Posted on 11/07/2008 1:07:40 PM PST by Publius804
David Frum to the Religious Right: Drop Dead
Posted by Tom Piatak on November 05, 2008
After weeks of expressing contempt for the delcasse Sarah Palin, David Frum has now expressed his disdain for the voters who liked Palin and who have propelled the GOP to victory after victory since Reagan’s election in 1980, the evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics who vote Republican because of their concern over issues like abortion. According to Frum, such voters need to be jettisoned because “College-educated Americans have come to believe that their money is safe with Democrats--but their values are under threat from Republicans.”
To pursue the burgeoning yuppie class, “will involve painful change, on issues ranging from the environment to abortion. And it will involve potentially even more painful changes of style and tone: toward a future that is less overtly religious, less negligent with policy and less polarizing on social issues.”
What Frum neglects to add is that none of these changes would be “painful” for him, a pro-abortion, non-religious denizen of a tony Washington neighborhood, who has long been uncomfortable with social issues and tolerated religious voters so long as they were willing to vote Republican without expecting much in return and serve as cannon fodder in the wars Frum wants America to fight, but now thinks he has found something better.
The question is, with National Review giving the boot to its founder’s son and Jeffrey Hart, why does it still keep Frum around? Is National Review, too, becoming embarrassed by religious conservatives? (Thanks to John Seiler for pointing out this latest revelation from David Frum).
(Excerpt) Read more at takimag.com ...
Yes, I am serious.
Bush won in 2004 by over 3 million votes. No thanks to Cheney. Had Bush won with someone new, that person could have been groomed for succession, instead of going with the “old guy”, McCain, the RINO, a repeat of the disastrous campaign with Bob Dole in 1996.
And yes, this was the President who famously claimed after his re-election he was going to use his political capital—remember? What did he do with it? Remember—”see you at the signing”?
Now ask yourself this question: Who now is the leader of the Republican Party? There is none.
Mission Accomplished, while a radical Marxist prepares to move into the White House.
P.T. Barnum said "There is a sucker born every minute."
There have been 52,560,000 minutes in the last 100 years, and I think that accounts for most of the Obama voters, even with attrition.
A modern university education doubtless factors in accounting for the remainder.
Yeah right with Bush’s approval rating in the toilet his VP would have been a great candidate
Who is the current GOP leader you ask
I ask you did you think 4 years ago Obama would be the dem standard bearer
Don;t ya just love when someone Jewish tells Christians to get lost.
Of course not. The voters cherish the comfort of their chains.
Other items which would not survive muster:
Nation Building
The Dept Of Education
HHS
EPA
HUD
The Federal Reserve
FAA
FCC
FSLIC
IRS (as known)
The income tax
BATFE (as known)
AMTRAK,
and myriad other 'gimmies' and entities too numerous to mention.
Not only would those affected by the loss of Federal Jobs squeal like stuck pigs, but those who benefit from the programs directly would as well.
Are you kidding? My wife and I both said that to each other when we watched him speak at the 2004 convention.
Of course he was going to run. But we thought Hillary would have beat him.
But there was no way anyone who watched him then wouldn't think he would be a force to be reckoned with.
And I don't even work on K Street.
So who's the leader for the GOP?
Kent-good to “see” you around again.
Hope all is well in your neck of the woods.
The actual timing of the rise and fall of American political parties is as follows:
The Federalists formed in 1787 to support the Constitution
The Anti-Federalists formed in 1787 to oppose the Constitution
The Anti-Federalists dissolved in 1789 as its purpose became moot.
Federalists continue as supporters of Washington
Republicans (Democratic Republicans) formed around 1795 to oppose Adams and Federalists
Federalists dissolve after 1816 after opposing War of 1812
Democratic Republicans cease to function being without opposition
Democrats form around Jackson after election of 1824
National Republicans form around Clay Webster and Harrison aftter election of 1828
National Republicans founder after election of 1832
Whigs form as coalition of National Republicans Anti Masons, and a few remaining Federalists in 1833
Whigs dissolve after Presidential Election of 1852 and deaths of Webster and Clay in that year over extension of slavery.
Republicans form in 1854 from northern Whigs and anti-slavery Democrats.
American (Know-Nothings) formed in 1854 from southern Whigs and nativist Democrats.
American Party dissolves in 1858 in Civil War Crisis, members joined Republicans or southern Democrats.
No major party has failed or started since 1860. No major party has ever formed when two major parties existed (the Republican and American parties formed when there was one established party, the Democrats, and the three parties lasted through one Presidential cycle).
Thanks. You, too. ;) Ailing mom-in-law, awhile back; better now, thanks.
Neocons like Frum NEVER, EVER admit their mistakes. The GOP should reject them completely, Given the mess they have given us in foreign policy over the last eight years, it is a wonder that they aren’t all living in obscurity by now.
I think we need a ratings system like on ebay, where we can rate the conservatism prophesied by our our faux conservative journalists.
Message: This guy is a false prophet.
“We don’t run from history. We MAKE history!”
Only kidding,LCS,I couldn’t resist.The historical recap is very interesting. The book I’m reading now is A Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin, about Lincoln, the 1860 election, and his Cabinet composed of his rivals, during the Civil War.
I don’t believe the GOP leadership will alow any inroads by conservatives, even if it means the salvation of the party. That is one of the lessons of the 2008 election that is now staring us in the face. The silence of GOP leaders, including McCain, on the savaging of Palin speaks volumes if one is listening.
They need to go into the dustbin of history. The Republic needs saving, not Republicans.
“their money is safe with the Democrats.” Frum is now certifiable. He was already on my version of the leper-list (i.e. anti-Palin snobs.)
LOL.
You must be kidding me. Some guy who couldn't even win a single Republican primary (either open or closed) was going to win the 2008 presidential election?
Well, maybe if he ran as a DEMOCRAT . . .
Hmmmm...
I have no use for Frum and the neocons. Never have. I find them generally wrongheaded and traitorious.
However, I have no use for the religous right and find some of their issues and spokespeople (Creationism, Pat Robertson just for starters) to be a complete embarassment. I know that I am far from the only Freeper who goes to parties or social gatherings, finds the conversation turning to politics, declares my own conservatism and immediately has to spend the next however long (sometimes two minutes, sometimes two hours) defending conservatism against those kinds of people.
I know this is a hard pill for some people to swallow, but we will NEVER be able to win a national election again so long as we’re associated with what I call Gantryism. If things keep up as they are, Republicans will be consigned to be the party of the south and some pockets in the midwest.
It’s just the way it is. You can flame me if you’d like, but please understand that I do a reasonable amount of traveling around the country and talk to a lot of people and the fundamentalist aspect of the GOP is turning a lot of people off.
Thanks for the ping. Sarah has been truth serum in this election!
Reagan and George W. -- men you would doubtless refer to, condescendingly, as "Gantrys" -- won two presidential terms each.
Ford, Dole and McCain -- non-"Gantrys" -- didn't get jack squat.
Try again.
Reagan, I believe, recognized the fundmentalist wing as just that - a wing of the party. They had a place at the table, they were respected on social issues and were crucial to GOTV efforts. They weren’t perceived, as I recall it (and I’ll cop to some level of ignorance one this one - please correct if if I’m wrong), to BE the party. The Reagan coalition, in my memory, was a fairly big tent.
By the time of George W., they were (are?) perceived to be completely of and with the party, to the exclusion of all others. And it’s killing us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.