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


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.

  • 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:

    PRES BUSH'S PDB

    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
    learned.

    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!

  • http://www.hot-show.eu Michi

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

  • http://www.sexschop.net 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.

  • http://www.sexschop.net muschi

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