• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is David Frum right about Conservatism's future?

Is David Frum right about Conservatism's future?


  • Total voters
    15
Frum is an idiot...

I agree with rush.


"Well, the Constitution doesn't need to be redefined. "


Frum is throwing a bitch fit because Levin called his silly canadian ass ouoot.
 
This sums it up nicely:

On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of "responsibility," and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him.


And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as "losers." With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we're cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush's every rancorous word—we'll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.


Rush knows what he is doing. The worse conservatives do, the more important Rush becomes as leader of the ardent remnant. The better conservatives succeed, the more we become a broad national governing coalition, the more Rush will be sidelined.
 
This sums it up nicely:



On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of "responsibility," and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him.


Sounds like he wants to blow Obama.


And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as "losers." With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we're cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush's every rancorous word—we'll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.



Still sounds like he wants to blow a democrat.

Rush is an Entertainer, why is he being grouped with the President?


Rush knows what he is doing. The worse conservatives do, the more important Rush becomes as leader of the ardent remnant. The better conservatives succeed, the more we become a broad national governing coalition, the more Rush will be sidelined.


Read "become more liberal, like Obama"


No thanks.
 
Sounds like he wants to blow Obama.

Still sounds like he wants to blow a democrat.
Because of the lack of anger or harsh words? Sorry, but not everyone views Obama through partisan spectacles. I disagree with his political views, but he's certainly an intelligent orator with some wit and charm.

Rush is an Entertainer, why is he being grouped with the President?
He was explaining why it benefits Obama for Rush to take the helm as "leader" of the GOP:

Here's what I wrote: President Obama and Rush Limbaugh do not agree on much, but they share at least one thing: Both wish to see Rush anointed as the leader of the Republican party.




Read "become more liberal, like Obama"
Read it however you please.
 
Because of the lack of anger or harsh words? Sorry, but not everyone views Obama through partisan spectacles. I disagree with his political views, but he's certainly an intelligent orator with some wit and charm.


"Obama is so soft spoken and concerned. never a harsh word" blah blah blah, even you don't believe this tripe I hope.


He was explaining why it benefits Obama for Rush to take the helm as "leader" of the GOP:

Here's what I wrote: President Obama and Rush Limbaugh do not agree on much, but they share at least one thing: Both wish to see Rush anointed as the leader of the Republican party.





Read it however you please.



I will.
 
"Obama is so soft spoken and concerned. never a harsh word" blah blah blah, even you don't believe this tripe I hope.
In comparison to Rush, which is what he was doing in the article, Obama is quite the little angel when it comes to rhetoric.
 
In comparison to Rush, which is what he was doing in the article, Obama is quite the little angel when it comes to rhetoric.




Obama called Rush out. Remember?


Obama also says we cling to guns and bibles, and white people are racist.....

I think the rhetoric is deplorable with Obama since you know he is not an entertainer but the president.
 
Save for Rush has stated repeatedly that he doesn't want to be the leader of the GOP and isn't the leader of the GOP. And guess what, I believe 98% of republicans AGREE THAT HE'S not.

Frum's an idiot, and as stated by Right in another thread if one must use hyperbole or sugar coat a set of facts to fit the notion you want to put across then that either harms your point by trying to exaggerate/leave things out or it shows there's nothing there.

The description of Obama is laughable and that's not just from "partisan spectacles". Soft spoken and conciliatory? I take it he's missed the numerous press conferences ripping the Bush administration, republicans, and anyone that agrees with them? He's invoking victems and that's somehow makes him a great person? Inovkes the language of responsibility? Where? In the numerous government programs he's wanting to give people, in the numerous bailouts he's given to companies, to his administration going "we know better than business" and angling to take things over. This is the "language of responsibility"? His "only" vice is the occasional cigerette? Seriously? We know Obama that well that we know all his potential vices? Even then, his seeming aloofness or smugness that many do find in him is somehow just non existant. Every bit of this is fawning adoration without any attempt at an objective look at the man.

Yet the description of limbaugh following it may as well be drafted up in the Democratic Underground. For every ounce of adoration there was vitriol here, and an equal attempt at not being in any way objective.

It shows me this guy has an agenda, and facts be damned he's a good little media person and that means presenting the view HE WANTS not necessarily what it really is. Why the hell should I give this bafoon any more credance than anyone else?

More so, he's comparing the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to a RADIO SHOW HOST.
 
Frum is as right about the future of the GOP as nuch as Rove was right about the future of the Democrats.

I think that sums it up in a nutshell quite nicely, eh?
 
The problem with uber-conservatives is that the world changes and they can't see it changing. Given enough time, they become dinosaurs of politics.
You can apply that to any period of history and it fits.
Change happens and you either use change to your advantage or you become irrelevant....
The GOP needs to stop harping on social issues that the GOP public is willing to modify. Abortion is here to stay, as are gays and lesbians wanting to marry. Pandora's box is open, there is no closing it.
The GOP needs to fight the battles they can win, like economic issues, and that doesn't mean just taking an oppositional stance to whatever the DEMS come up with.
Playing defense all the time is no way to win....
 
Frum is an idiot...

I agree with rush.

Any conservative who questions party ideology is immediately shunned, this is a hallmark of the movement. This is also a reason Frum is right, no party can survive for long on hatred and lies, which is all the Republicans have left.
 
Save for Rush has stated repeatedly that he doesn't want to be the leader of the GOP and isn't the leader of the GOP. And guess what, I believe 98% of republicans AGREE THAT HE'S not.

Maybe that 98% ought to grow a pair then and not beg Boss Rush for forgiveness every time they say anything that might offend him.

For all intents and purposes, Rush is the leader of the conservative movement in America today. Thats your problem.

Frum's problem is that he is something of an intellectual, and we all know how much today's conservatives despise objectivity and intellect.
 
Last edited:
Maybe that 98% ought to grow a pair then and not beg Boss Rush for forgiveness every time they say anything that might offend him.
For all intents and purposes, Rush is the leader of the conservative movement in America today. Thats your problem.

Frum's problem is that he is something of an intellectual, and we all know how much today's conservatives despise objectivity and intellect.

All of our GOP leadership could be female, or of the log cabin republican variety, for all I care, as long as they have BRAINS.
Rush will "lead" the GOP to a second defeat 2 years from now, and probably a third 4 years from now.
UNLESS, Obama really screws up and embarrasses the Democratic party.
He could do something like get a white girl friend and have a baby with her....:lol:
Didn't the GOP accuse McCain of fathering a black baby back during the 2000 elections? Did that help Bush?
 
The biggest rift I see for conservatism, is the one on social issues. Due to the evangelical tie in with the republican party, it creates an at odds approach with the more libertarian minded folks who normally would be inclined to go with the smaller government party(read smaller, not necessarily small government at this point in the game). Somehow this gap needs to be bridged if the conservatives want to ever regain power with the voting populace. And I honestly don't know if it can be bridged. There seems to be no common ground between the two entities regarding social issues. The best they could possibly do, is prehaps to leave social issues as something pertaining to states, and leave those issues on the back burner in debate.
 
The biggest rift I see for conservatism, is the one on social issues. Due to the evangelical tie in with the republican party, it creates an at odds approach with the more libertarian minded folks who normally would be inclined to go with the smaller government party(read smaller, not necessarily small government at this point in the game). Somehow this gap needs to be bridged if the conservatives want to ever regain power with the voting populace. And I honestly don't know if it can be bridged. There seems to be no common ground between the two entities regarding social issues. The best they could possibly do, is prehaps to leave social issues as something pertaining to states, and leave those issues on the back burner in debate.

Good idea...
 
I'm interested to see if the GOP panders to Libertarians this next election. They can use all the help they can get.
 
I'm interested to see if the GOP panders to Libertarians this next election. They can use all the help they can get.

If they will pander to the religious right, they will pander to anybody.:lol: Maybe this is the time for libertarians to start positioning themselves?
 
If they will pander to the religious right, they will pander to anybody.:lol: Maybe this is the time for libertarians to start positioning themselves?
I would love to see it, but I doubt it will happen. The majority of Americans have no clue what Libertarianism means or what it's constituency believes in. It would be nice to have a Libertarian participate in the Presidential Debates, thus educating the populace on our positions. Again, I doubt it will happen but I would be pleased to be proven wrong.
 
Maybe that 98% ought to grow a pair then and not beg Boss Rush for forgiveness every time they say anything that might offend him.

For all intents and purposes, Rush is the leader of the conservative movement in America today. Thats your problem.

Frum's problem is that he is something of an intellectual, and we all know how much today's conservatives despise objectivity and intellect.

Well, considering you've been absolutely wrong about anything dealing with Conservatism well...just about every single time I've ever interacted with you...excuse me as I don't really care what YOU tell me is the reality of things for the "conservative movement in America". :roll:

The fact is, he's not the leader. That's an actual fact. He's not an elected leader, he's not the head of the GOP, over 90% of polled republicans don't consider him it. No matter how much you, like you routinely do, incorrectly tell conservatives what they believe doesn't make it true it just makes you ignorant on the subject.
 
Well, considering you've been absolutely wrong about anything dealing with Conservatism well...just about every single time I've ever interacted with you...excuse me as I don't really care what YOU tell me is the reality of things for the "conservative movement in America". :roll:

The fact is, he's not the leader. That's an actual fact. He's not an elected leader, he's not the head of the GOP, over 90% of polled republicans don't consider him it. No matter how much you, like you routinely do, incorrectly tell conservatives what they believe doesn't make it true it just makes you ignorant on the subject.
One only needs to point out: SD is not a conservative himself, so how would he know?
 
Well, considering you've been absolutely wrong about anything dealing with Conservatism well...just about every single time I've ever interacted with you...excuse me as I don't really care what YOU tell me is the reality of things for the "conservative movement in America". :roll:

The fact is, he's not the leader. That's an actual fact. He's not an elected leader, he's not the head of the GOP, over 90% of polled republicans don't consider him it. No matter how much you, like you routinely do, incorrectly tell conservatives what they believe doesn't make it true it just makes you ignorant on the subject.

You can tell yourself that it if it makes you feel better. However, if a leader of a movement is described as the individual with the strongest contingency in the movement, then Boss Rush is your leader.

You may think I am wrong, but I called this way back in 2006. I wrote a long OP/ED on the Republican Party's problem way back then and thus far I have been on the money far more than any of yall have been.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archi...ism-republican-catch-22-a.html#post1057506414
 
You can tell yourself that it if it makes you feel better. However, if a leader of a movement is described as the individual with the strongest contingency in the movement, then Boss Rush is your leader.

What I find most interesting is that Democrats seem so fixated on whom the new GOP "leader" will be... only 50-some-odd days into their new president's term. You'd think they'd have other, more important things on their minds.

After every presidential election the losing party goes through a period of uncertainty and turmoil. And pundits on both sides are full of gloomy dissections of 'what's gone wrong' and some even go so far as to write the obituary.

I think Frum has fallen into that trap. Or he's just intentionally playing it for what it's worth at the moment.

The fact of the matter is that no administration ever fully lives up to its ideals and promises. Both Reagan and Clinton maintained their high approval ratings at the end. But there were plenty on both sides of the spectrum who were unsatisfied with everything 'left undone' in their terms. The pendulum shifts back and forth. Young voters, though always more liberal, are also fickle. Their love affair with Obama will only take the Democrat party so far. Eventually another charismatic figure will rise on the GOP side and make a case for change... either four years from now or eight. Then Frum will have something entirely new to pontificate about.

And Rush will still be Rush.

:2wave:
 
Frum is as right about the future of the GOP as nuch as Rove was right about the future of the Democrats.

I think that sums it up in a nutshell quite nicely, eh?

I wouldn't get too excited.
You folks ran on Foley and Blue Dogs to win the last midterms.
You ran a Vaudeville act, The Messiah, for president this time. Now it's turned into a bad sitcom.

These sideshows hid the fact you're still the tax and spend leftists you always were.

At some point dealing from the bottom of the deck won't work anymore.

Then what's left for The Left?

.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't get too excited.
You folks ran on Foley and Blue Dogs to win the last midterms.
You ran a Vaudeville act, The Messiah, for president this time. Now it's turned into a bad sitcom.

These sideshows hid the fact you're still the tax and spend leftists you always were.

At some point dealing from the bottom of the deck won't work anymore.

Then what's left for The Left?

.
I wouldn't get too excited.
The GOP ran with old and inflexible McCain combined with young and ignorant Palin to lose the last election cycle.
The GWB cycle was almost a comedy, if not for the tragic loss of life over the Iraq war, for no good reason, so far.
These sideshows hid the fact you're still the borrow and spend right wing that you always were.

At some point scraping from the bottom of the barrel won't work anymore.


Then what's left for The GOP?

Without NEW blood, untainted by the diseases of dementia so prevalent in the GOP, it just may be relegated to the back of the bus for a few decades....
 
Back
Top Bottom