Waterloo (Frum blames Rush)

Frum Forum ^ | 03/21/2010 | David Frum

[iowamark]

Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.

It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:

(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.

So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:

A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.

[eclecticEel]

Frum is the poster child for everything that’s wrong with the Republican party. Ever since he left his gig at the White House he’s done nothing but divide the GOP and feed talking points to the left.

[SaintDismas]

That ain’t gonna happen. The economy is tanking, he’s pulling that out of his butt.

[Just mythoughts]

Frum is full of it. But there is one thing we should re-consider - immigration. Some kind of immigration reform is going to happen. Many of these immigrants are basically conservative. We conservatives should not push them away, that will only push them towards the left. I know, I know, there is a big difference between “immigrants” and “illegal immigrants.” But we can’t change the reality that they are here. They came for the same reasons that out grandparents came: to improve their lives and the lives of their children. We conservatives will be much better off if we find a way to work with them.

I accept the next move is going to be the cover up of government sponsored lawlessness, but please do NOT float a lie that covering up lawlessness is going to be a 'good' thing for me. I am sick of deception.

[plinyelder]

WHY in the HELL would I EVER agree to give up “ONE INCH” of AMERICAN SOIL .. An AMERICA that I FOUGHT FOR .. To A GD invading army HUH?
Tell Me .. WHY!?

[machogirl]

This argument I have trouble with. A certain demographic that illegally immigrates from down south, has a higher % of gang membership, participation in illegal behavior, the females are more likely by far, to have children out of wedlock, stay single moms, and have multiple children while not married and go on welfare. That’s not conservative nor Catholic values. The politicians that the majority support are Democrats.

One reason that “Hispanics” will be the majority is the birth rate, which is 3 times that of other groups.

When I got married in the Catholic church, young women were to keep their legs closed and young men, their zippers up until marriage, (or darn close to marriage)

[BenKenobi]

Imagine Howdy Doody reading the article to you. That works for me.

[HiTech RedNeck]

If trends keep up, abortion will begin to rise among the illegales till they rival the black community’s.

[Berlin_Freeper]

So much sh*t so little time...

"Could a deal have been rached? Who knows?"

"The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan."

"It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation"

[machogirl]

That one I don’t see. When there is a disproportional percentage of any ethnic population receiving freebies, there will be no incentive.

[eclecticEel]

Incidentally. His criticism makes zero sense. He supports socialized medicine; he says so right here. All he wants are a few tweaks. If that was truly the case, if all he wants is for the GOP to have the option of adding an amendment or two to the final insidious package - then what the heck is he complaining about? Republicans will certainly get that opportunity.

It’s the chance to overturn the whole thing and restore freedom to the nation, that’s what I’m worried about.

[tlb]

>>>Many of these immigrants are basically conservative. We conservatives should not push them away, that will only push them towards the left

Said to a crowd where the ultimate insult to a politician is to call him “Juan” or “Jorge”. Lotsa luck.

[machogirl]

oops, no incentive to work.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The usual reasons, kids are such a hassle to raise.

[nathanbedford]

The problem with George Bush, both of them, is that neither of them was Ronald Reagan.

When Fromm says that by slithering into bed with Obama and the Democrats we could have negotiated a less odious healthcare reform, he is saying that cutting and trimming-or triangulating if you prefer-should be your guiding principle. Read the polls and cut a deal.

Ronald Reagan was not ignorant of the polls and he was quite capable of cutting a deal but he had the vision thing. He had three fundamental values in mind to him constituted good sound conservative governance: low taxes, robust defense, small government. These were not preferred options from a Chinese menu of political plays to be selected on reading Gallup. These are compelling goals to be striven after by determined people decade after decade as ardently as the Democrats have sought health care for a century.

The country knew where Reagan was taking the country. The Bushes were left with offering up a "prudent" approach to government, a middle way, a sanitized occupation in the Oval Office, a little of bigger government and a little of smaller government. George W. Bush had a shining vision which was to keep the country safe from terrorism and prevail in the war in Iraq. He told the country that the Republicans offered more prudent governance otherwise but he offered up a hodgepodge of conflicting programatic nostrums.

Then along came the bungle in Iraq which lasted years and along came Katrina which was a metaphor for Iraq and the ineptitude of the administration. No one cares passionately about prudence. People care about a conservative model of government. Betray that model and people who are patriotic conservatives cease to care.

The solution, Mr. Frum, is to cease triangulating off every burp and belch like a Pac-Man figure and start leading America Back into the Morning. It's the "vision thing," stupid.

[FroggyTheGremlim]

“These people are mostly Democrat but they are Catholic and socially conservative. “

I think they are fiscally conservative too.

[traditional1]

[eclecticEel]

And again. His example in no wise fits. A temporary drop in marginal income tax rates - the ‘rats didn’t like it, but it didn’t fundamentally alter any aspect of the country. A better example would be Bush’s plans for social security reform. They drew a line in the sand over that one, and unfortunately there’s wasn’t anything Bush could do about it.

[beckysueb]

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat. There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

This guy is no conswervative. These two statements gave him away right away. They DID NOT listen to Rush. They constantly critisized him. They brought this on themselves. Its their baby. Now they can rock it.

[The Hound Passer]

Pot calling the kettle black here it seems. Frum did a mighty job bashing Bush and his former WH compatriots to sell a few books. He had no credibility with for sure — not just because he was disloyal, but also because he actually believes the left wants to compromise on anything and that its the right that is obstructionist.

[beckysueb]

Unfortunately I believe it will appear to improve before the elections.

Of course it will. He still has most of the bailout money and gobs of new money from this debacle that will be stashed away and conveniently whipped out right before the election. Why do you suppose the coverage don't actually start till 2014?