David Frum, Phony
by Tom Piatak
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
Over at NRO, David Frum is maudlin and indignant that his friend Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum came in for some rough criticism at National Review over her endorsement of Obama. “How small has the house of conservatism shrunk when it can find no room for Anne Applebaum?” Frum wails.
Now I happen to value Anne Applebaum’s work in documenting the enormity of Soviet crimes, but David Frum is the last person who can credibly lament that American conservatism is unable to find room for dissenters. Frum has instructed his readers for years that anyone to Frum’s right is likely a bigot, an antisemite, or worse. Frum has been conducting a journalistic jihad against Pat Buchanan for nearly twenty years, and he denounced as “unpatriotic” all those men of the right who had the foresight to oppose the disastrous war in Iraq he was busily agitating for, including Buchanan, Tom Fleming, and Sam Francis.
If Frum wishes to make the case that American conservatism should be more welcoming to dissenting voices, he must first of all apologize to all those he has smeared.
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
1 Comment by Bruce on 30 October 2008:
… but he won’t.
2 Comment by Randall Ivey on 30 October 2008:
Since Mr. Piatak titled his piece with an ad hominem, let me continue the theme and add that Frum is a humorless, self-righteous boor. And a bore.
3 Comment by Red Phillips on 30 October 2008:
Tom, you clearly don’t get it. “Conservatism” is only supposed to be accommodating to those to the left. Will you never learn?
4 Comment by Alex Tripodi on 30 October 2008:
I love the last paragraph of the second article you linked to:
“War is a great clarifier. It forces people to take sides. The paleoconservatives have chosen — and the rest of us must choose too. In a time of danger, they have turned their backs on their country. Now we turn our backs on them.” War is thus the barometer of patriotism. Declare a war on any country- let’s say Madagascar- and whether a person supports the war or not determines whether he is a patriotic American or a Madagascar-loving traitor. Frum’s piece would be hilarious if so many people didn’t take it seriously.
5 Comment by Robert on 30 October 2008:
Poor Mr. Frum. He began his brief career by describing an axis of evil and its geographical location, he broadened his career by promising confused Americans that they could destroy evil once and for all, he grew famous by prophesying the death of evil and “that fringe attached to the conservative world that cannot overcome its despair and alienation.” The poor fool has now ended his moment as false prophet, defending Obama supporters
and full of that corrosive “despair and alienantion” he once wished only for others.
6 Comment by george on 30 October 2008:
“Now I happen to value Anne Applebaum’s work in documenting the enormity of Soviet crimes”
She is only discussing this because its part of her tribal crusade against Russia and Putin.
She is affiliated with various Jewish think tanks like AEI.
She never mentions the fact communism was Jewish, the Soviet leadership was dominated by Jews and in her book Gulag that the top 5 administrator running the camps were Jewish.
Solzhenitsyn mentioned that when he was in the Gulag although there were some Jews there they received preferential treatment.
Even Sharansky had to admit the majority of the people running the camps were Jewish.
Even the recently much talked about Ukrainian famine was lead and organised by Jews.
You want a real good book about Soviet history read Solzhenitsyn’s “200 Years Together” if they ever have an English translation that I would definitely buy.
Then there is her praise of Russia during the 90’s when it was in a state of collapse and ruled by her tribal oligarchy.
She also commented on the two Georgian regions saying that they ethnically cleansed ethnic Georgians. However they fled from retaliation from the Georgian leadership invading the two regions to dominate the two regions and ethnically cleanse them of there native non Georgian inhabitants under the slogan “Georgia for Georgians”.
I’m sure her support of Obama has nothing to do with the fact that genocidal Russian hating Zbignew Brezinski is his senior foreign policy advisor
7 Comment by dwright on 30 October 2008:
I hope to live to see the day that this man is shunned from all serious discussions and groups associated with anything conservative.
What a vile little troll he is.
8 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 30 October 2008:
The interesting question is how did Frum and his like get control of “conservatism” and the Republican party. The short answer: Ronald Reagan.
9 Comment by Michael Averko on 30 October 2008:
Agree, while noting the limits of Applebaum and her Washington Post employer.
10 Comment by EE Roberts on 30 October 2008:
@ #8, That’s exactly correct. The Reagan regime ushered in the age of the neocon, as they supplanted the few actual conservative job holders in the GOP. These days they can be observed busily re-attaching themselves to their old host, the democrats. Frum is one of them who has forgotten to even offer a public pretense of loyalty to their dying host, the enfeebled GOP, as the neocon swarm leaps likes fleas from the carcass.
11 Comment by Red Phillips on 30 October 2008:
Re. the Applebaum article, it is the same ol’ same ol’. Typical Establishment centrist posing. Some of it is true, but she mostly gets some stuff right for the wrong reason.
” … no longer even recognizably conservative Republican Party.”
Absolutely true. But if your problem with the GOP is that it has abandoned it’s conservative principles, then you vote Baldwin or Barr, not Obama.
Then she proceeds to label said conservatives as the “nuttier wing” of the Party. So which is it? Be conservative or don’t be nutty?
12 Comment by John Seiler on 30 October 2008:
And in Frum’s Sunday piece in the WaPo he had the audacity of despair to write: “Second, the political culture of the Democratic Party has changed over the past decade. There’s a fierce new anger among many liberal Democrats, a more militant style and an angry intolerance of dissent and criticism. This is the culture of the left-wing blogosphere and MSNBC’s evening line-up — and soon, it will be the culture of important political institutions in Washington.”
The NR Vyshinsky is worried about Democratic Party “angry intolerance of dissent and criticism”?
The late Bill Buckley will have to spend several million years in Purgatory just for allowing Frum to put even a semicolon in NR.
13 Comment by Virgil Caine on 30 October 2008:
I bet that fat bastard didn’t even so much as squawk when they purged Ole Playboy Bill’s offspring, Chrisopher “Randolph Churchill” Buckley, from the playpen his grandpappy’s hard earned oil money set up for his ingrate diletantte progeny and their hangers on. Seems Frumsky don’t like that recoil on his preferred ideological weapons: sinister intrigue and character assasination.
Maybe Lil’ Annie Trotskybaum can offer him some further readings on Kamenev, Zinoviev, and Bukharin? Frum, who out turdblossoms even Rove, is the worst thing the Canucks have flushed down our way since acid rain.
14 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 30 October 2008:
Furthermore, Frum, despite owning a house on Foxhall Road NW, in Washington DC is also a notorious cheapskate who would never think twice about chiseling the folks who repair the mansion he bought with inherited money. I view him as a person who actually caused harm with his wealth.
15 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 30 October 2008:
@13 Virgil
You’re also forgetting the exceedingly disgusting Maurice Strong.
16 Comment by george on 30 October 2008:
Does the fact that there of the same ethnic heritage like most of the Washington media and government policy establishment not factor into the discussion.
Why are we dodging this most obvious subject that is at the core of US body politics since the early 20th century?
That former Trotskyite Communists are leading the “conservative” movement whose foreign policy documents and think tanks like PNAC advocate more military aid to Israel, military action against Israel’s enemies and joint military projects between Israel and the US.
When the USSR became “anti-Semitic” after the 67 war they shifted towards the right Kevin MacDonald has done some excellent work on the subject.
Its there influence in media and political financing that brought them to the forefront of the conservative movement not because Reagan brought them in.
It doesn’t matter if it was Reagan or some other Republican leader they would still be in positions of senior leadership of the government.
17 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 30 October 2008:
@10 EE
Fleas can’t live on fleas, they need to live off cats and dogs. Since the GOP dog has died they need to suck the life out of the pussies of the evil party.
18 Comment by jack bailey on 30 October 2008:
The two party system boils down to a fight between two coalitions. Along with Reagan democrats, fiscal conservtives, Neocons came in under Reagan and they brought in the votes. I remember for example that in upstate New York, where I was in 1979, it was the Conservative Party that supported Reagan and not the Republican Party. Who did the heavy lifting and the street level organizing in order for Reagan to win? it was the young Jewish kids, as they were not scared to stand up to the leftist hordes that were controling the Universities, Unions, local governments etc. The useless mainstream Republicans were against Reagan, with the same type of attitude that they assumed last year in the primaries with the idiotic exuses of bipartisanship, the Republican party was asked to wake up and join the 20th century (Mr. Andreson) etc. However the Neocons at that time did not have the imperialist designs nor the influence that they have now and as Paul Craig Roberts points when they got out of line, Reagan threw them out anyway. As a revenge they set him up with the Iran-Contra scandal.
19 Comment by John Seiler on 30 October 2008:
The worst thing about the conservative movement, whatever it was, always was the purges. Feuds one can understand. But it was wrong for Buckley and the others at the top to assault and reject everyone they didn’t like, beginning with the “isolationists” in the 1950s. It wasn’t a church with dogmas, but a political movement.
Whatever the many sins of the Neocons, before they came around the movement’s purge mentality long had been established by Buckley, as Dr. Gottfried makes clear in his excellent book of 2007,
“Conservatism in America: Making Sense of the American Right.”
Lenin said he “found power lying in the street.” The Neocons, as good Leninist-Trotskyists, found power lying in the conservative movement. Buckley’s purge power became theirs. They used it.
20 Comment by Joseph Salemi on 30 October 2008:
The mental sclerosis of the Republican party is so great that it had to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting the support of the Reagan Democrats. Jack Bailey is quite correct about the utter lack of interest that New York State Republicans showed for Regan’s campaign. I was active in the New York Conservative Party at that time, and we did all the heavy work.
Anyone who had observed Bill Buckley’s campaign for the New York mayoralty in 1965 could have seen that the future of conservatism rested with the white working class, at that time still nominally Democratic in their political registration. But the idiotic Republicans were too snobbish and squeamish to pursue their advantage. When they finally did make serious efforts to corral this bloc, it was too late to prevent the neocons from perverting the situation to their own advantage.
21 Comment by John Willson on 30 October 2008:
John Seiler@19
Everything you say is right except that it was a “political movement.” None of the greatest of the 20th century conservatives was particularly political. In fact, when it became political, it ceased to be conservative. I just love Tom Piatik holding podhorofat to the fire, and exposing how off-tune frummie’s song is, and how wry is kristolday’s smile; we should keep having so much fun. We (and you know who “we” are) will never beat them politically, so let’s just keep cheering Tom on while he calls the nasties down.
22 Comment by John Seiler on 30 October 2008:
Dr. Willson @20
I stand corrected. You are right just as you were when you were my professor at Hillsdale 32 years ago.
Seriously, the great conservatives I knew at Hillsdale as professors or visiting lecturers — Kirk, Molnar, Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Voegelin, Niemeyer, Bob Rice, Willson (yes) — were writers and teachers, not movement types.
We all would have been better off without the “movement” that developed later, paid for with military-industrial-congressional complex lucre.
Now more than ever ridicule is our best weapon against the Neocons. I can’t wait until they lose on Nov. 4.
23 Comment by John Seiler on 31 October 2008:
Neocon jokes, from various sources…
How many Neocons does it take to screw in a light bulb? None, Trotsky will do it for them.
Winston Churchill was coming out of the House of Commons when he walked into Irving Kristol. “Sir Winston, your are disgustingly drunk,” Kristol said. “Yes,” replied Sir Winston. “But in the morning I’ll be sober, while you’ll still be a Neocon.”
How do you get a Neocon to laugh during the Tuesday night election returns? Tell him a joke the Friday before.
After losing a million clams at the slots in Vegas, Bill Bennett stopped in front of a candy machine. He pumped in 4 quarters and out popped a candy bar. He did it again and again until the machine was empty and candy bars were overflowing from the machine. A security guard came up and said, “Sir, just what are you doing?” Bennett replied, “I’m former Education Secretary and Drug Czar Bill Bennett. Go Away.” The guard persisted, “Sir, just what are you doing here?” Bennett snapped, “Shut up, I’m finally on a winning streak.”
Winston Churchill met Midge Decter at a party. “Sir Winston,” she said, “if I were your wife, I’d put poison in your whiskey.” “Madam,” he replied, “if I were your husband, I’d drink it.”
Q: What’s the difference between Dick Cheney and a catfish?
A: One is a scum-sucking bottom-feeder and the other is a fish.
Did you hear how Victor Davis Hanson got a medal during the Vietnam War? During his 4F physical for the draft, he stubbed his toe and got a purple heart.
Rich Lowry just invented a new kind of tank. It has one gear: reverse.
The only way John Podhoretz is going to join the Army and fight in Iraq is if he finds out Baghdad just opened its first Domino’s pizza franchise.
Q. What’s the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War?
A. George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam War.
24 Comment by CM Collins on 31 October 2008:
Meanwhile, someone write Kathryn Jean Lopez an email. On this day in 1913 the Lincoln Highway, the first automobile road across America, was dedicated. We all know how important roads are, and I don’t have to tell you how important Lincoln was. So what is Google rigged up as today? Some pagan-derived candy redistributing holiday. Natch.
25 Comment by D Simmons on 31 October 2008:
We can blame Frum and certain louts of his ethnic group, but we did it to ourselves with our “lolipops and puppy dogs” thinking. America for the most part was a revolutionary construct from the start, the counter revolutionaries had their cities burnt and their slaves turned against them when they resisted the form of empire they did not like. It is time to start asking questions, the “woe is us” and “remember when” thinking that comes to us disguised as intellectual thought or religion won’t help your posterity.
26 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 31 October 2008:
The neocons took over the Republican party because the Republican party was intellectually and morally empty. It was child’s play for them.
27 Comment by Robert on 31 October 2008:
@#24 “It is time to start asking questions, the “woe is us” and “remember when” thinking that comes to us disguised as intellectual thought or religion won’t help your posterity.”
D Simmons,
I always enjoy your short pithy posts and try to read all of them.
One comment I wanted to make is that when one is lost in unfamiliar territory they can keep wandering about, stop and wait for help, or attempt to return to something the recognized as familiar before losing their way. The ‘woe is us”crowd is at least a public admission of being lost and the “remember when” crowd is at least some attempt, however groping or “disguised”, towards more familiar surroundings.
Of course one cannot turn the historical clock back. But one can ask what time it is. Our time is like other dark periods of decline for civilizations past. Our country is balkanized, tribes are beginning to gather around their local leaders, national policitics is bankrupt, and people of all persuasions are apparently desperate for “change”equating it as they all do nowadays with progress..Some folks in this frenzy have already surrendered to despair and are killing their own children and grandparents –if they ever knew them. Others are proposing brave new ” post-christian “worlds with what you accuratley describe as “lolipops and puppy dog” thinking. There is nothing wrong with Christians attempting to keep their heads and return to Christ and christian customs in this meantime of decay — however groping, feeble and ignorant those attempts may be. For me it appears as the natural reaction for a once Christian civilization.
28 Comment by Martin on 1 November 2008:
Robert 9:20
It may comfort you to know that Toynbee proposed a return to Christian values as the solution to the West’s problems.
29 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 1 November 2008:
@22 John, Here’s another one for your collection.
A liberal, a neocon and a paleo were walking down a beach when they found a magic lamp. A genie popped out and said, “each of you can have one wish.’
The liberal said, “I’d like for me and my peers to live in a land where everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others.” Poof! the Genie sent all the libs to Paris during the French revolution.
The neocon said. “I’d like for me and all my people to live in a land with no ignorant Christians.” Poof the genie sent all the SDS turncoats to Saudi Arabia.
The genie said to the paleo, “What’s your wish?’
The paleo said you mean all the parlor pinks and parasites are gone? Hell, I’ll have a shot of Virginia Gentleman with a Dominion Ale chaser!”
Tickle and Hammer, it was comedy that brought down the Soviets, not Pershing missiles.
30 Comment by D Simmons on 1 November 2008:
I’ve learned a great many things with my 13 year subscription to Chronicles, but I don’t believe I have ever heard any basic questions asked. I seriously doubt Frum stripped of his ability to smear could answer a single basic question asked of him. But since conservatives respect the taboos of the left here we are with Rabbi Frum guiding his cattle with an occasional maverick in need of branding and castration. What are the man’s virtues, he can quote passages from the “Authoritarian Personality” and other sources of ideological nonsense?
31 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 1 November 2008:
@29 D
Frum is nothing more than an opportunistic networker. He attends parties and accepts checks for speaking engagements, bribes for want of a better word. I wager that he gets his talking points from his well-placed television personality chums. To be perfectly honest, I have never read Authoritarian Personality, nor Xenophon for that matter.
32 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 1 November 2008:
Frum is merely an example of the American ruling political/media class. Without exception they are nobodies without any intellectual or moral qualities or accomplishments. They become important because Americans are obedient to celebrity status—the quality of being well-known because of being well-known.
Nobody asks, as would happen in a normal society, what is the background and history of these people and what qualifies them as a leader or a pundit.
33 Comment by george on 1 November 2008:
@22John Seiler
How many Neocons does it take to screw in a light bulb?
None, thats what gentiles are for.
34 Comment by Robert on 1 November 2008:
“It may comfort you to know that Toynbee proposed a return to Christian values as the solution to the West’s problems.”
I know nothing of “Christian values..” The term itself is revolting to me. There is doctinre and dogma taugt and conserved by a Church established by Christ. She is Mother and teacher on earth to billions. As to her “values”I know nothing except like all values they seem to have changed from time to time throughout her existence. At times She seems to have valued power over her more humble mission, at other times She seemed to prefer poverty over riches, and still other times the role of student of the world to teacher. Values change from age to age but truth endures. Even when her values were wrong, it was Her truth that righted the ship. Toynbee never understoof this fact and was less of a historian because of it. Read more Belloc and less Toynbee for a more complete biography of our Christian civilization.
35 Comment by D Simmons on 2 November 2008:
My apologies to Rabbis everywhere for comparing Frum to them. Still how is a person from a particularist religous sect demanding that the rest of humanity accept secular universal ideologies taken seriously?
36 Comment by Tom Flinn on 2 November 2008:
I saw Frum on some program the other day with a Democratic mouthpiece (I don’t remember his name) during which time he was instructing us all what the Republican party must do to make a comeback. What a piece of work. Who the heck is this guy anyway? If he wants to look at the problem with the GOP all he has to do is look in the mirror. I grew up when real conservatism had some strong intellectual arguments to make with people like Russell Kirk, Robert Weaver, Erik von Kunheldt-Leddihn, and others leading the charge. Now Sean Hannity passes for a conservative “analyst,” bombarding us every night with bumper sticker “conservatism.” Frum is a an ignoramus and a bigot and his kind is why, as much as I despise Obama, I will NOT vote Republican this year. I use the word ignoramus in the literal sense, not simply as a personal slam. One of his “solutions” was for the GOP to accept the social “advances” of the 1960’s (i.e., divorce, homosexuality, abortion, ad nauseum) and simply get on with things. He is a poster boy for Dr. Wilson’s constant reminder that the GOP must die.
37 Comment by Tom Flinn on 2 November 2008:
Correction. I meant Richard Weaver.
38 Comment by Irving Babbitt on 2 November 2008:
Mr. Pitak notes that Frum has been engaged in a Neocon jihad against Mr. Patrick Buchanan for nearly 20 years. A case in point is a 1991 smear job Frum wrote and had published in the American Spectator. Frum was no doubt motivated by the fact that Mr. Buchanan had opposed the first Iraq war and was a likely candidate for the Republican nomination for President. In 1991, Mr. Buchanan had predicted that the Gulf War (as it was then known) was the first but not the last Arab-American war, as more such conflicts would result from the Neocon supported intervention in the Middle East. Mr. Buchanan was, of course, correct in his prediction.
In 1994, just before the Republicans regained control of both chambers of the United States Congress for the first time since Eisenhower, Frum published a book entitled Dead Right arguing that conservatives were politically dead. In that book, Frum implied that opposition to mass immigration was an unacceptable position for conservatives. But once the recent attempts to pass amnesty for illegal aliens failed, Frum pretended to have been opposed to mass immigration, and in particular illegal immigration, all along. However, Frum has no paper trail of having opposed mass immigration and an extensive paper trail of having attacked those who did oppose the transformation of the United States via mass immigration.
Not only is Frum a liar and a smear artist, Frum is a lousy liar and smear artist.
39 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 3 November 2008:
Culture, not a war of choice, is the great clarifier. Regarding abortion, David Frum chooses to side with the forces of death and evil and in opposition to the millions of unborn children who have had their lives snuffed out. By his contempt for Christian values and for Christians themselves, David Frum sides with the secular left. With the cultural decline of Western Civilization the paramount dilemma of our times, David Frum has turned his back on conservatives to side with the Left. Now we conservatives turn our backs on him.
40 Comment by Sean Scallon on 3 November 2008:
Apparently Frum’s memory only goes back three to four years. This is the latest in a series of abrupt shifts in his thinking and there’s not once ounce of irony or retrospective thinking on his part.
41 Comment by Irving Babbitt on 3 November 2008:
Sean makes a good point. In 2000, Frum gave a lunchtime talk about his then recently published book on the 1970s hosted by the Manhattan Institute. During the Q and A session, an older gentleman asked if reducing the flow of immigration, both legal and illegal wouldn’t be a first step in reversing the left ward drift of the country. Frum responded by saying that reducing immigration was a bad idea, fundamentally in conflict with the American ideal.
Frum’s speech that day was taped and broadcast on CSpan, which also sells a DVD of that event.
I think Frum’s problem is that he tells so many lies he can’t keep track of all of them.
42 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 4 November 2008:
The Baron of 3000 Foxhall Road is a dishonorable man. The trouble with Frum is that if he ever admits to being a liar, will we know whether he is lying or not.
43 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 4 November 2008:
Mr. Piatak, I took time to e-mail Mr. Frum and tell him that he might be interested in your trenchant post. However, he kindly replied that that he doubted that he would be interested in reading it. Too bad.
44 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 4 November 2008:
https://www.taxpayerservicecenter.com/RP_Detail.jsp?ssl=1608%20%20%20%200055
Since property ownership is public record in the District of Columbia, here is the information of the man whom the Greek newspaper, Avriani, says will be out of work real soon. This is a pathetic cringing little milksop whose wife manages the money end of things for him. A girly man.
45 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 4 November 2008:
Don’t even ask about the Andrew Sullivan connection, or why he gets a homestead tax break.
46 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 4 November 2008:
Since Frum had no difficulty maligning my friend Sam Francis, this is the least I can do to level the playing field. I am no gentleman, and I choose to fight dirty. The above post should be spammed about until this scuzzy money-grubber moves out of DC.
47 Comment by Irving Babbitt on 5 November 2008:
Frum continues to spin. Here he attacks the Christian social conservative base, which he blames for the defeat of Neocon McCain. Frum doesn’t mention the victory of the anti-gay marriage amendments adopted in three states (two of which were won by Obama, the third being McCain’s home state).
Note also that forked tongue Frum doesn’t mention the Iraq war, nor the threats Neocons make against Iran, suggesting yet another war in the works. So Frum defends the indefensible, his own Neocon tribe, by attacking the social conservative base, (almost entirely white and Christian) of what passes for a Right in America.
David Frum: Republicans face fraught choice between two roads to revival
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/11/05/david-frum-republicans-face-choice-between-two-paths-to-revival.aspx
In the wake of yesterday’s bruising result, the Republican party faces an excruciating and divisive choice between two very different futures.
The first choice is the choice on display at the excited rallies that cheered Sarah Palin all through the fall. This is a choice to fall back on the core base of the Republican party. The base is almost entirely white, almost entirely resident in the middle of the country, moderately affluent, middle-aged and older, more male than female, with some college education but not a college degree. Think of Joe the Plumber and you see the core of the Republican party.
A generation ago, Republicans dominated among college graduates. In 1984 and 1988, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush won states like California, Pennsylvania and Connecticut.
College-educated Americans have come to believe that their money is safe with Democrats – but that their values are under threat from Republicans. And there are more and more of these college-educated Americans all the time.
So the question for the GOP is: Will it pursue them? To do so 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. That’s a future that leaves little room for Sarah Palin – but the only hope for a Republican recovery.
48 Comment by Tom Piatak on 5 November 2008:
Mr. Leaberry,
Thanks for attempting to enlighten David Frum!