David Frum Freaks Out Over Sarah Palin’s Supposed Racism

David Horowitz's NewsReal Blog ^ | David Forsmark

[Diogenesis]

“I am not a GOP backstabber.
I pay others to do it.”

---

---

The McCain/Palin ticket was up ++4 to 10 pts. in some polls, days prior to the election.
So rather than helping the GOP, Romney
guided by his business partner, George Soros, had
Parker, Frum, and the rest of TeamROMNEY
attack Gov. Palin to throw Election2008 to the DNC.

---

Late in October, The American Spectator's The Prowler revealed:
"Former Mitt Romney presidential campaign staffers…
have been involved in spreading anti-Palin spin to reporters, seeking to diminish her standing after the election.
'Sarah Palin is a lightweight, she won't be the first, not even the third, person people will think of when it comes to 2012,'
says one former Romney aide…
'The only serious candidate ready to challenge to lead the Republican Party is Mitt Romney.
"Some former Romney aides were behind the recent leaks to media, including CNN, that Governor Sarah Palin was a 'diva' and was going off message intentionally."

---

"Rove is pushing Romney so aggressively some folks are beginning to wonder what's going on," grumbled one veteran Republican strategist."

---

"Rove has made no secret of his support for Romney as McCain's VP. "

---

"Frum was indeed a critic of Palin, calling her nomination a "huge mistake" during an October 13 (2008, weeks before the election) Early Show appearance."

---

David Frum: "Two of our most plausible candidates for president in 2012 are leading Mormons: Mitt Romney and Utah governor Jon Huntsman."

---

David Frum: "I have a lot of regard for Mitt Romney as a man and politician… I will support him without qualm."

---

Kathleen Parker: "[I]t is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem." "Parker ... says something publicly that many of us have thought privately
but lacked the courage to say out loud - Palin should step down:"

---

"Kathleen Parker: After Interviews, Palin Should Bow Out"

---

Kathleen Parker: "Romney would bring more than squeaky clean qualifications
and youthful good looks to the ticket.
Romney would seem a logical choice."

---

"Parker: Romney raised bar on freedoms"
Kathleen Parker: "If Kennedy's speech was an important landmark in American political history,
Romney's was surpassing. With heartfelt humility and poetic eloquence,
he tracked the nation's struggle with and for freedom."

---

Staggering bigotry of Kathleen Parker - UPDATED"

---

Who benefits most from Sanford meltdown? Californian (that's right) Mitt Romney

---

"Peeking Out From the McCain Wreckage: Mitt Romney"

"Someone's got to say it: IS MITT ROMNEY RESPONSIBLE FOR OBAMA'S VICTORY?"

"Vanity: Team Romney Sabotaged Palin and Continuing to Do So?"

"Romney Supporters Trashing Palin"

"Romney advisors sniping at Palin?"

---

[kbennkc]

What did we ever do to Canada to get stuck with this guy?

[crazyhorse691]

FRUM: For the 1 in 6 Americans who were held as slaves in 1790 – often unable to marry legally, and always liable to be sold and separated from spouses or children – family life was quite a lot different at the time of the founding than it is today.

A would-be president should remember that part of the American story too.

---

That’s a nancy libtard response...no thinking required and all so emotional.

[CedarDave]

Those in the northeast and early settlers in the upper midwest did not have slaves. They were farmers, hunters, shopkeepers, ran a small family business.

But, in fact, the founders from the north were very much aware of the problems with owning other human beings as slaves. The remarkable fact is that both sides were able to step over the issue for 60-plus years to establish a Republic where freedom and individual responsibility were the hallmarks.

I suspect that both sides knew the issue would one day rise to the top. But without a starting point of freedom for whites there would be no freedom later for people of color. The hypocrisy of free and slave humans would become too much for any reasoning person to deny.

[Retired Greyhound]

1865?

Life was plenty tough for blacks for much of the 20th Century, too.

So I guess we’ll need the disclaimer to discuss anything to do with America.

Frum is a maroon.

[Retired Greyhound]

I love that picture of Sarah, but I wish she had replaced at least one of those American flags with a Gadsden flag.

[Spartan79]

Frum is a Canadian. A great many Canadians welcome us Yanks, but all too many have a chip on their shoulder about their neighbors to the south.

[DoughtyOne]

If people wish to take Palin to task for something or someone she supported that they have a problem with, fine. Let’s debate it. Trying to make up stuff to take her to task for is idiotic.

The charge ‘racism’ means nothing, if it can be hurled around this nonsensically.

Frum? Geez...

[Dahoser]

So — she’s a racist because she isn’t obsessed with race?

Exactamundo! A colorblind society is the nightmare of the civil rights crowd and clymers like Frum, and is evidence to them that we're racists because we don't take race into account. I've posted this before but it's worth repeating that in 1996, Representative Major Owens (D-NY) made a Special Orders speech in which he went so far as to assert that the 14th amendment only pertained to minorities:

So, the intent of the 14th amendment is very important. The fact that this majority has chosen to totally ignore the intent of the 14th amendment and use it as a battering ram to push a color-blind philosophy, it is an ideology, a color-blind ideology of Sandra Day O'Connor and the other members who join her repeatedly in insisting that the 14th amendment says that we must have a color-blind society, that has no foundation in the 14th amendment.
(Source: Congressional Record, July 9, 1996, "The Families First Agenda And A Further Discussion On Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas," Special Orders speech of Rep. Major Owens)

So you can see now that Sarah being colorblind to race not only makes her a racist but actually violates the 14th Amendment. She's definitely a bad person and not qualified for President.

[WashingtonSource]

David Frum is a the wimpiest columnist ever. Why does he pretend to be conservative when its clear he’s a leftist at heart. His comment on Sarah Palin is something a nutcase leftist professor would say. It’s pure political correctness and in no way can be taken as serious commentary. It appears to have been written just to show off his Palin Derangement Syndrome to his lefty friends in New York.

[SouthDixie]

A great many Canadians welcome us Yanks, but all too many have a chip on their shoulder about their neighbors to the south.

Canadians have a chip because Americans treat Canadians like 2nd class citizens and always have. Karma is a beeyotch. jus sayin'

[andy58-in-nh]

So — she’s a racist because she isn’t obsessed with race?

That would seem to be the case. It must be so hard for David: being an eastern elitist Republican, ever yearning for the approval of his liberal friends but never quite finding the right words to please them.

[ari-freedom]

Sarah actually married someone who descended from Eskimos so I think she knows a bit more about Native Americans than you do, David.

[GOPJ]

FRUM: For the 1 in 6 Americans who were held as slaves in 1790 – often unable to marry legally, and always liable to be sold and separated from spouses or children – family life was quite a lot different at the time of the founding than it is today.

Odd, but Frum didn't mention those people who were NOT slaves. And he didn't mention American Indians. So HE'S the racist... Of course I know better - but it's fun to use twisted liberal logic against a liberal...

[Hunton Peck]

Whoa. That’s well beyond PDS. That’s fully-developed, Olbermanniacal, racially obsessive-compulsive moonbattery. Someone get Frum a sense of proportion, STAT.

[GSWarrior]

You can measure the progress of the progressive movement in America by the level of anger and hysteria coming from the far left.

[mjp]

family life was quite a lot different at the time of the founding than it is today.

Particular concretes belonging to the concept "family life" can differ from one another and still be part of the same concept as long as they posses the same distinguishing characteristic. The measurement of the amount or degree of the distinguishing charcteristic possessed by the particulars can be omitted.

Once one knows an elementary fact about one member of an objective concept, that fact is true for all members of the concept. The fact that "family life is full of challenges and full of simple pleasures" is true for all types of family life even if there are some differences between the types in the forms and amounts of the attribute "pleasures".

[muawiyah]

Isn’t this Frum guy a foundling from a Nazi party operated orphanage?

[ziravan]

Frum is one of those liberals who always bring up the fact that Thomas Jefferson and other founders owned slaves. They do it because they find it easier to dismiss the founders outright because of one flaw (owning slaves) than it is to argue against their broader ideals...the ideals that founded this republic.

Yes. And equally important: broader ideals that ultimately led America to lead the way in making slavery largely a relic of the past.

Our own founding documents and ideas damned the idea of slavery. If our rights come from God. . .

Exactly.

[muawiyah]

The settlers in ANY PART of the Midwest ~ the Ohio Country of the French ~ didn't own slaves.

Slavery ended at the Ohio River.

The Upper Midwest didn't get very well structured until the Post Civil War era, and then it retrogressed substantially with the arrival of Polish, Russian, Ukrainian and Scandinavian Socialists.

It's only now recovering from that nonsense.

Which is to say the totalitarian types who put their faith in human slavery LIVED IN THE UPPER MIDWEST. The members of the Union Armies who destroyed the slave regime of the South LIVED IN THE LOWER MIDWEST.