abolish the fed. I even reminded her before the FED was created there were 9 recessions. Then I reminded her before the conversation was over don't get me wrong I'm no fan of the FED, but I do believe in honesty.

  • Proxywar

    Bellerophon makes alot of great points, though Liberals up until Bush jr, have always been the big spenders. It was the republican congress that saved the clinton years. Not for nothiong, Bush got hit with a ton of shit.

  • Proxywar

    “As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?- letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816″

    I disagree. Islam is.

  • Proxywar

    Point to something racist he said besides typical white person.

  • Proxywar

    Actually I am a logical agnostic libertarian who supported the Iraq and Afghan war. Please stereotypes do not work on me. I am a free thinker.

  • AlgerHiss

    As Limbaugh, years ago, dubbed another alleged Republican:

    David Rodham Frum.

  • aspacia


    Please support you claims with valid support.


    Please realize that Palin is an asset to conservatives, however I do agree with you regarding the firebrand Coulter.

    A Deist, Feminist, Goy, Zionist.

    This is the USA, and we can all agree to disagree.

  • aspacia

    I like Beck-remember he is an entertainer. Beck supports his claims with valid facts.

    A True Feminist

  • aspacia

    Yes Proxywar, Horowitz did fail to support his claims with valid facts.

    A Deist

  • aspacia

    Me too:-)

  • aspacia

    Great refute Belleraphon, The biographies of Jefferson, Franklin and Adams all support you claim.

    Great reads folks.

  • 2maxpower

    thinking you are a free thinker and being one are two different things.

  • Dren

    My two cents… If they were ugly, they would be revered. Just look at the hags the Libs put in power. They are smart and HOT. A feminist nightmare! Sarah has my vote because she is staunch, committed to conservative values, will take the fight head on.. and has no fear of men!. Just like my Mother! :-)

  • USMCSniper

    I thinj that the unpatriotic liberal women should take time for reflection. Let's say they should all volunteer for 13 month tours in Afghanistan where they can serve the troops as comfort ladies in order to earn some respectability back.

  • Dan Livni

    Ann is a good debater, but her comments that the Jersey girls were happy about their husbands deaths for money showed she can be stupid at times.

  • LucyQ

    The GOP with the additions of Beck, Palin and Coulter still has the same problem: They are not attracting young people, women, independents and minorities. Without overwhelming support by these groups, the GOP won't win the White House.

    Over the past year, the GOP seems delightedly complacent to just slam Obama and that strategy doesn't win elections for either party, it didn't help the Dems in 2004. I hope the GOP finds its own philosophy and transfers its loud and boring rage into enthusiasm.

  • carlosaguilar

    Frum cites Gallup Poll numbers but every other poll i've seen show that more citizens consider themselves conservatives and the numbers are rising since the anauguration of Obama. Independents polled have also heavily dissatisfied with Obama. Becks numbers for his radio show and T.V. show are blowing up. Beck constantly calls out Republicans and considers himself more of a libertarian. Where has Beck gone wrong exactly? Calling out Van Jones a truther that has a direct line to the presidency. Exposing ACORN as a corrupt organization which the president was a lawyer for and trained up their employees in organizing. He has forced the main stream to cover these stories which are extremely important. When Beck makes a factual mistake he always corrects it on a following show. Also Bush won I believe all 12 states the had same-sex marrige on the ballot. Now did that turn the election, I don't know but it didn't hurt. Tea parties which were inspired by many talk radio hosts such as beck, were civil, informed, and even cleaned up their own mess as opposed to Bush protesters against the Iraq war and the G-20. Wise up Frum.

  • Bellerophon


    It's strange how I ended up with ridiculously long posts when the only point that I wanted to make was that beliefs in individual rights, limited government and a free market do not need a religious basis.

    Beck is an interesting case. He was a “hopeless” drug and booze addict whose life was saved by religion. I don't doubt for a minute that the Mormon religion offers a better life than one riddled with addictions. That doesn't necessarily mean that Beck's religion is true or that religion is the only way to deal with addiction.

    What bothers me about Beck isn't his beliefs. Many share those beliefs and are good people. It's that he acts as though he is on a mission to create a religious revival more than a movement for limited government. He has said that “you will see miracles” when talking about his 9-12 Project. Does he mean this literally? The tone of his voice seemed to suggest that he does.

    When a man truly believes that he owes his life to his religion, as Beck does, he can decide that everyone should do as he did and accept the beliefs he credits with saving him. Anyone who has had to deal with Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses knocking at their door early on a weekend morning knows exactly what I mean.

    Aside from that I really like much of what he's done in showing the real face of Progressivism. I hope that I'm wrong about Beck's motives.

    What I am most worried about isnt' socialized medicine. There are plenty of studies showing how costs rise, care declines and wait times become intolerable. It's the Cap and Trade lunacy that both Obama and McCain support.

    While socialized medicine puts a sixth of the economy under federal control, Cap and Trade nationalizes all of the energy in the US. Nothing can happen without energy, it is the single most important good in the world. Control energy and you control everything…and everyone.

    There is no scientific basis for believing that CO2 is the dominant factor controlling the recent temperature rise. You can't fight Cap and Trade if you concede the science and just claim “we can't afford it”. That's sure suicide. This one has to be fought on scientific grounds.

    When someone argues against the CO2 theory but at the same time denies evolution they undercut their claim to understanding science. Many of the religious right seem to regard Darwin as Satan's science czar.

    It is here where opposition to big government can be divided and conquered.

    I am not saying that religious people should compromise their beliefs. I only ask that they stay out of the arguments about global warming and let others fight that issue.

  • jane08

    Denounce, shmenounce!

    Not only do I not see liberals or RINOs denouncing Grayson's absurd slander, I don't hear them asking other liberals to denounce him. Liberals and RINOS are instead preoccupied with challenging conservatives to play the denunciation game.

    Rhetorically, we must learn to shut down the “calls to denounce” we always hear from liberals and RINOs. Some suggestions for some snappy comebacks would be appreciated.

  • jane08

    Well, “typical white person.” Go look in his books (although Ayers wrote the first one) to see more disparagement of whites “my mother's race” that wouldn't be tolerated about black people. Then his obnoxious treatment of the white police officer in Boston. He doesn't like white people.

    And that is precisely how he should be attacked, at least now and then. I'm sick of black-on-white racism. It needs to be called out and our first bi-racial president provides the ideal opportunity.

    • Maik


  • jane08

    I'm a tea-partier, and I disagree that we need a leader. Once you have a leader, the Alinsky thing kicks in and the left then has an individual to demonize and ridicule. Alinsky said you can hurt individuals much more easily than institutions. T-partiers have lots of leaders in their own communities.

    We have the social networks and Beck and Rush give us ideas. It was Beck's idea to go to DC on 912, but that's about all he did, was come up with the idea. It was Rush's idea to take on the media the third weekend in October, and the partiers have picked it up because it sounds both effective and FUN.

  • VN_Vet

    She didn't say that, the dems and their media took what she actually said completely out of context. I remember that from the time, but am at a loss right now to remember exactly what she said.

  • VN_Vet

    Biographies and Autobiographies are quite different things. Biographies depend on integrity, and are subject to bias. If these particular biographies were written by atheists or agnostics (or leftists) they could and probably would have an intrinsic bias. Add in the bias and pre-conceived notions of the reader and you have the makings of a propaganda piece.

    It's true, just because of the controversy that Jefferson caused by his ambiguity, that he is my least favorite Founder (even though he wasn't at the Convention, still considered a Founder). But when Jefferson realized that this ambivalence had caused the controversy, he proclaimed that he was indeed a Christian, to wit: from my post above:

    On April 21, 1803 to Benjamin Rush: My Views..are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions.

    Jefferson actually implies here that the person or persons making these (false) claims about his religion are making it up out of whole cloth. But even beyond that, and more important than that is that Jefferson imparts the fact that his position (the results) by 1803 were gained over a “lifetime of inquiry and reflection” to arrive at the conclusion that he was a Christian. So a biographer, especially a disingenuous one, looking at, or cherrypicking utterances earlier on in Jefferson's life of inquiry and reflection could present a very different picture from the conclusions that Jefferson arrived at by the time he was President. It's this long arduous trip of Jefferson's that apparently had some people confused at the time he felt a need to comment on it. It's not unlike the story of Franklin's transformation, which is better known. Franklin who was apparently a deist most of his life, was by the time of the Constitutional Convention, as determined by speeches and requests he made at the Convention, a religious man, if not a Christian. From what I've read of that, it was probably during the Revolutionary War that the transformation occurred.

    I have seen this bias in biography before, for instance a biography of David Crockett I have.

  • VN_Vet

    Indeed. The so-called free-thinkers in my neighborhood are just atheists, and I think queers. Or they're allied with the queers, I'm not positive now, but every year they try to get our Ten Commandments Monument taken down.

  • CowboyUp

    The waffling snobs, most of whom felt the same way about Ronald Reagan, don't seem to think they turn anybody off. Losing showed what they were made of, immediate finger pointing and backstabbing against each other and the FNG at the bottom of their ticket. The people on McCain's campaign team should never be hired by the GOP again. Merit alone shows what inept fools they are, as you so well outlined (The brooks reference was rich, I've always called him a pseudoconservative), but they are punks on top of it. They should be running dp campaigns.

    I'd trust Sarah Palin with the Presidency before I trusted anybody in the upper echelons of either Party's leadership. She would certainly be doing a better job than the current occupant of the WH, and the more I see, read, and hear of what she thinks, the more certain I become that like Ronald Reagan, she is the best person for that job.

    She displays an understanding of America and the world that I haven't seen since President Reagan. The snobs and the dp see or sense that as well, and show it with their virulent hatred and disparagement of her and her background. Like Reagan, she's not your blue blood banker, an outsider to their clique and influence.

    I don't know what Frum's deal is, I know little about him, but the GOP sure as h*ll won't win any elections, much less roll back socialism, disparaging people like Sarah Palin.

  • CowboyUp

    Lol, could you imagine Mrs. Palin being intimidated as hillary (what passes for a strong woman in the dp) was by Rudy? It's fun to watch the dp trip over their own feet.

  • CowboyUp

    Good luck.

  • CowboyUp

    You've some good points there, and it reminds me of my sister and many of her friends. They were reliably democrat voters, when they voted, attracted to the 'youthfulness' and socially liberal positions of the party. It was interesting to watch them change after they married, started filing the long form, and raising a family. They weren't dumb, they learned quickly.

    I think conservatives should be true to conservatism, President Reagan didn't hide who he was or change his beliefs to be liked. At the time, I didn't agree with his view on abortion and other social issues, but I voted for him. I think economic freedom is just and sells itself, and without it there can be no real social freedom because economics can then be used as coersion to abridge social freedom, that's why all these dp programs become wildly unpopular once they are read.

    You're absolutely right that the GOP must put forth a positive platform (that doesn't equate to more programs, loss of freedom, and spending.), and they aren't. When boring conservatives (many of whom pointedly stayed at home last Nov,) are concerned enough to actually show up by the thousands at protests and events, they will likely be voting in '10 and '12, and they'll be voting for somebody truly conservative that doesn't think they're trash.

  • LucyQ

    I haven't seen economic freedom in many years. I see way too much economic dependence. A nation like ours which is dependent on others for our energy is no more independent than a nation which is dependent on others for food.

    Other than a few good and bad political personalities, and the usual political messages from each party which are ignored or forgotten the day one is in office, the GOP and the Dems are the same corrupt party.

    Energy should be the only important issue now but it's not. So no matter which party is in, without our own abundant source of energy, we'll soon be just another banana republic that will be owned by China or the Saudis.

  • armaros

    It is telling how those “conservatives” who talk about “big tent” republicanism would want to purge Palin and Coulter. That would make the republican party the liberal party while the democrats a left wing one. Shifting all of the spectrum to the left thanks to sell outs like Frum and Schmidt who blame conservatives for the losses their false liberalism has yielded at the polls.

  • armaros

    There is a certain honesty about Sarah Palin I haven't seen since, really, Ronald Reagan. I was a kid a the time so cannot even make this comparison but as things stand she exudes a realism no politician has been able to convey in a very long time.

    I say this while being a good few yards to the Left of her personally. But it matters not as she seems like the real thing.

  • bubba4

    Aethist, free thinkers, queers…they're all the same. They're book readers…screw em.

  • bubba4

    This is from her book:

    “These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.”

    Yep the “liberal” distortion really turned around her intent.

  • aspacia

    Wow, an intelligent, aware poster!

    Yes, all humans are subject to bias, be it cultural; what's palatable, religious, attractive, etc.

    When reading biographies I tend to analyze the first hand accounts as well as the author's analysis. Often I disagree with the author. However, I do believe both Jefferson (I have his Bible) and Franklin were not Christians.

    First, I admire Jefferson for his intellect and strength, especially during the Revolutionary War. All our founders were rich, white men who risked their wealth and lives to fight for independence. However, Jefferson tended to be an arrogant, devious, political backstabber. He often caused trouble with his plotting. Adams and Jefferson hated each other. LOL, my significant other is a direct descendant of Adams. Again, Jefferson, Franklin and many of our founders were Deists who did not believe in a personal savior, just a god who started it all, walked away, then watched to see what happened.

    I do not know of any later letters or journals that pointed to Franklin or Jefferson turning Christian.

    I haven't read the biography of David Crockett yet. I am reading Anchors Aweight at the moment. You would probably enjoy this as it is during the 60's and revolves around two Navy draftees.

    With regards,

    A Deist, Feminist, Goy, Zionist

  • aspacia

    Beck argues that the reason he is Mormon is that his wife is hot, and would not play unless he was Mormon. He also claims Mormonism did ground him in reality.

    Yes, he really said this.

    This is too funny considering the fact that when a youth, Joseph Smith would use a devining rod to look for gold.

  • Bellerophon

    I agree that Frum craves “respectability”. The problem is from whom he wants that respect to come. For Frum only the progressives in both the media and the universities can provide his ego with psychological sustenance.

    Sunstein, a man whose basic principle are almost perfectly wrong, can be defended because he is an academic. Academics can be forgiven anything because they dwell in a land of ideas that exists well beyond the reach of common men. As the Olympians of Thought they are as far above ordinary mortals as humans are above paramecia.

    “Oh!” Frum says to himself “If only I could gain their love and trust perhaps I might even be allowed to join them!”

    In other words (stealing a few lines from “Cyrano de Bergerac”) Frum has chosen to cultivate a supple spine and make friends the way a dog makes friends.

  • nomadthinker

    Jamie seems not to understand that there is a movement of freedom fighters that don't give a damn about the republican party. When we saw Sarah Palin we recognized who she was. I wasn't going to vote at all, but I did vote – for Sarah! Since the election, I wish John McCain, who was picked by the left wing media, and I suspect by rigged voting machines now that I understand how those machines are mismanaged. Now I want him to sit down and shut up, just go away. Love Ann Coulter, as well! We aren't in this for politics, but for FREEDOM.

  • John C. Arens

    Why on earth, David (Horowitz) are you debating an absolute irrelevancy like David Frum? He is only “relevant” by virtue of his acceptability as the token “conservative” in the cavernous liberal patrician eastern media establishment, and as such, you only grant his schizophrenic and incoherent political blatherings merit, when they actually have none. The left always love supposed “conservatives” that dump on themselves. This is why (until the general election) they loved the hapless John McCain, and why they still slobber on the witless Colin Powell.

    YOU are the national treasure, David. You are highly educated, and you have an encyclopedic knowledge of our shared leftist, statist, Stalinist enemy. Ann Coulter is fun, and comes up with some zingers, but there is less humor there than meets the eye. I much, much prefer Mark Steyn. Glen Beck is a poseur. He is sort of the Mister Haney of the libertarian right.

    Anyway, that's my two cents.

  • VN_Vet

    I have Geo Washington and Meriwether Lewis in my ancestry as well as Benjamin Rush. My Wife has Adams. I also had an ancestor who was an anti-federalist who arranged a meeting in the spring of 1788 for the purpose of debating the Constitution. I guess I'm a traitor of sorts, because I support the Federalist position, lol. My research has also turned up some ancestors who fought in the Revolution as well as at least one who fought in the French and Indian War. Three or four ggreat grandfathers who fought in the Civil War (North). At least one was wounded and a ggreat uncle was killed at the battle of Barryville, Virginia in Sept of 1864. I really enjoy researching family history.


    There is too much information available, much of it in Jefferson's own hand to deny that he was a Christian. He said he was. But the important thing, that can't be argued, is that he believed in God. And since he prayed to God it was a living God he believed in.

    This same goes for Franklin:

    “God heals, and the doctor takes the fees”

    “God helps those that help themselves” (June 1736)

    Work as if you were to live 100 years; pray as if you were to die tomorrow.” (May 1757)

    These were from Poor Richard's Almanac.

    In 1755 he composed a inscription for the cornerstone of the Pennsylvania Hospital:

    “In the year of Christ, 1755…This building, by the bounty of the Government and of many private persons, was piously founded, for the relief of the sick and miserable. May the God of mercies bless the undertaking!”

    In his autobiography, published in complete form in 1868, Franklin mentions a small book he carried throughout his life listing 13 virtues that he had chosen as his lifetime goals:

    Number 13 was: Humility: Imitate Jesus

    He also included this prayer in his autobiography:

    “O powerful goodness! Bountiful Father! Merciful Guide! Increase in me that wisdom which discovers my truest interest. Strengthen my resolution to perform what that wisdom dictates. Accept my kind offices to thy other children as the only return in my power for thy continual favours to me.”

    He also mentions that he was religiously educated a Presbyterian, but never attended church although he says he never doubted the “existence of a Deity: that he made the world, and [governed] it by his Providence.”

    Franklin was so taken by George Whitefield's preaching, that he printed many of Whitefield's sermons and journals. He also built a grand auditorium for the sole purpose of having Whitefield preach in it when he came to Pennsylvania. Noting the effects of Whitefield's ministry and of the Christian influence on city life, Franklin wrote in his autobiography:

    “It was wonderful to see the change soon made in the manners of our inhabitants. From being thoughtless or indifferent about religion, it seemed as if all the world were growing religious, so that one could not walk thro' the town in an evening without hearing psalms sung in different families of every street.”

    In 1776 Franklin proposed for the Seal of the new United States: Moses lifting up his wand, and dividing the red sea, and pharaoh in his chariot overwhelmed with the waters. This motto: “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”

    During the Constitutional Convention, when the various delegates were having trouble coming to agreement and the Convention appeared deadlocked Franklin gave a speech, as recorded by Jonathan Dayton, the delegate from NJ. It is too long to type it all, but here is the pertinent religious part:

    “In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were [heard], & they were graciously [answered]. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providnce in our favor.

    To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? [or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?]

    I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convinced proofs I see of this truth –that Fod governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?

    We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that “except the Lord build the House, they Labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel….

    I therefore beg leave to move — that henceforth prayers iimploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.”

    Dayton reproted that after this speech, Franklin sat down and never did I behold a countenance at once so dignified and delighted as was that of Washington at the close of the address; nor were the members of the convention generally less affected. The words of the venerable Franklin fell upon our ears with a weight and authority, even greater than we may suppose an oracle to have had in a Roman senate!

    Following Franklin's historical address, James Madison moved, seconded by Roger Sherman of CT, that Dr. Franklin's appeal for prayer be enacted. Edmund Jennings Randolph of Virginia further commented:

    That a sermon be preached at the request of the convention on the 4th of July, the anniversary of Independence; & thenceforward prayers be used in ye Convention every morning.

    Prayers have opened both Houses of Congress ever since.

    Franklin wrote his own version of the Lord's Prayer:

    “Heavenly Father, May all revere Thee, And become Thy dutiful children and faithful subjects. May thy Laws be obeyed on earth as perfectly as they are in Heaven. [Provide for us this day as Thou has hitherto daily done.] Forgive us our trespasses, and enable us likewise to forgive those that offended us. Keep us out of temptation and deliver us from Evil.”

    Well there are more pages of this, and there are many more references to God, but I have only included the ones that reference a living God. While it's possible (maybe) to argue about Franklin's Christianity, there can be no doubt that he was not a deist. As most of the founders weren't. As well as the general populace.


    A Christian, Patriot, Veteran

  • exodus2011

    WOW – David Horowitz makes so much SENSE ….. *__* I agree with him that SP has done an amazing amount in standing down the left – but surely her standard is close to equalled by Glenn Beck's Blackboard?

    As I see it, there are several battles going on against the LEFT and one of them is:

    The Teleprompter v. The Blackboard of Truth

    …. so far the American People appear to be backing The Blackboard (and maybe even the IOC is takin' notice of The Blackboard more than that doofus Teleprompter! *__*)

    Victories so far for The Blackboard

    - the resignation of that Van Jones scoundrel

    - the defunding of the INIQUITOUS and CORRUPT ACORN entity

    - the investigations into ACORN being undertaken in multiple states, INCLUDING by the LIBERAL DEMOCRAT AG of CA

    - the humiliation of that smiling, charming and sinister Valerie Jarrett (who still owns a bunch of SLUMS in Chicago that she might LOSE money on, BIGTIME … HA!)

    - the outing for close scrutiny of the APOLLO alliance

    - the outing for close scrutiny of the TIDES Foundation

    - the EXPOSURE of the sinister web funded by that CHIEF of MALEVOLENCE, G. Soros

    - the appointment of a NYT journalist to specifically MONITOR Fox News so they don't get SCOOPED every second day … HA!!

    -EXPLODING ratings for FOX in general and The Glenn Beck Program in PARTICULAR

    -the latest polling numbers indicating that CORRUPTION is the most important issue now to the American People, even surpassing the ECONOMY!!!

    …………………. and the wimpy counterattack attempted by The Teleprompter via the WH website? …. a bunch o' bluster that ain't gettin' no traction with the American People whatsoever … HA!

    “Be sure thy INIQUITY shalt find thee out”



  • VN_Vet

    “Aethist, free thinkers, queers…they're all the same. They're book readers.”

    Indeed, with pictures and photos too…

  • oldjarhead

    Frum is a friggin' idiot who confirms the adage that “Statistics lie, and liars use statistics.” This “unconventional” group he dismisses is going to set Frum and his comfortable elites back on their heels in 2010 and 2012. Of course, all we will continue to hear is sorry ass excuses again using all of the wrong statistics.

  • VN_Vet

    I commend you for reading Ann's books. When you mentioned that, I thought..hmm..I too have some of her books, so I checked and found the “offending” piece in 'Godless'. Previously I had also remembered what I was actually thinking about and that was hearing her explain on TV that when these women began using their husbands deaths to attack President Bush and campaign and fund raise for the democ-rats they stepped into the political arena and became fair game. She did indeed say those things, and while blunt, are perfectly accurate. And as you read the whole thing she wrote about it, it becomes much less offensive. I had previously read this book and in the context it was written, never thought anything about it except that these women were also reprobates. Wasn't one found to be or have been a democ-rat operative too? And I believe all four contributors to the democ-rat party. For the record, here is the complete paragraph from her book 'Godless, the culture of liberalism':

    After 9/11, four housewives from New Jersey whose husbands died in the attack on the World Trade Center became media heroes for blaming their husband's deaths on George Bush and demanding a commission to investigate why Bush didn't stop the attacks. Led by all-purpose scold Kristen Breitweiser, the four widows came to be known as “the Jersey Girls.” (Original adorable name: “Just Four Moms from New Jersey.”) The Jersey Girls weren't interested in national honor, they were interested in a lawsuit. They first came together to complain that the $1.6 million average settlement to be paid to 9/11 victim's families by the government was not large enough.

    After getting their payments jacked up, the weeping widows took to the airwaves to denounce George Bush, apparently for not beaming himself through space from Florida to New York and throwing himself in front of the second building a the WTC. These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. The whole nation was wounded, all of our lives reduced. But they believed the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was an important part of their closure process. These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.

    They were definitely cashing in on their husband's deaths monetarily and politically. Reprobates of the first magnitude.

    I never can understand why the taxpayers (guberment) are liable for restitution for victims of tragedies like this, especially that kind of money. It's definitely not Constitutional.

  • bubba4

    “Nor should we overlook the entire Demoncratic platform that would and has raised the cost of living for all Americans.”

    The cost of living has skyrocketed and wages have plummeted over the last eight years. The dollar has never been worth less. The middle class was almost obliterated during the Bush years with the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer. How on earth can you now say this is somehow the Democrats platform that brought us this? Unbelievable. Most of you have a huge memory hole, bad things either just happened or happened before Bush, but it's like the last eight years of utterly disasterous policies just doesn't exist. If some of you do manage to remember Bush you just say he was actually a “liberal” and you move on unabated.

    Palin represented and continues to represent a continuation of the Bush policies. Tax cuts for the rich to stimulate the economy and drilling offshore.

    “Blacks, Wards of the State and the Far Left got Obama elected. Let us face reality. They were the only Voting blocks who stood to gain by Obama's election.”

    Nice…I hope the rest of Americans afford you the same respect you give them. Voter turnout was the highest it has been in 40 years in 2008…that is suppose to be a good thing.

  • bubba4

    Why is it so important to you to make the founding fathers believe what you believe?

  • bubba4

    Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum….

  • bubba4

    “I commend you for reading Ann's books.”

    I don't read Ann's books though I am completely familiar with her “work”. I found the quote with a quick google search. It's just that easy to verify something before you post about it.

    It doesn't matter how long-winded Ann gets about it. She is making assertions and stating her opinion. Obvioulsy she turned attack dog on these women when Bush was being criticized in the aftermath concerning among other things a politically motivated called by the EPA that the air quality was safe around ground zero a few days after the disaster. Most of the critics at the time, including these women were not criticizing the war (which hadn't gone to Iraq yet) or any other Bush policy. The fact that you give money to a political party does not mean you are corrupt hack who lies for money.

    Ann Coulter however is. She lies all the time and does it for money. Notice she doesn't include the source material from which she draws her conclusions. And she doesn't build an argument…she tells you what to think/feel about the situation sans context. Look how good it works. After refreshing your memory about this little tidbit of history BY READING ANN'S OPINION OF IT, you conclude:

    “They were definitely cashing in on their husband's deaths monetarily and politically. Reprobates of the first magnitude.”

    Wow…glad you got the outrage refresher. Aren't you aware of what these “works” by Ann Coulter are designed to do?

    “I never can understand why the taxpayers (guberment) are liable for restitution for victims of tragedies like this, especially that kind of money. It's definitely not Constitutional.”

    Well, first off…it wasn't restitution Congress created the Sept. 11 victims' compensation fund…it was to keep the airlines from being sued silly. In this country, unless you are able to make your representatives snap into action, your only recourse is to sue. So many families sued for many different reasons and several groups formed, linking cases together into larger more general cases. A big issue at the time was the release of information. The problem with asking questions about 9/11 is that the Bush Administration, even under the best of scenarios, had a lot of incompetence to answer for. So Coulter is basically running interference here for the GOP, marginalizing a vocal group of people and calling them money grubbing, uncaring whores who can't be trustes…it's a dirty art she practices.

  • freegames234

    A lot depends on events.
    Free Games

  • VN_Vet

    Well doofus your mistake was doing a google search instead of reading the friggen book. Coulter's books are always documented, copious endnotes. You won't find any conservative authors who don't fully document their books. They don't have that luxury, because of leftwing hacks like you and your ilk. Coulter is a smart lady and a lawyer, if she libeled or slandered (meaning not being truthful) she would be sued. I don't suppose your dim noggen thought of that. Maybe it's the POT that causes that myopia you are plagued with, making you think that bad (leftism) is good and good (conservatism) is bad. Ann is one of the good guys.

    I think you've been in bad air awhile, because she didn't say anything about the war. It was about 9/11, remember? The four dem women were blaming President Bush for the deaths of their husbands, and complaining about $1.6 million not being enough money. And then making campaign TV advertisements for John F'n sKerry. It was they who turned it into a political football.

    A sensible person would know that the only one that should be liable to be sued would be the Islamofascist Terrorists, or if it could be determined a country who sponsored them. What did the Airlines do to be sued? They didn't fly the planes into the Twin Towers. The planes didn't have mechanical trouble that caused them to fly into the Twin Towers. The pilots weren't drunk causing them to fly the planes into the Twin Towers. As far as Congress appropriating money for this purpose, it's not Constitutional. The only legal way that these families can get some relief, aside from suing the Terrorists (and good luck with that) is by way of Corporate and Private Charity or Philantrophy. And people shouldn't be made millionaires by this tragedy anyway. This suing crap is another way that the left has screwed up the country. Coulter is a lawyer, but she's for tort reform. Trial Lawyer's Association, a biggg leftwing Washington lobby.

    I just have to shake my head when I hear goofballs like you trying to blame Bush for 9/11. The ignorance or disingenuousness is manifest. President Bush had only been in office 8 months when 9/11 occurred. He didn't even have his government in place yet, primarily because the democraps were purposely holding up his nominationsl. He did however holdover Klinton's Terrorism Czar, Richard Clarke. Sue Clarke. That's right on 9/11 Clarke was the Terrorism Czar. So the Bush administration didn't have its feet on the ground yet when 9/11 happened. Then you've got left-wing propagandist Michael Moore-on filling you little robots with crap. Bush flew bin laden's relatives out of the U.S. during the no-fly period. Richard Clarke had just an ounce enough integrity to come forward after Moore-on came out with his propaganda piece and admit that it was he who flew the Saudi's out of the country unbeknownst to President Bush. Furthermore he had told Moore-on that previously.

    Now on the otherhand, Klinton had been there for 8 years and had appeased 5 major terror attacks on the U.S. To wit: the first Trade Center bombing, the barracks in Riyadh, the Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the USS Cole and the debacle in Somalia. There were also 10 more minor attacks. Believe me, putting the Blind Shiek in prison did very little if anything to disuade the muslim terrorists or protect against further attack. The other 4 attacks were completely appeased. As were the 10 minor ones (all of which there were americans killed). bin Laden said in an interview that it was our (Klinton's) retreat from Somalia (re:Blackhawk Down), that told him that the U.S. was unwilling to take casualties and that's when they began planning the 9/11 attack. Other things that Klinton did to leave us vulnerable: he allowed his deputy AG Jamie Gorelick to erect a 'wall of separation' between the FBI and the CIA to prevent them sharing information. The reason for this was to prevent the Chicom donation monies to his campaign and the DNC being discovered. He defunded and reduced the military. He decimated the CIA and took away the 'boots on the ground' aspect and made it instead 'analysis'. He issued a directive (the squeaky clean edict) that no 'unsavory' people could be used by the CIA for intelligence gathering. In short he was a disaster waiting to happen. If Klinton and Clarke had put in motion, when they were in power, the steps that later Bush put in place, 9/11 would have never happened. And those steps that Bush took, were the only things that could have prevented 9/11, if it were preventable at all. Judging by the fact that no attack occured under Bush, 9/11 probably wouldn't have happened.

    Another thing is the PDBs. Misinformed leftists claim that Bush got a PDB (presidents daily briefing) some months before 9/11 stating that al Qaida planned on using planes to fly into buildings. Problem is that Bush got his PDB just a month before 9/11 and it said nothing about planes. However Klinton got the same PDB in 1998 and it did mention planes as reported by Newsweek as a result of their analysis of the 9/11 Commission report. These PDBs were basically routine intelligence reports and had no information on specific targets or times. However, if Klinton and Clarke, upon getting his in 1998, would have put into motion a plan to protect the country from attack by planes 9/11 may have been averted. Here are the two PDBs:


    Among the only clues cited in the report about
    Bush's knowledge of al Qaeda's intentions against the
    United States is an Aug. 6, 2001, President's Daily
    Briefing (PDB) — described in the report only as a
    “closely-held intelligence report” — that included
    information “acquired in May 2001 that indicated a
    group of [Osama] Bin Laden supporters was planning
    attacks in the United States with explosives.”

    The PDB also said “that Bin Laden had wanted to
    conduct attacks in the United States for years and
    that the group apparently maintained a support base
    here.” It cited “FBI judgments about patterns of
    activity consistent with preparations for hijackings
    or other types of attacks,” according to the report.

    In a May 16, 2002, briefing for reporters,
    national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said the
    PDB was a historical look at bin Laden's methods
    dating to 1997. She characterized the briefing as an
    “analytic report” that summed up bin Laden's methods
    of operation. “It was not a warning,” she said. “There
    was no specific time or place mentioned.”

    CLINTON WAS WARNED:From the 9/11 Commission Report

    Among the report's other new disclosures: Bill
    Clinton also got a strong warning that bin Laden
    wanted to hijack planes. On Dec. 4, 1998, Clinton was
    presented with a President's Daily Brief (PDB) with
    the eye-catching title “Bin Laden Preparing to Hijack
    U.S. Aircraft and other attacks,” Newsweek has

    So unless a person is completely myopic, blaming Bush for 9/11, when there is so much that Klinton did to set its occurance up, coupled with the short time that Bush was in office, borders on lunacy. As I said earlier the first person to blame is the Islamofascists.

  • VN_Vet

    I was meaning to mention, if you ever want to get some good solid, valid information you would be well to read books by conservative authors rather than propaganda pieces by anti-Americans.

    A good book that has to do with this subject is 'War Crimes', by Lt. Col. Robert 'Buzz” Patterson, USAF, Ret. Fully documented of course.

    Lt. Patterson, a former White House aide, carried the 'Nuclear Football' for Klinton.

  • bubba4

    “Well doofus your mistake was doing a google search instead of reading the friggen book. Coulter's books are always documented, copious endnotes. You won't find any conservative authors who don't fully document their books.”

    I'm going out of my way not to insult you..I don't read many book on politics and if I did, it wouldn't be Coulter. You took that section about 9/11 widows from the books. Ann makes a lot of claims about them, so what were the notes? Did she cite the case, quotes, tv appearances, anything? I know it's hard to put video in your book, but that's what transcripts are for.

    “They don't have that luxury, because of leftwing hacks like you and your ilk. Coulter is a smart lady and a lawyer, if she libeled or slandered (meaning not being truthful) she would be sued.”

    Who is going to sue her? “left” is a vague political label…same for “liberal”. You can badmouth these two all day long without a care in the world. The other problem there is it's her OPINION. You can't sue someone because they say you are a money grubbing bitch…they have the right to think that.

    “Ann is one of the good guys. I think you've been in bad air awhile, because she didn't say anything about the war. It was about 9/11, remember? The four dem women were blaming President Bush for the deaths of their husbands, and complaining about $1.6 million not being enough money.”

    Riiiight…according to Ann. If it's a faith issue…I can't help you. You can believe Coulter all you want. I just said they are assertions not facts.

    “And then making campaign TV advertisements for John F'n sKerry. It was they who turned it into a political football. A sensible person would know that the only one that should be liable to be sued would be the Islamofascist Terrorists, or if it could be determined a country who sponsored them. What did the Airlines do to be sued?”

    You are free to go look up the case(s). Frankly, I don't want to spend my day researching 9/11 some more. So you are free to do it. I would stay clear of Coulter and FPM and look up why and how the fund was set up.

    “He did however holdover Klinton's Terrorism Czar, Richard Clarke. Sue Clarke. That's right on 9/11 Clarke was the Terrorism Czar. So the Bush administration didn't have its feet on the ground yet when 9/11 happened.”

    Now you want to replay the whole excuse the Bush Administration game. Richard Clarke couldn't have been more vocal about warning about Terrorists. But look, you have been sold a bunch of ideas about 9/11. I don't feel like going over the facts with a believer. Just blame Clinton I guess..I gotta go.

  • imgood

    As well-documented and well conceived as are VN_Vet's comments, Bubba4's are equally silly. He acknowledges that he doesn't read the books he criticizes, as though someone of his intellect need not deign to read the crude thoughts of an uneducated boor such as Coulter. Your comments would seem to mark you as a proud liberal, and I hope you are proud of the depredations being heaped upon the country by the farthest left of the liberals: mmm…mmm…mmm!
    But isn't there a blog on the left that would be more receptive to your perspective?!

  • WFB2

    Bubbles doesn't read conservative books. He reads reviews of them by Lefty wingnuts over at DU and MorOn.ugh. They don't read them either. They have a “Designated Skimmer” who search's for some isolated controversial statement in the book. They jump on that, usually distort it, take it out of context and use this as a pretext to condemn the whole book. This “review” goes out to all the Moonbat's in the Lefty Loon-o-sphere who then quote it and quote each other quoting it. The false megaphone effect.

    I recommended “Liberal Fascism” to Bubbles who then took me through his whole “I-haven't-read-it-but-I-know-it's-baloney” routine. He/she's just another lefty kool-aid drinker. I think he's a troll-in-training from the HuffPo or somewhere.

  • bubba4

    I don't like you either….you got anything to say?

  • VN_Vet

    I think you've got him/her pegged pretty well WFB2. As well I should say of the Loon-o-Sphere too. The good news for Bubbadub is that there are conservative antidotes for those political maladies of the brain, heart and sole. Goldberg's 'Liberal Fascism' would go a long way towards restoring his health. And with 54 pages of Endnote documentation too. However, Bubbadub has to want to take the cure, and I'm not sure he's up to the task.

  • bubba4

    You're always telling me or other people what I think. You don't know shit…try spending a little more energy on composing an argument instead of guessing what people think to make things easy on yourself.

    You who take anything said on this website as gospel…who questions nothing can only try to accuse me of what you do…it's sad really because you have this little niche and the rest of the big bad world is “left”…poor little you..just you against reality.

    Did I miss something by not reading “godless”. Did all her articles at the time, the appearances on tv and radio, and just Ann herself not clue us all in as to the content of this book?

    As for this being a “routine” to avoid some wonderful truth hidden in her “work”…I find that funny coming from someone that would condemn anything Ann or FPM told him too. No footnotes necessary….you're just that kind of soul.

  • bubba4

    Because Palin and Coulter are calling all the moderates evil “leftists” who want to kill Grandma and surrender to Al Qaida. That tends to clear the tent a little.

  • imgood

    Not to a powerful riposte like that, bubba 4. Your brilliance is dazzling, your understanding of the topic is unparalleled, particularly for someone who acknowledges that he does not read what he criticizes. Very impressive. it reminds me of the liberal media types who castigate Rush for something he allegedly said, and then when asked when he made the alleged comment, they angrily respond ” you must be kidding, I would never listen to such garbage!” But really, Mr. bubba4, aren't Media Matters and Daily Kooks more congenial to your world outlook?

  • imgood

    I think your analysis is right on…and I like the literary reference. Frum is the type of “conservative” who fears being viewed negatively by his academic buddies, most of whom happen to be situated on the left. He is genuinely embarrassed by “regular” Americans, in whose lives such atavistic (from Frum's perspective) phenomena as faith and patriotism are central. Thus his deep distaste for former-Governor Palin. Like most secular academic types, he is more attracted to words than deeds, especially when someone says those words in a way calculated to appeal to academics–thus his positive view, until recently at least, of Obama, a demagogue in the worst sense of the word, and a would-be dictator if ever I have seen one in America.
    Frum thinks that conservatives can avoid getting their hands dirty and should combat the left by Marquis of Queensbury rules. Horowitz, a red-diaper baby and, for the first theity five or so years of his life, a man of the left, understands better than most who these people are and what animates them.
    Ultimately, Frum is an irrelevancy and non-entity in such debates; Horowitz is a vital organ at the center of our opposition.

  • bubba4

    Media Matters is a media watdog website that focuses exclusively on “conservative” misinformation. Actually if you want to get a handle on something Rush says or said and you want to read/hear it in context…I think MM has a pretty extensive archive of offensive and stupid things he's said. You don't have to listen to his entire three hour program everyday to have an opinion about Rush.

    The Daily Kos is a blogger?

    No one has to attack Rush for alleged comments…his real, documented, in context comments provide plenty of fodder.

  • imgood

    Good day, Mr. Bubba4! My stomach is strong today, so I thought I would look to see what issues you're fulminating about today. I note your comment that no one need “attack Rush for alleged comments.” But if that is true, why does so much of your liberal cohort do exactly that? In fact, the lefties frequently fabricate comments to try to discredit Rush.
    Your endorsement of Media Matters as a reliable source of information is entirely consistent with your preference for reading left-wing blogs to learn the content of books rather than actually reading the books.

  • bubba4

    People don't attack Rush for “alleged” comments…they critique his actual comments.

    Media Matters is not a News site…it is a media watchdog…so it is a reliable site for what they track…which is “conservative” misinformation. You can disagree with their editorials, but they always include clips, transcripts, links, and everything. So, are you saying they manipulate their clips or lie about the content? There is no evidence for that.

    I don't have much time for reading atm, but when I do squeeze in a book, it's not going to be Ann Coulter.

  • imgood

    Hey Bubba 4, Of course, commentators attack Rush for “alleged comments,” or to be more accurate, comments he never made. He was chastised by a variety of liberal commentators and public figures for aserting–among other things–that “slavery had its merits,” among other fabrications. Subsequently, several of the commentators retracted the assertion, after its publication had served the left's purpose. The reality is that the left frequently misquotes, or more perniciously, fabricates comments, statements, and documents relating to conservatives; for example, the forged document intended to discredit Bush during the 2004 re-election campaign (which Dan Rather pursued with gusto, and which helped shorten his career at CBS). There are many others.
    As to Media Matters, one of its M.O.s is to broadcast a snippet of a quote that ignores its context and distorts the speaker's meaning. It would be comparable to a conservative speaker declaring in a forty minute speech the following line, “After a decade of erratic Weimar fiscal policy, many citizens of Germany thought Hitler was good,” and then excerpting the three words “Hitler was good” to prove that the speaker, like all true conservatives (wink wink) supported Hitler. Then the leftist sickos at Media Matters disseminate the cut to their favorite liberal media network or blog. Led by the girly boy David Schlock, Media Matters lies fanatically (still denying Soros as a source of funding) and distorts the speech of patriots to serve its goal, as radicals say, of “radical social transformation,” i.e. socialism.

  • bubba4

    I'm at a disadvantage here. I can't put all the things I don't like into one big group, so we should stick to individual examples. To back up your Rush defense your citing CBS from 2004? That's a whole other post, thread, and issue.

    “As to Media Matters, one of its M.O.s is to broadcast a snippet of a quote that ignores its context and distorts the speaker's meaning.”

    By broadcast you mean post to their website? They are a website after all.

    “It would be comparable to a conservative speaker declaring in a forty minute speech the following line, “After a decade of erratic Weimar fiscal policy, many citizens of Germany thought Hitler was good,” and then excerpting the three words “Hitler was good” to prove that the speaker, like all true conservatives (wink wink) supported Hitler.”

    This just isn't true. There isn't an item on their website that isn't backed up by transcript, context, audio, or video. If people can't take responsibility for what they say, then they shouldn't speak with authority.

    MM is like a robot. They have commentaries, but you will find more links in one editorial on MM then in all the articles on FPM combined. If you see videos cut into a montage, then those videos have already been covered fully and you can go back and look at the full clip.

    “Then the leftist sickos at Media Matters disseminate the cut to their favorite liberal media network or blog. Led by the girly boy David Schlock, Media Matters lies fanatically (still denying Soros as a source of funding) and distorts the speech of patriots to serve its goal, as radicals say, of “radical social transformation,” i.e. socialism.”

    “as radicals say”? Dude, you are doing what you are accusing Media Matters of.
    And you are on FPM, run by Horowitz's “Freedom Center”. Where you do think he gets his money? If you count any foundation that has anything to do with any other foundation or trust that Soros has something to do with, then Soros funds the entire world. Same with Scaife and “conservatives”. It doesn't tell us anything about what is “true”. In any case, you have to do some pretty amazing backflips to make Soros the funder of MM.

    Rush imparticular is listened to everyday by MM. I sometimes listen to Rush for a few minutes in the morning on my way to the office. You don't have distort…he says crazy shit all the time.

  • imgood

    Clearly you do not
    spend as much time reading the posts on Media Matters as you claim. It is a thoroughly partisan organisation, less devoted to advocacy than to discrediting the occasional protests of patriots concerning where the left is taking America.

  • bubba4

    Its a media watchdog…they have a mission statement…it's about exposing “conservative” misinformation.

    I don't think you have ever read it, or you wouldn't have said what you said….everything is backed up there by audio, video, transcripts….sorry

  • imgood

    Now you're projecting, Mr. Bubba. The mere fact that you do not consider it necessary to read articles or books upon which you comment is not a sufficient basis for you to accuse others of similar intellectual dishonesty. Shame, shame!

  • Michi

    He is like the guy who concedes the game before it even starts.

  • Petra

    Ann is a good debater, but her comments that the Jersey girls were happy about their husbands deaths for money showed she can be stupid at times.

  • muschi

    which is a good deal of what we are suffering from now. And which shows that such attacks work."