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

Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of the critically acclaimed and best-selling, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror. His new book is High Noon For America. He is the host of Frontpage’s television show, The Glazov Gang, and he can be reached at jamieglazov11@gmail.com. Visit his site at JamieGlazov.com.


palcoulter

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.

  • 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.

    Madison:

    “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

    Horowitz,

    Please support you claims with valid support.

    Frum,

    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.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dan-Livni/616453672 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

    Thanks.

    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.

    • http://www.berliner-autoreinigung.de 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.

    Anyway:

    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.

    Regards,

    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”

    GO GO GO BLACKBOARD !!!

    YEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

  • 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?