We’re Shocked, Shocked! To Find David Frum Engaging in Character Assassination
Over at NRO, the online home of David Frum until January of this year, Frum's former colleagues are expressing shock and dismay at his attacks on Rush Limbaugh, most prominently in a cover story for Newsweek. Today, Andy McCarthy noted that Frum had insinuated to Chris Matthews on television that Limbaugh might be racist. McCarthy offered sarcastic congratulations to Frum on his notoriety and wrote, "David has arrived. From nowhere to Newsweek in a nanosecond."
Frum's attack on Limbaugh should surprise no one at NR. Frum has a long history of seeking to advance himself by smearing others, from his 1991 American Spectator cover story attacking Pat Buchanan as an antisemite to his 2003 National Review cover story denouncing Buchanan, Tom Fleming, and Sam Francis as "unpatriotic" for opposing a war that turned out to be as disastrous for America as they predicted it would be. If National Review is sincerely repentent over having provided journalistic cover to Frum for years, it might, in the spirit of Lent, announce that it regrets publishing Frum's 2003 attack and apologize to the "unpatriotic conservatives." But I'm not holding my breath.
Entries(RSS)
What is bugging me about a lot of this Limbaugh business is that some paleos are so desperate to disparage Limbaugh and the conservative movement that he represents that they end up sounding like Frum or Steele or any of Limbaugh's other critics in the process. (As far as I know, no one at Chronicles has been guilty of this.)
Limbaugh and the movement clearly deserve criticism, but rightward criticism of Limbaugh and the movement must be identifiably rightward. And in the grand scheme of things deluded conservatives like Limbaugh's listeners are less of an enemy than are self conscious moderates like Frum, Steele, Parker, and the rest.
I never believed for a moment that Limbaugh is a pillar of conservative philosophy. Cliff Kincaid wrote an expose in the pages of Chronicles over a decade ago regarding his non-existant voter registration, his serial monogamy, etc. And Howard Stern once described Rush as a shill for the GOP, also true. But is he entertaining? I think so, and I tune in as often as my schedule permits. Limbaugh said early on that he wanted to make AM radio worth listening to again, and in this goal he has been spectacularly successful. So the fact that a pathetic, cringing milksop like Frum would bite Limbaugh in the butt only proves that Rush is out front. When the Obama White House attacks Frum (it won't) it'll be because he's a thorn in their side.
I think AM radio which once used to be Christian, is now almost exclusively Mexican, which must be a source of delight to the left-wing tolerance crowd.
I can't listen to Rush. His shilling for the GOP and phony conservatism drives me nuts. It just that he is less of a problem than the moderate boot Rush crowd. At least Rush's listeners think they are conservatives.
Red Phillips: "...but rightward criticism of Limbaugh and the movement must be identifiably rightward."
I completely agree.
Long, long ago, I listened to Rush primarily because he was often a source of information not disseminated by (note, I did not say "unavailable to") other media. Those days are long gone.
It was not long after he lost his monopoly (thank you, Internet) on hard-to-find information that he morphed from a semi-credible "conservative" into a swivel-chair, chemically-dependent, rich-as-Croesus warrior/fascist. It is no coincidence that he also ceased to be entertaining--to me, at least.
Unfortunately, his only legacy today are his pathetic "ditto-heads." I'd let them speak for themselves, but, well, they delegate their thinking entirely to the Maharushi.
I place much - maybe most - of the blame for the current disaster unfolding in DC in the lap of Rush and his cronies. Any marginally principled conservative would have told his listeners in '00 that they did not have a dog in the hunt, and repudiated W with the same vigour they attacked the Dem (whoever the hell it was) with. Same with W in '04 and McCain in '08. Harrumph.
Frum attacking Limbaugh shouldn't even be a story. But Frum is right in saying that the Republican party is extremely unpopluar. While it's worth hearing Mark Levin wipe the floor with Frum,it has not occured to either of them why the republicans are so unpopular; it's the war. and in the end it's all about Israel.
Etienne,
I'll be damned if you arent a very entertaining sort to read.
Beyond that, I would find much humor in David Frum sponsoring a single entry (that being him) lawn dart tournament.
McCallum
It is rather humorous to read that David Frum is complaining about being ostracized by others on the Right as he has been a prominent hitman on many occasions, most notably the "Unpatriotic Conservatives" rant that graced National Review just before the Iraq invasion. Frum is an odd mix of Talleyrand, Iago and Richard III, faithless to all but himself. But most readers of Chronicles knows that already.
Yet Pat Buchanan, Tom Fleming, Taki and the late Samuel Francis, among others, were right on Iraq and David Frum, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Rich Lowry, Michael Ledeen, the Kristols and the Podhoretzes, among others, were wrong. As long as oil flowed from Iraq in an orderly way and Iraq remained within its borders, who governed Iraq was unimportant to the interests of the American people. The invasion of Iraq has cost the lives of 4300 American soldiers, has caused over 20,000 other American casualties, has cost nearly $ 1 trillion so far, has created two Democratic political tidal waves which have reduced the Republicans to minorities in Congress and elected an inexperienced Gramscian Marxist as president. More importantly, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has soiled the credibility of conservatism.
David Frum thinks the cause of the last two Republican political debacles has been a Republican overidentification with Christian interests and a lack of effort in seriously addressing environmental problems. But he is wrong. Mr. Frum, along with all the other neo-conservatives and Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Mark Levin, should be honest enough to own up that it is their reckless adventure in Mesopotamia that has been the root cause of Republican political misfortune. David Frum only has to look in the mirror to locate a source of Republican and conservative decline.
Frum is, of course, a dishonorable courtier. Limbaugh, a shrewd carnival barker. My somewhat dissent from Dr. Phillips would be whether, in fact, Limbaugh's audience is reachable. I am skeptical.
And Frum's assertion of the over-influence of the "Christian Right" as the cause of the GOP's troubles is quite amusing given that GOP corruption was a substantial issue in 2006. Corruption exemplified by . . . the lobbying/corruption scandal master-minded by Orthodox Jew and ultra-zionist Abrahamoff (not exactly a Christian Right representative although he allied himself with Christian Zionists as did all the neocons), and the perverted flirtations of the homosexual Congressman Mark Foley. Neither of those reflect "social conservatism" or "Christian Right" by any stretch.
Maybe we could have Limbaugh and Frum fight a duel, and plug the barrels of both guns?
Frum attacks Limbaugh. Gingrich attacks Limbaugh. Limbaugh attacks them both. Let them cut each other up. We don’t have a dog in this fight and to watch it is simply entertainment.
As Dan Larison said, this is not a fight between “elites” and the “grassroots.” People who have private jets and live Citzen Kane style in a Palm Beach mansion are not “grassroots.” Limabugh has always wanted to be a part of the elite and now he is and is probably wealthier than Frum or Gingrich combined. The elite media in turn defers to him and makes him into a “leader.” No, this is a fight amongst Cosmos and so much the better.
That being said, Limbaugh and his talk show brethern (notice that we’re talking about him and none of the other would-be "leaders" like Hannity or Savage or O’Reilly which shows you the pecking order still remains) have a right to be upset that those politicians and former administration officials turned pundits and media talking heads, who would be nothing without all those Dittoheads voting for them, are turning on them and blaming them for their problems after spending a nearly two decades calling Rush “Leader of the Opposition” and “Honorary Member of the Class of 1994″. You can’t put that genie back in the bottle. After legitimizing Rush by the cover of your magazines and using his supporters as your political shock troop army, to turn around and try to kick him out of the cocktail party for being an uncouth is not only the height of hypocrisy, but also basically sums up what the phrase “being used” is all about.
And once again Frum maddens with his lack of prespective and or history. Apparently being ostratcized and being read out of the “movement” by his former collegues has not made him reflective or and wiser about his attempts to do just that to paleos in the pages of NR itself. Frum goes from being a Gramm Conservative of 1994 to being a Tom Dewey Republican of 2009 and doesn’t inform you as to why, you just have to accept evolutionary theory I guess. It only makes him look as shallow as the talk show hosts, always riding different popular waves. The same is true of politicians like Gingirich. No one amongst these Cosmos has any fealty to principle. No one.
As the old African proverb goes, when the elephants fight, the grass gets trampled. Getting trampled of course are the very grassroots who are now forced to pick sides among people they once considered allies or whose books fill their bookshelves at home. Red talks about the people hurt in “friendly fire” and I think it good point to be made. I have been critical of Rush and all the aforementioned, but to go after the Dittoheads too is counterproductive in the long run. I think there are a lot of us as young paleos who grew up as Rush and talk show listeners who ultimately stopped listening because we didn’t like what he was saying anymore. But we came to that decision on our own or were influenced by publications like Chronicles.
The talkshow audience is going to have to make up their own minds in the same way. Right now they blame the politicians for their problems and it may take more election defeats to get them to realize that the critiques of Larison and Derbyshire and others of whole genre are true in that what you are trying to sell, most U.S. citizens aren’t interested in anymore. But assulting them and scapegoating them only makes them cling to Limbaugh and other talk show hosts all the tighter as a defensive reaction.
The important thing is that when they realize that all their gods have failed, we are around with an alternative, a natural alternative that’s no longer poisioned by ideology or litmus tests or loyalty oaths. But they can only come on their own accord and only they can lead themselves to water when they thirst.
Great post, Mr. Scallon. And it is going to have to take more political defeats for the Republicans to re-examine themselves. Looking back to the Age of Reagan won't cut it; political life moves on. Jeffersonian Republicans, Jacksonian Democrats, Lincoln Republicans and FDR Democrats all had their day but now are relegated to the history books. So will go the Reagan Republicans.
Frum is an embarrassment to use Canadians, believe me.
I have always found Limbaugh entertaining. Believe it or not, he had a TV show about 15 years ago that was quite a lot of fun. He was doing the Stewart/Colbert stuff long before they existed, and he was doing it better, but his show lacked production values.
In Limbaugh's case, it's an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation. I'm delighted that he attacks socialism, feminism, etc. Thank God someone with a voice does. How I wish traditional Conservatisim had at least one voice with Limbaugh's reach.
Frum, on the other hand, is to U.S. conservatism what Joe Clark was to Canadian conservatism (and I guess only Canadians will get that reference) -- a traitor and an impediment to success. And that's just from a practical perspective. As a human being, he's pure scum.
As for causes of the Republican downfall, yes the Foley scandal and the concurrent Pastor Ted debacle were devastating. But before that, it was Katrina. Katrina did in the Republicans at least as much as Iraq did. You can mark the point of Bush's plummet in the polls right from Katrina. It made the left's accusations of incompetence stick.
I think Katrina was convenient for the left. After all it was a big ball of wind, the President - or any political leader - has no control on that. If the hurricane had not happened perhaps we could track the poll plummet directly to Iraq.
Thanks for the kind words Mr. Leadberry.
@9 Thanks McCallum!
The best conservative talk show is the Ron Smith Show on 1090 WBAL from 3 until 6 p.m. It can be streamed on your computer. But it's a Baltimore station, so quite a bit of the content is local. But Baltimore is a way more interesting city than either Washington or New York.
@17. Mark Levin but for domestic affairs only, not foreign policy.
@18 Jack
I disagree wholeheartedly. Levin is an Isreal-first loudmouth.
@19. Yes. that's why domestic only.
Like a good rat,Frum is abandoning a sinking ship.But the causes of the ship's sinking have little to do with Frum or his treachery.
Limbaugh and his moronic "ditto-heads" are relics of a dubious and malfeasant "Reagan Revolution."The sacred flame of Divus Ronnie's tomb has expired,and only embers remain to console his priestly colleges and forlorn votaries.
Est honor et Tumulis,as Ovid put it.
Limbaugh is a pretty good personification of "conservatism" as well as a broader "Americanoism."Ignorant,stupid,vulgar;so fat his swollen jowls look about to explode.With the manner and dress of a clown,had he showed up at a recent shindig in Washington dressed in bell-cap and motley,it would have hardly made a difference.
Ditto-heads are under the impression that tax-cuts can cure all ills.Thats all you've really got to know.Add some anachronistic nationalism,best displayed in contempt for Europe,and a few odds and ends,and our charming three-hundred pound loud-mouth can "earn" $33 million per year while sitting on a cyst,located on his ass, that conveniently kept him;cyst,ass,and all,out of Vietnam.
In a better country,Rush would have a lot more to concern himself with,than Frum.
Anyone who can stand to listen to Levin has a strong stomach and a tin ear. His voice alone is a real sign of what this pathetic country has become. Of course he is an Israel-firster and with good reason, but what is his second priority and his third, certainly not to whatever is left of this country.
What is the point of making fun of Limbaugh's weight or whatever? That just comes off as nastiness and like some kind of personal grudge. We need to make principled rightward criticisms of his policies that are not conservative.
As a public figure,RL's persona is fair game.He reeks and drips vulgarity.As for his girth,I was pointing to its emblematic nature.I would also add that,while looks are not relevant to political disputes,freakishness (Lincoln?) is not without legitimate concern.Certainly we all have some control over our weight.Is Rush "being the best that he can be?"
As for principled criticism,rejecting tax-cuts as a panacea is a start,no?
@24 Why in the world would anybody, remotely on the right, reject tax cuts for any reason? Who cares if they are a panacea? Good heavens, man. Talk about hyperbole. Just to make sure everyone knows you think RL is vulgar?
Because a better way of helping humble working Americanos would be some combination of spending restraint,especially with regard to defense and a faulty foreign policy,an end to immigration and labor arbitrage-falsely known as "free trade"-and some form of debt relief for the long suffering working stiff.And thats just for starters.
Mealy-mouthed "tax-cuts" are for the birds.
Beyond that,addressing non-economic concerns-too numerous to list-would go quite a way towards improving the lot of decent folk;North and South,East and West.Tax cutters tend to neglect so much that doesnt fall within their narrow purview.
RL's vulgarity is integral to his approach both to economics-classicly,"household management"-as well as broader issues.That is,when broader issues are attended to at all.
Huckleberry Finn's Pap told him to never pass up a chance to steal a chicken, if he couldn't use it somebody else could. That is the attitude we should have concerning tax cuts.
Limbaugh was not always wealthy. Despite both his father and grandfather being attorneys, he shunned college and worked in radio and for the Kansas City Royals. He regularly recalls his down-and-out days with a certain fondness. And the man who gave him syndicated fame, Edward F. McLaughlin of EFM Communications, is (or at least was) a proud liberal.
How interesting that Frum minds words over actions.
He's one of the core neocons who wanted the US to go to war with Iraq, doing his bit by terming the 'axis of evil'-phrase and crappy books titled 'an end to evil'. I don't have to tell anyone here about the consequences of that (mass killings, chaos, billions of money lost, ethnic cleansing, torture,...)
But don't be fooled by the support for all of this ruthlessness, deep down there's kind, gentle soul inside who's very concerned about racist comments against people of colour (no matter how privileged they are and how much they use their race for their career.)
"Sometimes, he [Rush] talks that way. I don’t know whether it’s conscious art, but I went through how many times between inauguration day to the present that he’s made a comment about President Obama being invulnerable to criticism because of his race. I found five instances ... one a week. That’s sort of a lot."
Think about that. Frum is morally responsible for a war that's bleeding the US and the Middle East respectively financially and literally, but he's more concerned nowadays with Rush Limbaugh's occasional crimethink. Real crimes go unpunished, thought crimes are on the front cover of Newsweek Magazine. How shameless.
What a complete and utter failure of a human being Frum is.
Marciano, I think David Frum's Kempian view on race might be altered if he switched his habitation from Foxhall Road in upper Northwest Washington with views of the Potomac River to Minnesota Avenue or Benning Road in Southeast Washington with views of the mighty Anacostia River.
From the left: I cannot think of two more wretched blowhards than Frum and Limbaugh. Frum has attacked Chronicles repeatedly and may I say with cro magnon intelligence. Rush Limbaugh is beyond wretched--he once supported Pat Buchanan a most honorable man--and then dumped him. One post remarks "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" but I would urge the writer not to be deceived. Limbaugh has no honor and would easily were it to his advantage become what I call a "neo-liberal". I do like the idea of Frum and Limbaugh fighting a duel; however do not be deceived neither are Col. Brandon. Both are some decayed form of Willoughby.