The American Spectator : Mr. Frum's Cult

Text Size

Mr. Frum’s Cult

By Jeffrey Lord on 3.17.09 @ 6:08AM

Confessions of a former Inside-the-Beltway Kool-Aid drinker.

“Limbaugh’s language is not that of politics. It’s the language of a cult.”
— David Frum on Rush Limbaugh and his audience
In his Newsweek article, “ENOUGH! A Conservative Case Against Limbaugh”

I belonged to a cult.

With David Frum.

I know, I know. Things like this, when uncovered, are career-enders. Whole futures are destroyed. Families, disgraced. Congressional hearings run by John Conyers and Henry Waxman loom.

Don’t worry about me, though. My family did an intervention. I left the cult a few years ago and was successfully deprogrammed, or, as the deprogrammers prefer to say, given extensive “exit counseling.” Frum, on the other hand, wasn’t as lucky.

It’s time to get all of this sordid, unsavory business out in the open. To brightly shine the light of truth on the darkest of secrets. With the support of my family, I have decided to go public.

As a former cult member, I resolved to write a book about my experience because I felt I owed an accounting to my family and friends. I was determined, in the words of my old friend André Malraux, to be “one of those who did not return from Hell with empty hands.” The book, originally titled Say What? has now at my editor’s urging been re-titled simply Witness. It is scheduled for publication when finished.

So….here goes. Here’s what I know.

The object of this cult, as with all cults of course, is mind control. Something that can only be achieved with deceptive techniques designed to recruit and indoctrinate the members. Ultimately, as pointed out in Treatment Today Magazine some years ago, the clever deceptiveness of the whole program results in a targeted individual like myself or poor Frum having a reduced capacity to assimilate and critically analyze some combination of the following three things:

* The individuals exerting control over him or her (the group’s leadership).

* The conditions affecting his or her well-being (including diet, living conditions, health or safety hazards).

* The influence of his or her actions, because of these circumstances and conditions, on others (such as family, peers, or more helpless members of the group).

How, you may ask, did I ever get myself involved with such an insidious group?

It started, as it always does, so innocently. The bright lights beckon to the boy from the provinces (in my case Pennsylvania via Massachusetts) dazzled by the cult’s glossy, larger than-life image. The Invitation to join the cult arrives after college, always from someone already a cult member in good standing. The small first-car is packed, the leave-taking of teary-eyed, anxious and (in retrospect) cult-wary parents is had. Day One on the job, at my first cult reception, I was given a smiling pat on the back by a longtime cult member who said, quite literally, what all cult members believe to their core: “Welcome,” he said, “to the Center of the Known Universe.”

Who wouldn’t be thrilled? I always knew it! What fabulous Kool-Aid!

Page: 1 2 3 >

topics:
Conservatism, Washington, D.C.

About the Author

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (149) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Pecos Pete| 3.17.09 @ 6:31AM

Excellent. Since I sold my tux and live in a rural area ... I guess I'm not in the cult. At least I hope not.

Melvin| 3.17.09 @ 8:06AM

The political inhabitants of Washington D.C. have created the most vile, decadent cesspool of corruption and villainy on the planet that is full of bottom feeding scum that think of nothing of selling their own mothers for political power.
Many Americans now seethe with an anger and outright hatred toward the political elite who infect our Nation's Capitol like a incurable social disease that threatens our Republic very existence.
Frum and those like him tap dance about like two year olds who have to pee jerking at the politicians coattails hoping to be noticed and be bestowed with politicians favor.
David Frum is nothing more than a third tier parasite who feeds on the waste of the rest of the bottom feeders in Washington D.C.

Red Phillips | 3.17.09 @ 8:39AM

Let's not forget the other dangerous Outliers who were subjected to vilification by the Cult, the Dr. for Texas and the Preacher from Arkansas.

Bob| 3.17.09 @ 9:04AM

Let's see... a cult leader that dresses differently than everyone... a cult leader who abuses drugs but his followers don't care.... a cult leader who can't stay married even after three times and his followers don't care... a cult leader who still abuses food.... a cult leader who makes $400 million just like his followers... a cult leader who is not educated very well... a cult leader that came from a prominent family like Osama... and cult members who have a name -- "dittoheads" -- which is the apex of non-thinking lemmings.

So, Mr. Lord, which drugs have you abused?

Truth to Power| 3.17.09 @ 9:26AM

I knew it wouldn't be long before we heard from our own cult wannabe, phony Bob, the pretend Republican. Your slip is still showing Bob. I think you show it on purpose.

Bob| 3.17.09 @ 9:48AM

Well, "truth", I see that you didn't deny anything I said. Could it be that Lord just didn't fit in with the Frum crowd and is closer to Limbaugh's attributes? To verify this, you'd have to know a lot more about Lord's background which I could not find on any internet search. Did he go to an Ivy League school? Does he have an advanced degree? Was he the political director or the associate political director?

Many times, an individual's perspective on another person tells us more about him, than the subject matter. This is certainly true about me. I fought in the Army in Vietnam and have an advanced degree from Harvard. Yes, that colors my perspective, I admit it. I spent my entire 35 years working for or with Fortune 100 companies. Yes, that colors my perspective. I worked my way out of a very poor neighborhood in South Central primarily through education with no help from anyone. Yes, that colors my perspective and makes me value education a lot more than average. I've always stood for doing the right thing whether it was politically correct or not. Yes, a couple of times in corporate America I paid the price for that perspective.

We know, for example, that anyone who calls themselves "Truth to Power" must be a relatively uneducated, closed minded phony.

Anthony| 3.17.09 @ 10:19AM

Melvin; You're quite descriptive this morning, but right on the mark.
Bob tells us; "many times an individual's perpective on another person tells us more about him..." indeed Bob, indeed. Your ad hominem dripping vitriol towards Limbaugh proves your point rather well and tells us more about you than we really want to know. But then again, why should we be suprised, after all, you do have an advanced degree from Harvard. Enough said, or am I being too judgmental?.

Drew45| 3.17.09 @ 10:22AM

I thought this was a great article.
In my opinion, it is losers like Frum and Cristol, and the FOX allstars that are holding back true conservatism. FOX and others need to do away with giving these morons any air time. I could not stand to hear when ever the Fox all stars would start babbling about how OBAMA was going to "govern from center"--that disgusted me during the campaign. Guys like Frum---or CRUMB--as I like to call him need to wake up and see the truth---REAL CONSERVATISM FROM REAL PEOPLE IS WHAT WORKS---Frum is out of touch and he is just looking to make a $$ by suggesting his coward brand of conservatism works.-----Funny thing is---All true conservatives cant stand this guy---

As Jeffrey Lord said "Take it from me, Mr. Frum.

Get yourself a good exit counselor. "

Steve| 3.17.09 @ 10:36AM

Hello Bob!!

I think you successfully missed Mr. Lord's point. That doesn't surprise me; as an egotistic corporate type (which you never tire of reminding us) thinking outside the box doesn't occur to you. Strangely like Mr. Frum, to whose defense you leap.

God love you, Bob. I know your type. Both my father and older brother -- genuinely good people, as I'm sure you are, as well -- attained the lordly status of senior executives at Fortune 100 companies. Climbed the ladder. Kissed the asses. Suffered the slings and arrows. Got the gold watch. And never had an original thought in their entire lives. Thought entirely inside the box, always. Well, good on them. And good on you -- sincerely.

There is another way, though, Bob, which you seem for some reason to disdain. In my case, I didn't work for a company. I started a company. And grew the company. And made millions doing it -- always thinking outside the box. There are many ways to go in life, Bob. And there are many ways to think about the American polity. All Mr. Lord is doing is encouraging Mr. Frum to take off the blinders and look around. Not bad advice for you as well. It's a wide world out there, Bob. Good luck finding it.

Also, I believe you possess a grossly exaggerated opinion of "education". Possessing a decent education myself and various professional credentials myself, I realize how little value they truly possess. Like my neighbor, with a Phd. in "Education" and the functional intellect of my dog. Or my friend, the marxist physics professor, who -- God love him-- can't run a taco stand. There really is something called the "school of hard knocks." The only school that has my respect.

Bob| 3.17.09 @ 10:44AM

Anthony, I've just listed facts related to Limbaugh and that you and others overlook these facts to become "dittoheads". Lord attacked the way Frum lives. Compared to Limbaugh, I think that says a great deal.

And by the way, I worked my tail off to get into Harvard. In fact, I worked full time at night while I went to school during the daytime. I had a wife and two children at the time and needed to support them as well. So yes, I do feel pride in my achievement. It's too bad that you and other Limbaugh lemmings try to justify your lack of education by berating those of us true Americans who worked hard to achieve the American dream.

Drew45, the people agree with Limbaugh and Lord are NOT "true" conservatives -- they are right wing ideologues. Going to war in Iraq was NOT a conservative value. Voting for Bush a second time when he was building that debt was NOT a conservative value. Eschewing education is NOT a conservative value. Attacking individual liberties through limiting abortion and gay marriage is NOT a conservative value.

Bob| 3.17.09 @ 10:53AM

Well, Steve, I've done both -- working at Fortune 100 companies and starting my own company as well. If you couldn't use your education effectively, it says more about YOU than your education. By the way, I started my own company half way through my career because I could not abide by the brown nosing necessary for that corporate SVP position. Eventually, I was lured back to corporate life as someone who remakes and develops new businesses.

So, I cannot only see both sides, but I've lived on both sides. The fact that you berate educational achievement does tell us more about you, and what you've wanted to achieve but has not. Now you seem to be biased against your father. I think you need a shrink.

Rick| 3.17.09 @ 11:15AM

I’ve seen this attack before….The dems use it with great regularity. Attack the messenger and not the message. Instead of debating the merits of Limbaugh’s positions, you seek to avoid that discussion by discrediting the messenger. Being overweight, highly paid, and unable to maintain a marriage or abusing prescription drugs does not negate the message of conservatism. If you’re a democrat, all of those shortcomings are resume enhancers.
Overweight? The greater percentage of Americans today are overweight.
Failed marriages? Well over 50% of American marriages end in divorce?
Highly paid? Wealth envy?
Prescription drug abuse? Happens far more often that most realize. And even while abusing drugs. Rush was as coherent then as he is now.

Ran| 3.17.09 @ 11:17AM

Anthony,
"Your ad hominem dripping vitriol towards Limbaugh proves your point rather well and tells us more about you than we really want to know." Oh, man. Getting caught and banned for lies, stealing the honor of a vet... Is he now making an ad-hominem argument by claiming advanced degrees? Harvard!? "Appeal to Authority"! Despite the fact that I have absolutely refused to read his posts since January, the sick comedy that is Bob's commentary just gets funnier... and sadder.

a| 3.17.09 @ 11:18AM

One
Big
Ass
Mistake,
America!
O.B.A.M.A, No we can't!

Bob| 3.17.09 @ 11:31AM

Rick, I've attacked Limbaugh's message continuously. He appeals to the uneducated and unthinking. Frum is on the right track. Republicans cannot win without expanding the party to moderates and social libertarians. Only 4.7% of the U.S. even listens to Rush at all. You guys can't seem to add.

Ran keeps up the ad hominem attacks with lies. I was not banned from Quin, he just didn't like my commentary and asked me not to post on his blogs. I have VOLUNTARILY agreed -- ask him. Stealing the honor of a vet? AmSpec could easily verify that I was a vet and fought for this country. More than a coward like Ran, I suppose. In fact, I enlisted to fight for my country during wartime. Claiming advanced degrees? This can be proved as well. Just have one of the AmSpec people contact me -- they have my email address.

So, Ran, you seem to be the liar here.

Rick, you missed the entire point. Lord's attack on Frum was not based on his position, but his lifestyle. I just applied the same measure to your god/leader.

Dave| 3.17.09 @ 11:32AM

I love Limbaugh. I despise Frum.

I have nothing against education. In fact, I tell my kids to work hard in school so they can get into Harvard or Yale or Stanford. Not because the education is necessarily superior to that offered in any number of non-Ivy institutions, but because (for reasons I do not fully understand) degrees from those institutions are still tickets to potentially lucrative careers, at least as of March 17, 2009.

I despise Frum and his ilk (that would include you Bob) because of their collective sense of superiority. I mean really, who doesn't despise a Snob?

Nick| 3.17.09 @ 11:34AM

How apropos of you Bob, to ooze your envy of Rush's $400 million contract on Saint Patrick's Day. That green monster will be your end some day.

I guess what that says about you is that, even with all that hard work, you'll never even come close to what Rush was smart enough and lucky enough to achieve, huh?

When one works for someone else they are technically a servant. When one works for themselves, they're a freeman.

In this country, you can be a well paid slave, or a freeman who just gets by. It's your decision to make.

Finbarr Moran| 3.17.09 @ 11:37AM

I often say that our political elites are irreparably corrupt and we got rid of George III for far less.

Jeffrey Lord| 3.17.09 @ 11:54AM

Bob...

Hmmm...I think you are illustrating my point. I have a degree in government from Franklin and Marshall College, a great college founded in 1787 right here in Pennsylvania. While I did not go to Harvard, my professors were graduates of Harvard, Princeton etc. I chose...catch that word...not to pursue another degree. I was an "associate director" at the WH....your point? That was the job opening and I took it. A chance to work for a president (and, if I may say of him, a great president) is not an everyday thing. I have been chief of staff to a head of a corporation (Warner-Amex - as in American Express- now gone, swallowed by what is now Time-Warner. WarnerAmex was the parent of MTV, office in Rockefeller Center.) The rest the usual starter jobs in DC...Legislative Director, press secretary, executive assistant to a Senator. I've moved on- again my choice - to be a writer, getting published regularly in major outlets, doing TV and radio, and thus far have one book to my credit with a good review in the WSJ. I fail to get your point. Like most people at this site (and, if you listen regularly to Rush, his callers are always calling to challenge him or discuss...clearly more than capable of thinking for themselves) I have no problem thinking for myself. I have never taken material things like jobs or degrees seriously. Certainly I do not take myself seriously, a very common affliction in Washington. Lincoln never went to college, ditto (forgive me) Truman. Both were better presidents than, say, Herbert Hoover or Jimmy Carter, both of whom had advanced degrees. My point here is that Washington DC, a town I love filled with lots of cherished friends and former colleagues whom I greatly respect (and whose names would be instantly known to you) takes itself as an institution waaaaaaaaay too seriously. There are indeed cultish aspects to the place as a whole, a tendency once there (and I certainly included myself in this) to think as a herd. It can be spectacularly intolerant (see Thomas, Clarence)and, amusingly, supremely arrogant with very little to be arrogant about. The short supply of common sense is a chronic problem. Where else would a guy who insisted there was no chance of Fannie Mae bankrupting itself or doing serious damage to the economy be put in charge of investigating the serious damage to the economy? (See Frank, Barney or Dodd, Christopher).

Rush is more than capable of defending himself. No, I don't do drugs. (Does the occasional Excedrin count?) Didn't do them in college either - filling out the inevitable security forms for the WH was not a problem. So no drug abuse to report.

And as to "fitting in" alas I'm one of those chronic "fitter-inners"....be it in high school, college or, yes indeed, Washington,DC. I was somehow, without doing much more than showing up, always in the "in crowd" of the moment. Which, being (hopefully) sensitive to those who were not, is what causes me to write something about David's over-the-top piece on Rush. I respect David, we've spoken on the phone, I greatly admire his courage in standing up to oppose Harriet Miers. But the reason it took courage for David to do what he did in opposing Miers goes directly to the pattern I wrote about in this article. Getting "out-of-step" with the herd is not taken lightly, and without doubt David took considerable heat from his own former WH colleagues in Bush 43.

As someone much more liberal in my own college days, liberalism has long since, in my view, gone off the deep end. It's not simply that it is wrong (again in my view) on issues of the day (economics, national security) it has become hopelessly snotty with, like Washington taken as a culture, very little to be snotty about.

I'm glad you're proud of your achievments, Bob. Bravo. When I was busy protesting the war (because I was dumb enough to listen to all the liberal wisdom that getting out of Vietnam would bring peace) you served. Double Bravo and a salute. But none of that, not your degree, not your service, not, to be honest, anything, makes you a better man than me or Rush or - most importantly - anybody else. Anywhere. Sorry.

Keep talking to these folks. Dialogue is good.

Thanks for writing though! :)

Truth to Power| 3.17.09 @ 12:00PM

Bob, you are not even a good actor. In a paragraph you illustrate so many tells. This is a sign of a lack of intelligence. I like poking fun at your pretend self but there is no room in my day for arguments with a liar.

Anthony| 3.17.09 @ 12:11PM

Bob, You assume, in condescension, much about those who listen to Limbaugh. While I don't have a Harvard degree, I do have a Master's and J.D. from excellent schools and am a practicing attorney. Many of his listeners are in the same boat, and those w/o degrees have more common sense than the entire faculty at Harvard. As our favorite Yalely, Mr. Buckley, once famously quipped, he'd rather be governed by the 1st 200 names in the Boston phone book than the faculty at Harvard. That pithy comment is even more true today and Obama is the poster-child. Many times Limbaugh fails to make the points I'd like him to make, and my experiences in finance, law and politics exceeds his, does that still make me a mind numbed robot? You attack Limbaugh because you need to demonize and reduce him to a safe level for you, like most lefties do. Remember Gov. Palin? But your moral equilivance is telling. To equate addiction to pain pills is a far cry from addiction to recreational drugs. JFK was far more drugged up on prescription drugs then Limbaugh ever was and Kennedy's reckless behavior in the Cuban missile crisis might well have been pushed by his addled brain, yet Kennedy gets a pass. Limbaugh is not a great husband and doesn't want to be a father, so be it, shall we compare others and their human foibles and judge their work accordingly? Finally, Lord criticizes Frum because Frum has sacrificed his principles in order to stay relevant with the clique in Washington. Frum and other conservative elites have sold their reputations in order to be "in the game". Limbaugh doesn't have to play that game, because he is the game, and the elites, both liberal and conservative hate him for it. Envy is indeed a deadly sin.

Steve| 3.17.09 @ 12:11PM

Whoa, Bob!!!

Why the vitriol?

*The fact that you berate educational achievement does tell us more about you, and what you've wanted to achieve but has not. Now you seem to be biased against your father. I think you need a shrink.*

First, we shall correct your highly educated grammar: *what you wanted to achieve but "has" not...*should be "have" not, Bob. I have achieved all I set out to achieve and more, Bob....whence comes your inference to the contrary?

I am not biased against dear old Dad. I love and respect him. But, like many a successful corporate executive, he was not an original thinker. And you yourself admit to the ass-kissing
required of the corporate aristocracy.

As to needing a shrink......Bob, are we projecting here? I love you, but your relentless boasting of credentials cuts no ice with me. I've dealt at length with Ivy League folks in private equity and investment banking and I'm not impressed. Clever people, yes; deities incarnate, no. There are lots of clever folks in the world. Say, Bob, riddle me this: the collective genuiuses at AIG; think we'll find alot of Ivy league types with *superior* educations? It takes a hell of a lot of talent and education to lose that much money.

Chill out, my good friend.

Roy| 3.17.09 @ 12:29PM

--I love you, but your relentless boasting of credentials cuts no ice with me.--

Yeah. This is the Internet, and I'm afraid given that there is absolutely no way to verify any alleged credentials, there is no reason to put any weight on them. Even if you are the kind of person who values them over substance in the first place.

Marc Jeric| 3.17.09 @ 12:32PM

It seems that one must establish one's intellectual accomplishments before discussing Mr. Lord's article. Well, I escaped a communist regime years ago to come here; made a PhD degree in Engineering at UCLA; and I thoroughly approve of the work being done by Rush Limbaugh - dittoheads and all. I also think that Walter Williams would have been a better choice for Chairman than Steele. And I also think that Mr. Lord's article was to the point and that Bob here is wrong.

Red Phillips | 3.17.09 @ 1:05PM

While the Inside the Beltway crowd definitely has cultish aspects, the conservative movement is not without its cultish aspects either. I believe the paleo/alt right criticism of the movement that it is intolerant of dissent from the right is correct. Note that the Outlier Doctor from Texas got as bad of treatment from the Movement Cult as he did from the Beltway Cult.

Also, Mr. Lord it is hard to take seriously your positioning as conservative defender against the centrist Beltway Cult when you make statements about Lincoln being a better president than any of the other contenders. From a conservative standpoint Lincoln was by far and away the worst President with FDR a very distant second.

Red Phillips | 3.17.09 @ 1:15PM

"I respect David, we've spoken on the phone, I greatly admire his courage in standing up to oppose Harriet Miers."

BTW, I opposed Meirs as well, because she had too little track record to judge her and some of what she did have was troublesome. But I think it is giving Frum entirely too much credit to assume he "stood up to" Meirs on conservative grounds. His objections at the time struck me as rank elitism. "Eww ... she went to SMU." And now in hindsight it was the first salvo in Frum's transformation to elitist snobbocon. It is entirely of a piece with his later attacks against Huckabee and Palin and now his broader attacks against Limbaugh and his listeners.

Jeffrey Lord| 3.17.09 @ 1:24PM

Red...

Interesting point re: Huckabee and Palin. There is indeed a thread there. My problem with Huckabee is he's too liberal. Nice guy though.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.17.09 @ 1:24PM

People with knowledge don't have to have their credentials on display or boast about them. It's called megalomania. A certain kind of mental illness that infects a certain type of loser. In the meantime while fools concentrate on private citizens who have no authority, let's review those who had the authority, and why the entire AIG outrage over bonuses by Obama and other government leaders is simply a farce.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123725551430050865.html

Since September 16, AIG has sent $120 billion in cash, collateral and other payouts to banks, municipal governments and other derivative counterparties around the world. This includes at least $20 billion to European banks. The list also includes American charity cases like Goldman Sachs, which received at least $13 billion. This comes after months of claims by Goldman that all of its AIG bets were adequately hedged and that it needed no "bailout." Why take $13 billion then? This needless cover-up is one reason Americans are getting angrier as they wonder if Washington is lying to them about these bailouts.
* * *

Given that the government has never defined "systemic risk," we're also starting to wonder exactly which system American taxpayers are paying to protect. It's not capitalism, in which risk-takers suffer the consequences of bad decisions. And in some cases it's not even American. The U.S. government is now in the business of distributing foreign aid to offshore financiers, laundered through a once-great American company.

The politicians also prefer to talk about AIG's latest bonus payments because they deflect attention from Washington's failure to supervise AIG. The Beltway crowd has been selling the story that AIG failed because it operated in a shadowy unregulated world and cleverly exploited gaps among Washington overseers. Said President Obama yesterday, "This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed." That's true, but Washington doesn't want you to know that various arms of government approved, enabled and encouraged AIG's disastrous bet on the U.S. housing market.

Scott Polakoff, acting director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, told the Senate Banking Committee this month that, contrary to media myth, AIG's infamous Financial Products unit did not slip through the regulatory cracks. Mr. Polakoff said that the whole of AIG, including this unit, was regulated by his agency and by a "college" of global bureaucrats.

But what about that supposedly rogue AIG operation in London? Wasn't that outside the reach of federal regulators? Mr. Polakoff called it "a false statement" to say that his agency couldn't regulate the London office.

And his agency wasn't the only federal regulator. AIG's Financial Products unit has been overseen for years by an SEC-approved monitor. And AIG didn't just make disastrous bets on housing using those infamous credit default swaps. AIG made the same stupid bets on housing using money in its securities lending program, which was heavily regulated at the state level. State, foreign and various U.S. federal regulators were all looking over AIG's shoulder and approving the bad housing bets. Americans always pay their mortgages, right? Mr. Polakoff said his agency "should have taken an entirely different approach" in regulating the contracts written by AIG's Financial Products unit.

That's for sure, especially after March of 2005. The housing trouble began -- as most of AIG's troubles did -- when the company's board buckled under pressure from then New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer when it fired longtime CEO Hank Greenberg. Almost immediately, Fitch took away the company's triple-A credit rating, which allowed it to borrow at cheaper rates. AIG subsequently announced an earnings restatement. The restatement addressed alleged accounting sins that Mr. Spitzer trumpeted initially but later dropped from his civil complaint.

Other elements of the restatement were later reversed by AIG itself. But the damage had been done. The restatement triggered more credit ratings downgrades. Mr. Greenberg's successors seemed to understand that the game had changed, warning in a 2005 SEC filing that a lower credit rating meant the firm would likely have to post more collateral to trading counterparties. But rather than managing risks even more carefully, they went in the opposite direction. Tragically, they did what Mr. Greenberg's AIG never did -- bet big on housing.

Current AIG CEO Ed Liddy was picked by the government in 2008 and didn't create the mess, and he shouldn't be blamed for honoring the firm's lawful bonus contracts. However, it is on Mr. Liddy's watch that AIG has lately been conducting a campaign to stoke fears of "systemic risk." To mute Congressional objections to taxpayer cash infusions, AIG's lobbying materials suggest that taxpayers need to continue subsidizing the insurance giant to avoid economic ruin.

Among the more dubious claims is that AIG policyholders won't be able to purchase the coverage they need. The sweeteners AIG has been offering to retain customers tell a different story. Moreover, getting back to those infamous bonuses, AIG can argue that it needs to pay top dollar to survive in an ultra-competitive business, or it can argue that it offers services not otherwise available in the market, but not both.
* * *

The Washington crowd wants to focus on bonuses because it aims public anger on private actors, not the political class. But our politicians and regulators should direct some of their anger back on themselves -- for kicking off AIG's demise by ousting Mr. Greenberg, for failing to supervise its bets, and then for blowing a mountain of taxpayer cash on their AIG nationalization.

Whether or not these funds ever come back to the Treasury, regulators should now focus on getting AIG back into private hands as soon as possible. And if Treasury and the Fed want to continue bailing out foreign banks, let them make that case, honestly and directly, to American taxpayers.

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

Jeremiah| 3.17.09 @ 1:25PM

This is I, Jeremiah, unrepentant tax and spend liberal, and I agree with Frum on few issues.

And I like Limbaugh better than I like Frum. He's definitely more fun.

However, I don't understand the intensity of the attack against Frum, here or elsewhere. Is Limbaugh so delicate?

Is conservatism so narrow that it can withstand only one leader / spokesperson?

I think Frum's point is that conservatives need more of the old-style public intellectuals -- people like William F Buckley.

The Limbaugh / Palin / Joe the Plumber style of conservatism is a kind of inverted populism and it helps increasingly menaced middle class men vent their resentments and anxieties, but it is NOT the platform for ideas and sound debate that conservatives might be participating in.

Brooks and Frum are not your problem, folks. It's the perception that you're only happy when some loudmouth is bellowing and pounding his fist, or some vitriolic tart is accusing people who disagree with her on capital gains tax rates as being "traitors" or socialists.

Still, I enjoyed reading Mr Lord's piece, and I happily accept all the names I'm about to be called. Do your worst, comrades. Keep the aspidistra flying.

Jeffrey Lord| 3.17.09 @ 1:32PM

Jeremiah...

Name calling? OK, if you wish. How about, "Jeremiah, the Great and Powerful Liberal Who Ventures Forth Where No Liberals Will Dare to Trod" ? Or, simply, in the fashion of ARod and JLo, simply: JLib.

Jeremiah| 3.17.09 @ 1:39PM

All good with me, Mr Lord.

Teflon93 | 3.17.09 @ 1:46PM

I am a United States Air Force Academy graduate with a rather standard (for that august institution) 183 credit hours, filled with such gimmes as "Thermodynamics" and "Astronautical Engineering".

I am a banker whose work kit consists of suits, French cuffs, and indeed---cufflinks.

I will gladly go toe-to-toe with the august Bob on educational accomplishment, business accomplishment (got the SVP thanks to business value, Bob---those who think it requires brownnosing are overcompensenating for inadequacy in my experience), or in any other realm up to and including command of the English language.

I agree with everything Jeffrey Lord has written above.

Will that lead Mensa to revoke my membership?

Or will it simply make phony elitists sniff once more?

A Lockheed engineer buddy of mine put it quite brutally: "There are only two types of people: doers and dialers. Doers do; dialers can only call someone who does. Every dialer can be completely replaced with a three-line macro and a five-drawer filing cabinet."

Shall I sling some code to replace Bob's response with simulated drivel?

Bob| 3.17.09 @ 3:07PM

Teflon, et. al. -- When I returned to big business, my position was higher than SVP, FYI. I had to get out of that rat race and start my own business -- and did. Then, after 12 years of a successful business, I went back in a totally different industry.

But that is not the issue here -- it is sloppy thinking and what you did with that education. You cannot look at the political landscape from an affiliation viewpoint and believe that you can disregard Frum and still win elections. Republican voters represent about 29-33% of the voters depending on which poll you believe. Democrats are 39% of the voters. People who are self identified social conservatives are 18% of the electorate and virtually all Republicans. In order to win a national election, Republicans must win about 2/3rds of independents/moderates like Frum. This group is more than half pro-choice. Reagan knew it took a coalition to win, and it still does. If you took the same demographics as Reagan (who received 50.7% of the vote in 1980) and applied that to him today, he would only have received about 45% of the vote because of the change in demographics over the past 30 years. Furthermore, almost 2/3rds of young voters are now REGISTERING as Democrats. They are much more pro-choice and gay rights friendly than older voters. McCain/Republicans received 53% of older voters even though he only received 46% of all voters so those voters will thin out over the years. Growing segments include Hispanic and black voters. Hispanics voted 66% for Obama and blacks -- well...

So, Teflon, if you actually had some math in college, you'd understand why Frum and his ilk (i.e., me) are important to you. That's what is wrong with Lord's argument. He's forgotten the fundamentals of being an associate political director and counting the votes.

You probably listened to Rush today. Was he telling the truth? Did you check? He talked about the government bailing out AIG and claimed it was part of TARP. Well, it wasn't. It was done under a very old provision of the Fed, not the Congress/Bush. The Fed does not have the authority to break contracts -- only to loan money. Nor do they have the requirement to report their funding to government. So while they may have known about the bonuses, it is not clear that the administration knew.

Furthermore, it seems as if Rush didn't understand what AIG was doing. He railed on the 93 billion passed through to the banks. AIG was guaranteeing the value of the derivatives in the system for banks all over the world. If AIG went under, that would have blown the capitalization of all of the big banks -- maybe even yours -- causing a worldwide panic and run. The banks bought the AIG insurance so they wouldn't be hurt on the downside. Furthermore, something Rush probably doesn't understand (perhaps due to his lack of schooling), is that many of the countries whose banks would have gone under hold our paper and we still need to finance our debt. There was really no other choice here that wouldn't have collapsed our entire banking system. But then you are in banking. You know that, right?

And then Rush talks about the administration getting so angry at such a small amount of money with those bonuses. Well, both Republicans and Democrats were angry. Why? Because the people who voted them in were angry. Would you want a government that didn't listen to their constituents?

Since you are a Mensa member and a banker, I would think that you knew all of this, and understood thoroughly securitization/derivatives/CDO's/swaps/treasuries and perhaps a bit about international finance.

So, anytime you want to go toe-to-toe with me (I'm retired now), please feel free. Am I superior to any of you? Of course not. Do I think that many of you don't know what you're talking about and don't have a handle on the facts? Clearly. And if you want to go toe-to-toe on financial services, let's get it on. I spent the last decade in my career in international and domestic finance including a stint at AIG (not the financial products division).

stmich (Rush Enjoyer)rick| 3.17.09 @ 3:18PM

Bob; your case regarding Limbaugh's style of dress, his addiction to painkilling drugs, his inability to become a conventional married with kids kind of guy, a penchant for food and a huge career success in spite of the fact that he did not complete college, let alone it be Harvard, does not conclusively result that his opinions and philosophy are unworthy of debate.

You are not convincing me that Rush is a bumpkin with this angle of personal attack. He is a huge, enduring success. Get over it.

Bob| 3.17.09 @ 3:31PM

stmichrick -- that's because you don't check his "facts" -- you just believe them almost like you were at Jonestown. That is the definition of a lemming. He is a hell of an entertainer, though. The ability to sound like you know something when you don't it a great gift shared by the great charlatans of the past. That's why you have never seen Rush in a debate in a neutral territory by a neutral moderator and why his calls are screened carefully. I would love to see a debate between him and Lionel on neutral ground. They both have similar styles, are radio people, and are on opposite sides of the spectrum.

Just today he talked about the AIG bailout and didn't realize that it was the Fed, and not TARP, that did the bailout and why that makes a difference. Did you pick that up? Why not?

Teflon93 | 3.17.09 @ 3:31PM

Bob, if you knew anyting about the current mess you'd realize that the root cause was the combination of the Community Reinvestment Act changes brought about by the Clinton Administration (Bush tried to get Barney Frank to do something about Fannie and Freddie several years ago, remember?) and the mark-to-market accounting change brought in as a result of Enron.

The impact isn't hard to see: what would anyone who passed Econ 101 predict would happen once you start telling banks they will be prevented from mergers and acquisitions unless they can demonstrate they're making loans to favored political constituencies even if those people bottom out their FICO scores? What happens when you simultaneously demand that any assets generated be valued not as they have been for generations, but at a hypothetical "fair market" value in a market which doesn't exist?

What you get is a housing bubble followed by a gigantic credit crunch, as banks are forced---by the United States government---to hold larger and larger reserves as a portion of asset portfolios default.

Added to this is the lunacy of Fannie and Freddie---looted by top Democrats like Howell Raines and Jamie Gorelick, two big-time Clintonistas---simultaneously insisting they will underwrite even the worst of these toxic assets.

What resulted was a race to the bottom. Originate as many bad loans as will get the government regulators off your back, sell as many as possible to Fannie and Freddie, and bundle the rest to firewall the worst off from actual performing assets. Hold your nose and hope property values hold up over the long haul.

The question is not whether we bailout your AIG buddies. The question is how we tear down the government intervention that has made these financial companies holding grounds for politically-connected Democrats until government jobs reopen.

So yes, let's get it on. You can start by explaining to us how Barney Frank and Chris Dodd managed to circumvent the iron laws of supply and demand and thus bear no responsibility for the bubble they created.

You can follow up by explaining to Obama and the Democrats can simultaneously demand AIG not pay bonuses it was contractually-obligated to pay and not overstep the constitutional bounds of government (any more than they do each day before brunch).

But first kindly tell us how we are not building another bubble right now, since Obama and the Democrats have done nothing about CRA, nothing about "mark-to-market", and even now are hammering banks for allegedly not making enough new lousy loans.

And while you're at it, Bob-who-is-not-superior-in-any-way (why, where did we get such an idea?), please explain how the limits on federal rewriting of AIG bonus compensation contracts do not simultaneously apply to extant mortgage agreements, which Obama and company have also sworn to change on the fly, no doubt to the benefit of favored constituents.

Providing you've not burned all available pixels in so doing, you can then back down from your earlier nonsense claim that having a certain education level or a certain intelligence quotient prohibits one from despising Washington Beltway snobs of the sort Mr. Lord so eloquently skewered in his piece.

Crusader| 3.17.09 @ 3:32PM

In honor of St Patrick's Day I think we should have a Amspec drinking game.

Every time Bob mentions:

- "Served in Vietnam"
- "Went to Harvard"
- "Grew up in South Central"
- "Anti-intellectual" (any reference)
- "Fortune 500/100 Company"
- "Sarah Palin"
- "Rush Limbaugh"

Drink a big ol' glass of green beer!

Bob I think I saw your life story on an after-school special in 1984.

stmich(RushENjoyer)rick| 3.17.09 @ 3:32PM

And Bob;

In your more recent comment you did not address the central case that Rush was making about the fraudulent indignation that Chuckie Schumer and Company are making about the AIG bonuses.

Anytime Democrats bring up executive pay they are redirecting your attention away from the fact that even though Wall Streeters will always make more than the intended audience; SO DO THEY; IN WAYS UNRELATED TO THEIR OWN CONGRESSIONAL PAYCHECKS...as well as being responsible for setting the stage for the present financial debacle.

stmich(RushEnjoyer)rick| 3.17.09 @ 3:41PM

You missed the point of what I was saying.

Your first diatribe that I referenced has nothing to do with believing he is infallible just because most of what he says rings true to millions of people for 20 years.

Who do you think has run a current events based, unscripted, daily entertainment show without misspeaking from time to time. Anyone who has tried has a good call screener who knows that constant agreement with the host makes for boring radio.

You're a nitpicker Bob. Excuse me for the personal attack.

John II| 3.17.09 @ 3:44PM

Interesting round of responses--but can someone tell me what all the fuss is about big-name schools? If one of my sons wanted to go to the Air Force Academy, I guess I'd shrug and wish him well. But, to paraphrase Thomas Sowell's passing remark about Stanford in one of his books on education, I wouldn't send my cocker spaniel to Harvard or Yale or even Stanford or Duke. The several alumni I've encountered among graduates of those august institutions have, without fail, exhibited impressive technical agility but also, almost without fail, some other traits as well: insecure smugness, narrow if superficially cosmopolitan optics, and a propensity to make messes out of their personal lives and the lives of those who get too close to them. What is all this gosh-wow blather about the ivy league doing on a conservative website, for crying out loud?

Crusader| 3.17.09 @ 3:45PM

Cue voice-over guy:

"From the mean streets of south central to the steaming jungles of Viet Nam. From the hallowed halls of Harvard to the top echelon of Fortune 100 companies. It's an American success story. It's HIS success story. ABC's after-school special about a special boy who turns into a special man. I give you:

'The Story of Bob'"

Better yet, in the spirit of St Patty's day and Beer maybe Bud Light can make one of those radio ads in Bob's honor,

"Here's to you, Mr Internet-I-know-everything-I-went-to-Harvard-I-fought-in-Vietnam-while-working-two-jobs-and-raising-two-kids-and-living-in-south-central guy."

Crusader| 3.17.09 @ 3:45PM

Ooops, almost forgot

"I-worked-at-AIG (but not the BAD part)-guy"

Jeffrey Lord| 3.17.09 @ 4:00PM

Bob....

Rush, at this point, has been around a long time. But he certainly has gone toe-to-toe on other turf. Specifically, I believe he debated Al Gore back in the 90's on Nightline with Ted Koppel as moderator. And, quite famously, he invited Obama himself on his program for a one-on-one the other week after the Obama people were saying various GOP types were afraid to take Rush on. Rush immediately challenged Obama himself - and they passed. So much for that idea. I certainly don't claim Rush, or anyone, to be infallible. That would not be the point. The point is, does he have a solid grasp of the philosophical principles at stake here and I think the answer is yes. As to the pro-choice and gay marriage business, this is classic liberal misdirection. The "pro-choice" movement is anything but. They want abortion policy decided by judges, not by giving voters a choice. Same with gay marriage. This is a significant problem that has, in reality, zero to do with either subject. The real issue is judge-made law imposed by those who are substituting their personal political preferences for the votes of the rest of us. The idea is, quite deliberately, to deny us choice. If these are such fundamental rights, as supporters claim, that puts them in the same category as enumerated rights in the Constitution and the various amendments (free speech, religion, right to bear arms, ending slavery, right for blacks to own property, right of women to vote, right to have a drink etc etc.) All these are specifically in the Constitution because the American people voted (usually through legislatures) to put them there. The next thing you know, why, a batch of judges could decide to take your house because a developer wants to build a hotel! Oops..too late. That was Kelo...and they did. Not good. Nor, ultimately, an electable platform.

Teflon93 | 3.17.09 @ 4:11PM

John II hits it right on the head.

If you're right about the facts, appeals to authority simply don't hold water. It is chum in the water for sharks who know the art of argument.

In the Information Age, appeals to authority are spectacularly weak because one can avail oneself of wisdom in a variety of fields---hard-won wisdom often requiring a lifetime of work---with a click.

Moreover, the problem with putting too much faith in credentials is that one can invariably find someone with even better credentials who says the opposite of what you do.

Thus Bob trumpets his educational and business credentials as though they buttress his arguments---Mr. Lord, you see, cannot point to the contradictions inherent in David Frum's silly argument---if it can even be called such---that people who listen to Rush Limbaugh are "mind-numbed robots" (Rush's term). Meanwhile, Frum mindlessly spouts the received wisdom of the Washington Beltway. Mr Lord is not allowed to point that out---he apparently lacks the credentials to do so.

I mentioned my own slim credentials because they seem to meet Bob's standard. I can assure you that I am likely the least-accomplished of my classmates, although I don't feel too badly since my class has more than its fair share of astronauts, fighter pilots, and CEOs. We were too late for Vietnam but I know plenty who've served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan so that should even out, right, Bob?

What's especially funny is that Frum hasn't displayed any evidence that he understands the financial world or the U.S. economy AT ALL. He is strictly a politico. What credentials has Mr. Frum on this subject? Rush talks to people from all across America every day. He takes questions from people who disagree with him---quite vociferously---every day. Indeed, the one appearance I had on his show was when I was calling in to disagree with him about NAFTA (I thought it was way too complicated to be a good bill. "There shall be no tariffs, duties, or other fees, restrictions, or taxes upon goods originating within, exported to, and imported from signatory parties" is about how I'd like to have seen it.)

Frum doesn't seem to talk to anybody outside the Beltway-media complex. At least there's precious little evidence he does in what he says and writes.

For Bob to forward the argument that Frum is superior to Rush on this score is simply sloppy thinking. It's more tribal preference than anything, I'd wager---Frum is one of "us", Rush one of "them."

If pressed, I'd suspect that Bob's favorite GOPers were of the Nelson Rockefeller/Bob Michel/Bob Dole stripe---the Country Clubbers and go-alongers.

But your mileage may vary.

Dick | 3.17.09 @ 4:41PM

This thread is truly fascinating. The education debate is hilarious. Despite my less than stellar academic achievements I passed the U.S. Foreign Service Officer exam many years ago and had an enjoyable, exciting and successful career in the Foreign Service. Many of my colleagues were for the most part highly intelligent graduates of the elitist schools but as one of my Ambassadors complained many of them lacked common sense. Doubtless a failing of many cult members.

I enjoy Rush although I don't always agree with him. He has a quick and sometimes quirky mind as witness his challenge to Obama for a debate without teleprompter. Despite the disparity in their formal educations Rush would run circles around our President and many of our talking heads.

ruth| 3.17.09 @ 4:53PM

I dislike Bob. The Ivy League ass-kissing snob earned my wrath a long time ago for his persistent, vicious personal attacks against Sarah Palin. But, after reading this bruising Bob-bashing thread, I think I am starting to feel a little sympathy for the little curmudgeon. Nah, on second thought, Bob deserves all of our scorn--and more.

Teflon93 | 3.17.09 @ 4:55PM

It should also be noted that when David Frum appeared on Mark Levin's radio program recently Levin destroyed him. Frum attempted to filibuster and change the subject away from the particular contradiction Levin honed in on: that Frum claimed to be engaging in high-minded debate while personally attacking Rush for his weight, marital, and prescription drug problems.

If Rush's ideas were so easy to dismiss, one presumes that Frum would have risen to the task instead of going the ad hominem route.

Since Rush didn't graduate from college and is only the most influential conservative in media today, it was hilarious to listen to Frum whine when Levin cornered him on how few books Frum had sold.

You'd think a man of such pedigree as Frum would perform in superior blueblood fashion. Levin must have cheated!

Starry Night| 3.17.09 @ 5:00PM

Bob's got a fan-club! LOL

Dustoff| 3.17.09 @ 5:15PM

Well I have no-where near the education that Bob has. Yet like him. I went to Nam as a medic, came back to San Diego to attend UCSD for my Paramedic lic.
Then on to get my Fight nurse cert.
But Bob, I see jerks like you everyday. They have their huge houses in La Jolla, make $250+ , yet when you call for my help... Your still a jerk and this poor college boy saves your butt.

You really need to pull your head out fast.

NO-one cares about your schooling. It's the type of person who you are that people really care about!

Bob| 3.17.09 @ 5:29PM

Teflon -- I thought you worked for a bank and knew something about the current problem. The CRA/Fannie/Freddie actually played a minor role in the problem (but you wouldn't know that if you listened to Rush). The problem was primarily securitization and leverage. Starting in the late 80's, companies like Beneficial, Household, and Countrywide, who had major commitments to subprime loans, started bundling and securitizing these loans. (This is before the CRA). These were sold in the market to primarily private investors. Thus, mortgage origination was separated from risk (which is really the primary problem here). Because there was decades of pretty solid rising housing values, these were not seen as risky since even if someone foreclosed, you could sell the home and recoup most of your money. Thus, these CDO's received high ratings from agencies. This was not a large part of the market at that time. But in the late 90's, with the advent of more powerful computers, PhD mathematicians started breaking these down in tranches, slicing them, and making complicated derivatives. Given the easing of rates in the fed, and the fact that investment houses did not have bank capital requirements, they started leveraging these instruments to the 30 to 35 range with money borrowed from the fed. Certainly, money follows opportunity and hedge funds now had a vehicle that returned 20-30% and was high rated by the agencies. In 2002, Fannie/Freddie backed about 70% of subprime. But with this explosive growth, in 2007 they only backed about 30% of these loans -- and those were the least risky of the bunch.

This house of cards was based totally on rising home prices. Once they started to fall, with 30 leverage, it doesn't take much to topple this house of cards. While the CRA made this more politically correct, it was not either the major cause of this nor was it the reason it failed. The problem was that the mortgage originator didn't keep any of the risk. If they did, the market would have self regulated.

So, your response has shown me you know little about this problem. Do you really work for a bank?

Jeffrey -- where we differ on social policy is on the question of what should be voted on. The judicial branch has the responsibility of protecting Constitutional rights. If we let voters decide what is Constitutional, then there would be no reason for the high court. There are plenty of jurists who believe there is a privacy right in the Constitution. If you do, then Roe is rightly decided. Let me put it this way. If the majority of people thought that we should make this a Christian republic -- just like an Islamic republic -- should they be allowed to do that? I believe the central government has too much power as it stands. I believe they should get out of the abortion business, get out of the marriage business, get out of the education business, and several others as well. I do believe they have a role in health care, however. Not because it is a right, but because it is hampering our competitiveness and productivity as a country.

As for Rush, you know that debating with Obama was a stunt. It will be fun to watch Obama against Palin in 2012. I looked up the debate between Rush and Gore and could not find the video, only a modified reference on Limbaugh's site. It was only on the issue of ozone and the atmosphere. I did not see any evidence presented on either side. How can that be a real debate?

macHagus| 3.17.09 @ 5:34PM

ruth / heard Coulter's boots needed licking again.
Now go away and let the big boys play.

ruth| 3.17.09 @ 5:36PM

The great thing about people like you, Dustoff, is that you are willing and able to help anyone who is injured or suffering; regardless of their education or social status. You have courage and compassion--a winning combination!

ruth| 3.17.09 @ 5:41PM

Got a problem with girls, macHagus? You whiny, weenie liberal wimps are all the same--weak.

Bob| 3.17.09 @ 5:45PM

I would like to thank you all for proving my point about the extreme right's lack of knowledge, its adherence to belief over reason, its lemming like dedication to an evangelical radio host, and its inability to understand political dynamics from a statistical perspective.

This is another example of the "common enemy" behavior seen in mobs rather than individual thought. You have also proven your near unanimous dislike of education. I would hope you want our children to be highly educated and go to the best schools. That's obviously unimportant to the vast majority of you.

So "mobbies", good luck -- you'll need it.

Todd| 3.17.09 @ 5:52PM

Bravo to Teflon93, I immensely enjoyed your posts. Bob, who refers to himself as a RINO with no irony, proceeds to lecture us that we must reject Limbaugh and follow the likes of egomaniac corrupt inside beltway types like Frum to restore Republicans to power. I am sure Limbaugh would debate Frum anytime, anywhere but something tells me Frum is not interested in getting a beatdown. I think he is still recovering from the beatdown he received from Mark Levin a few weeks back, quite hilarious really. He is an intellectual lightweight without one original idea.

I look forward to reading Jeffrey Lord's book, these DC phony Conservatives need to be outed once and for all. Just to name one, Peggy Noonan comes immediately to mind. She has disgraced herself and will never waste my time reading her rubbish.

Starry Night| 3.17.09 @ 5:53PM

No, Bob, not our dislike of education--our visceral dislike of YOU. LOL

Teflon93 | 3.17.09 @ 5:54PM

Bob, here's where your silly response goes completely off the rails:

"In 2002, Fannie/Freddie backed about 70% of subprime. But with this explosive growth, in 2007 they only backed about 30% of these loans -- and those were the least risky of the bunch. "

Fannie Mae and Freddie got INTO this business at the very time the other banks realized it was time to get OUT of it. They did so to protect their turf as originator of lousy loans.

CRA was enacted in 1977, Bob:

http://www.ffiec.gov/cra/

It took off after 1995 because Clinton started applying the regulatory screws then, part of the loony Left's claims that banks were being "racist" by not loaning more money to people who couldn't pay it back.

Countrywide and others got into the mix because they realized that one could get rich on originating loans Fannie and Freddie would wind up holding the paper on.

Most banks kept this to a small part of their mortgage business---basically, enough to keep the regulators from nipping their heels. That's what my bank did.

Anyone who follows the Wall Street Journal's generally excellent coverage of this will find significant non-Rush coverage of CRA and "mark-to-market", which Bob apparently doesn't understand.

Bob also doesn't mention the impact of Basel II and the carrot it represented if those PhD math types---whoops, they done got more education than Bob, can't have that---could demonstrate sufficient control of risk to warrant a lowering of reserve ratios.

Companies who weren't real banks also took advantage of more favorable liquidity requirements to lend far more money than they could afford to lend. This is why Wall Street doesn't exist anymore---these companies either folded, were acquired, or became regular banks with more conservative reserve requirements. Whoops, that also adds to the credit crunch, doesn't it?

Bob, people who understand this limit acronyms to a considerable extent. You don't need the alphabet soup; you're simply covering up your ignorance with jargon.

The problem was not who held the hot potato---it was the combination of the government DEMANDING that banks make bad loans, then saying it didn't matter because Fannie and Freddie would hold the paper.

The banks acted rationally---the government did not.

Moreover, Fannie and Freddie are pursuing the same policies today which created the bubble in the first place.

Nothing has changed---mark-to-market is still in effect; CRA is still being driven down the throats of the banks. The only difference is that government is succeeding in blaming the banks for their own incompetence.

Good thing you got out when you did, Bob.

It'll be awhile before we in the finance industry dig out from under the stupidity of the bluebood Democrats who've driven this economy into the ground.

It's no time for dialers.

Teflon93 | 3.17.09 @ 5:58PM

Wow, Bob, you've really wowed us with your statistical reasoning thus far.

Nary a p-value nor an R-sq (adj) in sight.

Or are you simply employing "statistical" in the imprecise sense of the faux intellectual---(e.g. 27% of all statistics are completely made up)?

And you're still dodging the fact that people whose credentials match if not exceed your own both listen to Rush and think Lord's right on in nailing Frum and the rest of the Beltway snobs.

Thus your argument from authority is missing some chompers.

Teflon93 | 3.17.09 @ 6:02PM

And since Bob loves authorities, here's a real banking hero, BB&T's CEO John Allison, on the crisis:

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2008/10/13/daily44.html

BB&T CEO and Chairman John Allison called for both short-term fixes and long-term reforms to address a financial crisis and “panic” he believes is a product primarily of failed government actions.

Addressing a gathering of the Winston-Salem Chamber of Commerce on Friday morning, Allison said the initial efforts of the federal government to rescue the economy were misguided and served to increase public anxiety, but the latest move to inject taxpayer money directly into banks was necessary given the government’s poor earlier response.

“It is necessary, given the unnecessary government-caused panic,” Allison said.

Allison’s views are influential because he leads a bank that has weathered the current financial crisis better than many – in the eyes of industry analysts. This week, BB&T (NYSE: BBT) reported a profit of $358 million in the third quarter, down 19 percent from a year ago.

In his hour-long discussion, Allison traced to roots of the current financial crisis to government efforts begun under the Clinton administration to promote affordable home ownership using the government-sponsored mortgage backers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

That contention has many detractors who note that the share of subprime loans held by the government-backed entities declined substantially during the height of the housing boom relative to private investment banks. But Allison laid primary blame at the feet of Democrats who, he said, failed to properly control Fannie and Freddie.

“I think George Bush has been one of the worst presidents in history, but this is not his fault,” Allison said.

Other factors contributing to the problem include the use of “fair value accounting” that forced banks and others to have to dramatically undervalue assets; “pick-a-payment” loans that put borrowers underwater on their mortgages; the trend toward lenders selling off their mortgages to others, making them less careful in their underwriting; and the failure of rating agencies to accurately assess the risks of mortgage-backed securities.

The inability of the market to understand the risks of such assets and confidently price them for sale contributed to the failure of the initial government bailout efforts to significantly loosen frozen credit markets, Allison said.

Todd| 3.17.09 @ 6:03PM

I actually had not read your last post Teflon93 before my last post but I agree with you completely about his Mark Levin interview, Frum was pathetic to say the least. No one would actually put down good money to buy his worthless books other then a few thousand idiots. I give his some credit for be willing to debate Levin but I think he did only because he is self-deluded to think he would win the debate instead of getting his ass handed to him like he did.

Jeffrey Lord| 3.17.09 @ 6:03PM

Bob...

"If we let voters decide what is Constitutional, then there would be no reason for the high court."

I don't mean this to sound snarky, but, well, they ...voters...do decide these things. The Constitution itself and the amendments to it were all voted upon...and not by judges. If one is for choice...than let us choose. Otherwise be upfront and say something like this: my beliefs are morally superior to yours and I have shopped for a judge who agrees with me so therefore we do it my way. That, at least, would be intellectually honest. The entire Prop 8 situation in California illustrates this perfectly. the voters said no to gay marriage, and the courts said that was unconstitutional. So the voters amended the California constitution to say no. Now the argument is that amending the constitution is itself ...well...wrong. We need to extricate process questions from substance. I am pro-life. But I am perfectly content being in the minority if, in fact, I am. I am not content with having somebody... a judge... saying there is a right to abortion in the Constitution because they feel "emanations" and "penumbras." Abortion supporters are deeply inconsistent. First, they claim that the right to abortion is so politically popular those who oppose it will lose elections. Yet, second, they oppose letting voters decide abortion policy because they are afraid they will lose. Huh?

Also...your math on elections above is, Frum-like, a case in point of the Frum problem. I assure you,
as someone who was there and had a degree of responsibility, Reagan policies were not crafted on the basis of stitching X per cent of Y per cent of the electorate together to create a winning margin on Z occasion. Whatever was done was based on the boss's crystal clear, long thought-out and much discussed (by him) philosophical principles. He was not ever in the business of winning elections for the hell of it, for the title, for anything else. Like a laser, he wanted to change policy that he thought obviously, stupidly and egregiously wrong and thus zeroed in. Whether it was the government chains on the free market, tossing arms control over the side in favor of, as he once said about the Soviet Union, "we win, you lose"...that was our charge. To make it happen per his direction. And it worked. Being a set of political, economic and security principles akin to say, gravity, why would anyone have expected anything less? Newton is dead, gravity lives. Tell David Frum.

Starry Night| 3.17.09 @ 6:04PM

And Bob is one of the lying mouthpieces who is helping the government succeed in blaming the banks for their (liberals) own incompetence (and corruption).

Jeff| 3.17.09 @ 6:08PM

Mr. Lord,

Be careful, if you keep the dialogue open with your readers like this you will not be able to build up the ivory tower detachment other writers maintain. Good writing.

Teflon93 | 3.17.09 @ 6:14PM

Unfortunately a growing majority of American schoolchildren no longer believe in gravity. Since these are the voters of the future, the GOP simply has no choice but to adopt an antigravity platform or become electorally irrelevant.

ruth| 3.17.09 @ 6:16PM

Mr. Lord, excellent writing--as usual. I also appreciate your willingness to interact with us. Thank you.

John II| 3.17.09 @ 6:37PM

Hi Bob. Long time no rant. But allow me a quick response anyhow. You go after "extreme right" creeps like myself partly because of our "inability to understand political dynamics from a statistical perspective." I think "disinclination" might be a better term than "inability." And I would submit (without at all pushing a tu quoque, but rather to show something which I think is, thank God, unavoidable in all political analysis . . . where was I?) I would submit that your own analyses are only tangentially statistical. Your analyses are driven way more by judgment than by mathematical calculation, and not just because of the entertaining insults you direct at extreme right-wing boobs like myself. Here's one example (of many--many of the others even more obvious) from your second-to-last entry: "The problem was that the mortgage originator didn't keep any of the risk."

I think you're spot-on with that observation, although you're citing only a portion of "the problem," and I've noticed the same observation in several other analyses, including those written by evil right-wingers. But your observation is not statistical. It rests on a common sense judgment about human behavior, which in turn implies a moral framework, which is not accessible by numbers.

The judgment, of course, is that people act more prudently when the risks they assume are their own--and prudence is truly a virtue that must be cultivated by anyone who cares for a chance at happiness and for a better world, which all but the wicked and the psychopathic care for. Notice the cascade of assumptions your passing observation rests on--and without which, your mathematical analysis would have no direction and no point.

The very language you must use in service to the communication of your statistics reveals that the numbers and figures are not even mostly the way that you yourself "understand political dynamics."

On the other hand, you're right about my attitude toward "education." I hate education. I particularly despise the scams that are called "schools of education" and the asinine expression "highly educated" in reference to moral ignoramuses. I much prefer learning and the life of the mind rather than education. In fact, some years ago, when one of my brainy kids expressed dismay that he hadn't maxed his SAT exam, scoring a measly 1590 out of 1600, I silenced him instantly with a warning gesture that sent him sprawling. Thus have my right-wing children learned to disdain education and to love learning!

Bill R| 3.17.09 @ 7:11PM

To Bob,

"the people agree with Limbaugh and Lord are NOT "true" conservatives -- they are right wing ideologues. Going to war in Iraq was NOT a conservative value. "

As a libertarian I probably share most of your concerns and I voted against Bush in '04 in opposition to Iraq and his big spending.

This is why I find your embrace of Frum disappointing. Where you not aware of this cultish banishment from the "open minded" and "moderate" Frum:

They began by hating the neoconservatives. They came to hate their party and this president. They have finished by hating their country.

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.
http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp

This was appalling when I first read it a few days after the Iraq war began. It's disgustingly entitled "Unpatriotic Conservatives". He not only tries to banish antiwar conservatives from the movement but from their place in their own country.

Frum is only moderate on everything except foreign intervention. He is, as you put it a "right wing ideologue" but of the "neoconservative" variety. Neocons don't care about social issues at all as long as the foreign policy is inline with the cult dogma. See Brooks, Bill Kristol, etc.

Witness Frum's support of Rudy Guiliani as evidence. An emailer at National Review also makes this great comparison:

David Frum enthusiastically supported Rudy Giuliani for president. How does Rudy match up with Barack Obama’s manifest virtues cited by Frum? Frum praises Obama as “soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry” and notes that he is an “apparently devoted husband and father” who epitomizes the ideal of “responsibility.” Rush Limbaugh is faulted for being “aggressive, bombastic, cutting and sarcastic” and for his “tangled marital history.” Frum has the gall to criticize a radio host for allegedly failing to measure up to Obama having backed for president a thrice-married, angry and aggressive adulterer who also (gasp) smokes cigars?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2M1YjU3MzhjMWM3OGZkZTQ5MmI1YmMwNzEwYmU4M2Q=

I suggest you compare Frum's bile in "Unpatriotic Conservatives" vs Rush Limbaugh's CPAC speech. To this libertarian Rush is scores better. Also take a look at who ran Washington over the Bush years was it the "compassionate conservatism" of the Frums, David Brooks, Bill Kristols, Douthats or the "crude" populism of the Rush Limbaugh's? The growth in size and scope of government under Bush can be answered "statistically" if you like.

For better or worse I'm with the more "populist" and "principled" conservatives at least until 2010. Perhaps you can now see the merit of my (and other libertarians) position.

Robert Rosencrans| 3.17.09 @ 8:07PM

One of the points Rush nailed about Obama is that Obama hates the rich. The Obama White House is using generic data from a French firm which believes all wealth is based on inequality. The first link is a WSJ article which illustrates that banks have given out 1.6 billion to their top executives. If that's so, why the hubbub over 165 million? The attack on the bonuses for AIG is simply a populist feint which is being used to move the argument along that the rich are evil and if they have a lot of money they must have gotten it through dubious as opposed to honest means.

Evidence of Obama's purposeful attack against the rich is clearly illustrated by the second link and a WSJ article which shows how Obama is gaming the information he is using in his budget and the source of that information.

While the Bolsheviks keep the public's attention focused on nonsense, Senator Dodd and other members of the U.S. Congress continue to hold onto their positions, even after evidence of corruption. See the third link.

The fourth link proves that anyone who listens to Obama is a lemming because Obama and the Congressional leadership knew about the AIG bonuses over a year ago. What a bunch of phonies.

http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/12/23/executive-compensation-at-banks/

The 116 banks that are receiving billions in taxpayer-provided bailout money this year actually paid out $1.6 billion in compensation and benefits to their top executives last year – even though the results at some of these institutions were so poor that they would soon have to turn to Washington for a government-engineered rescue.

The $1.6 billion was paid out to nearly 600 executives at the 116 banks that have so far accepted federal money to bolster their financial foundations, The Associated Press concluded after a review of U.S. securities filings. In addition to salary, the compensation included bonuses paid in both cash and stock. The benefits reaped by top executives included the use of company jets for personal purposes, personal chauffeurs, home-security services, country-club memberships and professional-wealth-management services, the news service said.

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., a longtime critic of the fat pay packages given to U.S. executives, said the bonuses and perks tallied by The AP review amounted to a bribe paid “to get [CEOs] to do the jobs for which they are well paid in the first place.”

“Most of us sign on to do jobs and we do them best we can," Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services committee, told the news service. But "we’re told that some of the most highly paid people in executive positions are different. They need extra money to be motivated!"

The AP review is just the latest in a series of media investigations that have questioned the effectiveness of – and banks’ commitment to – the so-called “Troubled Assets Relief Program” (TARP), part of an overall $700 billion bailout plan that was originally unveiled in late September.

The plan was originally conceived to boost the strength of U.S. financial institutions by having the federal government purchase non-performing mortgages and other bad assets. In November, the Bush administration changed TARP’s objectives, instructing the U.S. Treasury Department to pump tax dollars directly into banks in a bid to prevent wholesale economic collapse.

Ideally, TARP was supposed to jumpstart bank-to-bank and bank-to-consumer lending, helping to unfreeze a credit crisis that may be the worst the U.S. economy has experienced since the Great Depression. But that hasn’t happened. Instead, as a Money Morning investigation has shown, banks are using the money to buy other banks in a dual effort to build market share for when the economy recovers, and to perhaps make themselves “too big to fail” in the interim, many experts say.

TARP did set restrictions on some executive compensation for participating banks, but it did not limit salaries and bonuses unless they had the effect of encouraging excessive risk to the institution. Banks were barred from presenting so-called “golden parachute” financial packages to departing or ousted executives and from deducting some executive pay for tax purposes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123681860305802821.html

Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, French economists, are rock stars of the intellectual left. Their specialty is "earnings inequality" and "wealth concentration."

Messrs. Piketty and Saez have produced the most politically potent squiggle along an axis since Arthur Laffer drew his famous curve on a napkin in the mid-1970s. Laffer's was an economic argument for lowering tax rates for everyone. Piketty-Saez is a moral argument for raising taxes on the rich.
Podcast

Listen to Daniel Henninger's Wonder Land column, now available in audio format.

As described in Mr. Obama's budget, these two economists have shown that by the end of 2004, the top 1% of taxpayers "took home" more than 22% of total national income. This trend, Fig. 9 notes, began during the Reagan presidency, skyrocketed through the Clinton years, dipped after George Bush beat Al Gore, then marched upward. Widening its own definition of money-grubbers, the budget says the top 10% of households "held" 70% of total wealth.

Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute criticized the Piketty-Saez study on these pages in October 2007. Whatever its merits, their "Top 1%" chart has become a totemic obsession in progressive policy circles.

Turn to page five of Mr. Obama's federal budget, and one may read these commentaries on the top 1% datum:

"While middle-class families have been playing by the rules, living up to their responsibilities as neighbors and citizens, those at the commanding heights of our economy have not."

"Prudent investments in education, clean energy, health care and infrastructure were sacrificed for huge tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected."

"There's nothing wrong with making money, but there is something wrong when we allow the playing field to be tilted so far in the favor of so few. . . . It's a legacy of irresponsibility, and it is our duty to change it."

Wonder Land Columnist Daniel Henninger on the latest autobiographical work from Barack Obama.

Mr. Obama made clear in the campaign his intention to raise taxes on this income class by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. What is becoming clearer as his presidency unfolds is that something deeper is underway here than merely using higher taxes to fund his policy goals in health, education and energy.

The "top 1%" isn't just going to pay for these policies. Many of them would assent to that. The rancorous language used to describe these taxpayers makes it clear that as a matter of public policy they will be made to "pay for" the fact of their wealth -- no matter how many of them worked honestly and honorably to produce it. No Democratic president in 60 years has been this explicit.

Complaints have emerged recently, on the right and left, that the $787 billion stimulus bill will produce less growth and jobs than planned because too much of it goes to social programs and transfer payments, or "weak" Keynesian stimulus. The administration's Romer-Bernstein study on the stimulus estimated by the end of next year it would increase jobs by 3.6 million and GDP by 3.7%.

One of the first technical examinations of the Romer-Bernstein projections has been released by Hoover Institution economists John Cogan and John Taylor, and German economists Tobias Cwik and Volker Wieland. They conclude that the growth and jobs stimulus will be only one-sixth what the administration predicts. In part, this is because people anticipate that the spending burst will have to be financed by higher taxes and so will spend less than anticipated.

New York's Mike Bloomberg, mayor of an economically damaged city, has noted the pointlessness of raising taxes on the rich when their wealth is plummeting, or of eliminating the charitable deduction for people who have less to give anyway.

True but irrelevant. Mayor Bloomberg should read the Obama budget chapter, "Inheriting a Legacy of Misplaced Priorities." The economy as most people understand it was a second-order concern of the stimulus strategy. The primary goal is a massive re-flowing of "wealth" from the top toward the bottom, to stop the moral failure they see in the budget's "Top One Percent of Earners" chart.

The White House says its goal is simple "fairness." That may be, as they understand fairness. But Figure 9 makes it clear that for the top earners, there will be blood. This presidency is going to be an act of retribution. In the words of the third book from Mr. Obama, "it is our duty to change it."

Write to henninger@wsj.com

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123681364667801647.html
Now enterprising Hartford Courant columnist Kevin Rennie has uncovered another suspicious real-estate investment. The story starts in 1994, when the Senator became one-third owner of a 10-acre estate, then valued at $160,000, on the island of Inishnee on Galway Bay. The property is near the fashionable village of Roundstone, a well-known celebrity haunt. William Kessinger bought the other two-thirds share in the estate. Edward Downe, Jr., who has been a business partner of Mr. Kessinger, signed the deed as a witness. Senator Dodd and Mr. Downe are long-time friends, and in 1986 they had purchased a condominium together in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Downe is also quite the character. The year before the Galway deal, in 1993, he pleaded guilty to insider trading and securities fraud and in 1994 agreed to pay the SEC $11 million in a civil settlement. The crimes were felonies and in 2001, as President Clinton was getting ready to leave office, Mr. Dodd successfully lobbied the White House for a full pardon for Mr. Downe.

The next year -- according to a transfer document at the Irish land registry viewed by Mr. Rennie -- Mr. Kessinger sold his two-thirds share to Mr. Dodd for $122,351. The Senator says he actually paid Mr. Kessinger $127,000, which he claims was based on an appraisal at the time. That means, at best, poor Mr. Kessinger earned less than 19% over eight years on the sale of his two-thirds share to Mr. Dodd. But according to Ireland's Central Bank, prices of existing homes in Ireland quadrupled from 1994 to 2004.

Perhaps Mr. Kessinger is a lousy businessman. Or maybe he merely relied on Mr. Dodd to tell him how much the property was worth. In his Senate financial disclosure documents from 2002-2007, Mr. Dodd reported that the Galway home was worth between $100,001 and $250,000. However, Mr. Rennie reports that in 2006 and 2007 the Senator added a footnote that reads: "value based on appraisal at time of purchase."

Mr. Dodd had good reason to add the qualifier. Senate rules call for valuations to be current and anyone who looked into the estimate would immediately spot Mr. Dodd's lowballing. A June 17, 2007 feature in Britain's Sunday Times did just that. "Diary" observed that in Roundstone "a two-bed recently made E680,000 ($918,000) and a cottage is currently on offer for E800,000." Noting Mr. Dodd's estimate of his property -- between E75,000 and E185,000 -- the diarist quipped, "to hell with the stamp duty, and form an orderly queue."

Mr. Dodd is busy these days blaming everyone else for the real-estate bubble ......

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_11928145?nclick_check=1
AIG disclosed its retention-payment program more than a year ago, and the amount of the bonuses had been widely reported. But as the payments were coming due in recent days, the White House began to express its indignation.

Monday, White House aides grasped for actions that could soothe sentiment on Main Street and in the halls of Congress, where the fate of the new president's sweeping agendas on health care, climate change and education will be decided. They suggested that the government will use its latest pledged installment of $30 billion for the ailing company to recover the millions in bonuses paid Friday.

But the damage control did not seem to satisfy incredulous lawmakers in both parties, who said the image of financial executives taking huge bonuses from a taxpayer-funded rescue puts the president in a politically

Teflon93 | 3.17.09 @ 8:46PM

Very thorough post, Robert!

At the risk of piling on still more, this e-mail to Ramesh Ponnuru from The Corner is right on:

"If 29% of assets are mark-to-market today (after markdowns), what proportion were they a year ago when this problem was rearing its head? With prices of many mortgage securites—RMBS, CMBS & CDOs priced south of 50—due to distressed liquidations at fire-sale prices—the year-earlier proportion could have been roughly twice as large. No bank has sufficient capital for an asset category to take a 50% hit.

Triple-A mortgage securities only required a 1.2% capital charge (reserve), so even a small price move would be distorting (and devastating) to the capital position.

The distressed selling causes lower asset marks, requiring banks to raise capital, raise liquidity, forcing more selling, while investors sit and wait for even lower prices because they know the banks have to sell. It's a game of musical chairs and hot potato.

Markets are frozen because no bank wants lower asset marks—it's in none of the banks' interests to cause another round of vicious mark-downs. I think its Reilly who's confused about frozen markets and the concept of mark-to-market.

And he gave away his confusion/ignorance by comparing the accounting for loans and securities—as if there's some mystical "market price" for loans that is detached from the accounting treatment. Which is precisely the point, i.e. if the cash flow from the investment is performing, why write-down its value as a charge-off against capital? If it is performing sub-optimally, write it down accordingly. This is not done based on a subjective judgment, but objectively based on cash-flow performance."

That's precisely the problem. Contrary to Bob's claim that the originator was left holding none of the risk, the trouble is that these "toxic assets" bounced around as banks went under and were acquired by other banks. Originators got stuck with whatever Fannie and Freddie didn't buy, or whatever happened to be on the books of other originators acquired.

What froze the credit markets up was the need to allocate reserves for these assets. The frightening thing is that >95% of them continued to pay on time; we're talking a mere 5% of these loans which triggered these reserves and soaked up cash on hand like a sponge.

Once again, the dual cause is easy to spot:

1. The federal government thru CRA enforcement threatened banks to make more loans to people whose FICO scores did not warrant it;

2. The federal government simultaneously changed to a more stringent rule called "mark-to-market" which required greater reserves for these loans as payments were missed.

So what happened when a higher default payment rate was realized on these loans to people who couldn't pay them back? Credit dried up.

That's how the system the government put in place was intended to operate. That's how it did operate.

And now with trillions of dollars of wealth lost, the federal government is rebuilding the same system.

James| 3.17.09 @ 9:01PM

I am 26 and have an associate's degree from Harrisburg Area Community College, I stay home with my children(for the time being) and it seems I have more wisdom(with the help of Limbaugh and others like him, but mostly on my own) than our friend Bob does.

Bob, seriously, get off this site. It'll do you some good.

ruth| 3.17.09 @ 9:07PM

Even the youngsters diss Bob. I guess there's no fool like an old fool, Mr. Fortune 100.

Jeremiah| 3.17.09 @ 9:16PM

Robert Rosencranz --

What's wrong with hating the rich?

Ask me, we should dust off the guillotine. 1789 was a great year for the French, and it could do wonders to help our business and political leaders reprioritize if we lopped of a few heads.

There'll never be a shortage of greedy men. A few lost here and there to righteous class war never hurt anything.

Cthud! Just like preparing asparagus.

John II| 3.17.09 @ 9:42PM

Yo Jeremiah. I'd already figured you for a Jacobin, but thanks for the confirmation. I get to be right about SOMETHING on this site.

But your date is a little off. The Reign of Terror, your favorite part, took place between 1793 and 1794. Cthud, cthud, cthud . . . I mean, DAMN.

So after you'd eliminated all the greedy ones, what about the envious ones?

Or the mendacious ones?

Or the murderous ones?

Or the crooked ones?

Or . . . until you've "hacked and hatcheted and cleft, until no one but YOU is left" . . . then what?

Jim| 3.17.09 @ 9:49PM

Please note that Bob only shows up to attack consevative individuals, he debates nothing and never offers criticism of the left. He is a paid soros hack.

ruth| 3.17.09 @ 9:56PM

Jeremiah, there are an awful lot of rich liberals, including many Congressional liberals: Can we start with them first? Hollyweird next? I can hear the 'thuds' already.

Nick| 3.17.09 @ 10:31PM

Ruth,

Your posts are dangerous!

Lucky for me I had just stopped eating some Fritos, when I came across your earlier post about felling sympathy for Bob. If I had had a mouthful of chips, I would have needed the Heimlich maneuver!

Robert Rosencrans| 3.17.09 @ 10:33PM

Jeremiah: I never said it was wrong to hate the rich. I only noted that Obama does. That simply clarifies the point that he's a two bit phony because Obama denies that he hates the rich.

On a logical basis the rich are achievers, so if you wanted to mass murder them as you propose that would leave the rest of humanity to fend for themselves which is impossible. They are not achievers and never will be for the most part.

No, the real logic would be to get of the two bit phonies if you really wanted to improve society.

Robert Rosencrans| 3.17.09 @ 10:58PM

I need to clarify that last remark that it would be logical to get rid of the two bit phonies to improve society.

It's not clear whether Barack is a two bit phony or his teleprompter is a two bit phony. If it turns out that it's simply his teleprompter that is guiding Obama in his unbridled hate for the rich, then the teleprompter can be simply unplugged.

ruth| 3.17.09 @ 11:07PM

It's true, Nick; Bob and I became best friends forever (bff) last year when he started viciously attacking Sarah Palin. We had more than a few scraps over his mean words. Yup, Bobby and I are best buds; just ask him. LOL. Watch out for those Fritos--they're addictive!

MT| 3.17.09 @ 11:12PM

Obama is an incompetent moron who uses his teleprompter to tuck his daughters in at night. Say goodnight, daddy. Ha ha!

MT| 3.17.09 @ 11:33PM

Hey, Dave, you still dumping the raw sewage from your tour bus into clean waterways? Nice liberal--always the mouth foaming hypocrite. Your Obumbler's favorables are tanking, knee-pad boy: The American people trust his teleprompter more than they do him. Sorry.

Deborah | 3.17.09 @ 11:36PM

Jeez -- After brilliant comments by David Mathews I was reminded of the old elementary school taunt...I am rubber, you are glue...everything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.

That's how silly you sound.

MT| 3.17.09 @ 11:40PM

Well, Dave can keep his raw sewage, I don't want that to stick to me. The boy's a stinker!

Basil Plumley| 3.17.09 @ 11:55PM

Hmmm, it looks like someone needs a cracker. Unless, you are Bob, answer the darn question.

It seems like I missed a good time. That was a good article Mr. Lord. Frum is an opportunist who wants to be loved not respected. I thoroughly enjoyed the cult analogy.
One reason there is an insignificant GOP in MA is that there was very little difference between an Ed Brooke or Eliot Richardson and Teddy Kennedy or John Kerry. Should a Conservative like Ray Shamie win the nomination, the Cabot and Lodge blue blood, country club GOP endorse the Dems come October.
Yet, Ronald Reagan carried the State in 1980 and 1984.

Perhaps, Frum, as well as Bob and Jeremiah should learn their history before they extol the virtues of being a RINO. Frum's New Majority is and will be neither.

Hey Ruth, good fastball eh?

ruth| 3.18.09 @ 12:02AM

Damn good. ;)

Basil Plumley| 3.18.09 @ 12:13AM

No wonder Bob has a problem standing in the box against you.
Since you are a lady, I can only imagine his frustration. When Sarah gets elected in 2012, maybe Bob will move out of the country. The only problem is who will take him. (privately rooting for Zimbabwe but Bolivia has first choice)

ruth| 3.18.09 @ 1:48AM

That's what made me so mad in the first place: Sarah Palin is a lady, and I thought his attacks on her were just low-down bad form. An Ivy League boy should know better, don't ya think? I believe Venezuela would be a good choice for Bobbo. Hugo Chavez wears a snappy uniform--and has all that knowledge, you know. Sarah in 2012--that would be so cool.

Robert Rosencrans| 3.18.09 @ 6:10AM

Well. It appears my statement is under attack by member(s) of the Barack Obama teleprompter cult. What a thrill!

Teflon93 | 3.18.09 @ 7:48AM

Silly me---I thought it was a sign of incompetence when in the midst of an economic crisis the market goes down every time you open your mouth, as it does when Obama opens his.

Or when you can't get key cabinet positions filled despite controlling the Senate with a near-filibuster-proof majority because you didn't bother to vet candidates for little things like refusing to pay their taxes.

Or when you snub our closest allies in the middle of a long war by sending back the bust of their greatest statesman as though it were dirty socks, refusing to throw a state dinner for their prime minister, and giving him the glorious gift of bargain bin DVDs your crazy Aunt Helen wouldn't accept.

But "hopeychange" says the teleprompter so "hopeychange" it shall have to be.

stmichrick| 3.18.09 @ 10:04AM

LEFTIST IRONIES ABOUND...

...such as the dismissive 'drug-addled' references to Rush. Isn't it heartwarming to hear liberals condemn celebrities who've abused drugs? Unthinkable since the seventies.

Reminds me of when they expressed shock that someone would 'out' a CIA operative named Plame. Guess they've re-thought the legacy of Philip Agee.

Maybe there's hope.

Teflon93 | 3.18.09 @ 10:38AM

It's especially ironic given they have no problem with Obama's past hard drug use.

Starry Night| 3.18.09 @ 12:52PM

Imagine if we had a chain-smoking cokehead in the White House. Do you think the NYSlimes would do an in-depth investigation or just look the other way--like now? I'm sure they'd give a Conservative the benefit of the doubt. Snark.

Dai Alanye | 3.18.09 @ 1:19PM

Re Frum, I've always thought his basic problem to be the fact that, like Obama, he thinks himself the most intelligent man in whatever room he happens to saunter into.

Re a certain poster on this thread, the Bobster equates education with successfully attending an educational establishment. Soon Bob might well astound us by claiming Socrates to be uneducated, lacking--as he did--any degree whatsoever from Harvard.

Robert Rosencrans| 3.18.09 @ 2:02PM

When I think of someone smart, I, like many others would probably think of Albert Einstein. Regarded as substandard as a child, Albert Einstein was educated at Munich, Aarau and Zurich. Albert Einstein then got a job as a patent clerk in Switzerland. After receiving his PHD, he worked at several universities, including Princeton. He never worked for a Fortune 500 company, nor did he start a company. Yet, he is respected for his intelligence the world over. Under the guidelines expressed here, he wouldn't deserve an opinion.

Starry Night| 3.18.09 @ 2:21PM

I want to know the Einstein who first asserted that Obama is brilliant. Bull puckey! It's obvious the guy is a moron with a 'brilliant' teleprompter.

Robert Rosencrans| 3.18.09 @ 3:25PM

It's very important to have a smart teleprompter while you appear to multitask. Of course, you haven't a clue as to what you are doing, but your teleprompter can cover for, being programmed to make you sound smart as opposed to your real self. Never underestimate the power of a teleprompter.

Jeremiah| 3.18.09 @ 4:03PM

OK, folks. I don't like to do this, and it's going to hurt me more than it hurts you.

However, my hand is forced.

You are NOT to use the teleprompter as a prop for anymore jokes about Obama. It is now so stale and overused that merely using it in this message of formal banishment diminishes my self-esteem.

You are to desists forthwith. If Obama is as stupid and evil as you all claim, there should be plenty of other things to make cracks about. The teleprompter is now officially DEAD. Any further use will be proof of the offenders complete lack of wit and total subservience to the creativity of others.

This is I, Jeremiah, unrepentant tax and spend liberal. I'm doing this for your own good. If you can't control yourselves, eventually someone will step in to do it for you.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.18.09 @ 4:14PM

Jeremiah: You sound like you're using a teleprompter.

Jeremiah| 3.18.09 @ 4:15PM

One last thing. Take from a leftist who has just endured 8 years of W.

Sooner or later, you're going to have to decide whether Obama is in fact stupid or evil. For years, people on the left maintained in increasingly shrill and moronic complaints that Bush was both.

Rhetorically and logically, you cannot have both.

You must choose. Either Obama is a vicious and evil Nazi, or he is stupid and incompetent.

In my opinion, people that attempt to maintain that Obama is evil are clearly less than gifted commentators. Claims that Obama is a "nazi" are so obviously foolish that it's not worth responding to them, but even claims that he has a sinister motivation are pretty dubious.

I'd go with incompetent and stupid. Not because I believe he's either, but rather because I think you at least stand a chance of sounding less than crazy.

Still -- no more teleprompter jokes. At a serious crossroads like the one facing our country, we require much more creative and witty satire.

Remember, your country is depending upon YOU. Don't be lame! Don't be shallow!

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.18.09 @ 4:42PM

It isn't shallow to point out the truth. Teleprompter is as teleprompter does.

Basil Plumley| 3.18.09 @ 4:49PM

Ah, the same Jeremiah who romanticizes over the French Revolution and its Reign of Terror. That would make you both stupid and evil. Disprove it, if you can.

After 8 years of folks like you talking down this country and the President, why the Hell would we even consider any idea of yours worthwhile. You have been preaching in a demogogic manner that your side maintained the best and the brightest folks and you would do it smarter than the "current regime".
In return, you give us bad policy and a leader behooven to a teleprompter because without it, he would bowl a 37.

Now, you have the chutzpah to tell us what to say and think. I would say that is rich but you may have to pay a higher tax on that commodity with this administration.

Then again, I didn't thank myself for throwing a great St. Patrick's Day party. Good grief, Jeremiah.

Jeremiah| 3.18.09 @ 5:14PM

Basil --

I guess I would point out that after W's rather uneven performance as an orator -- indeed, he was the least articulate president to hold the office in modern times -- imagining that you can get away with critiquing Obama's public speaking is a little fanciful.

If I'm evil and stupid, I don't suppose I'll readily admit it.

You didn't seem to notice that I myself admitted certain kinds of criticisms of Bush were foolish; then again, there were many that were well deserved and thoughtful. I don't suppose you're capable of seeing a difference at all, since absolute deferance to the Man is the reactionary's only comfort.

ruth| 3.18.09 @ 6:01PM

Go ahead and admit it, Jeremiah! You know you want to: It'll be good for your snotty little soul.

ruth| 3.18.09 @ 6:05PM

I think Obama is a vicious incompetent, or maybe he's incompetently vicious. Only his Teleprompter knows for sure.

ruth| 3.18.09 @ 6:14PM

Hey, Jeremiah--are you our 'minder'? You know, like that Bagdad Bob guy in Iraq? Remember him? You BS and obfuscate like him; also, he worked for Saddam Hussein--you work for Barack Hussein! I see numerous similarities here. Don't you?

Teflon93 | 3.18.09 @ 6:26PM

There is no rule of nature that one cannot be both stupid and evil.

Please enter Exhibit A--- Congresswoman Maxine Walters---into evidence.

Please enter Exhibit B---Kim Jong-Il into evidence.

Please enter Exhibit C---Anna Nicole Smith into evidence.

I could go on but Barack Obama's Teleprompter needs me to conserve energy until the wind picks up again.

Jeremiah| 3.18.09 @ 6:32PM

Teflon -

Indeed it is true: one could be stupid and evil.

My point is that you put quite a rhetorical burden on yourself to try to make the case that the majority of the American people favor someone that is BOTH stupid and evil.

But go ahead and try if you wish. If you want to compare Obama to Kim Jong Ill, good fortune to you. It may play well on these absurd fringes of the internet, but I doubt most people would take it seriously.

Jeremiah| 3.18.09 @ 6:35PM

Ruth --

I'm no "minder" of anyone. Just trying to be helpful.

I have superior literary taste, as of a matter of fact, and know a worn-out gag when I see one.

As I say, if Obama is as vicious and incompetent as you people claim, you should be able to do better than endlessly rehearse the same mantra.

Just so you know, I have issued similar pronouncements elsewhere, and among other dictates have informed the president that he is never to use the words "change" and "hope" in the same sentence again. We'll see how compliant he is.

ruth| 3.18.09 @ 6:45PM

Jeremiah, you screwed up by scolding us about our Obama/Teleprompter jokes. You should have known that your warning was like waving a red flag in a bull's face. Now, I feel like it's my sacred duty to come up with some real snarky ObamaPrompter witticisms; some real knee-slappers. Thanks, Jeremiah!

ruth| 3.18.09 @ 6:50PM

Jeremiah, your gig here is a worn out gag. Why do you hang around the 'fringes' of the internet so much? I know I didn't invite you, I'm sure RET didn't--so what gives with you?

Teflon93 | 3.18.09 @ 7:20PM

Jeremiah-

We're not making the case that a majority of Americans favor someone stupid and evil---they'd have to know enough about their character to make such a determination.

Since the Left Wing Media worshipped at Obama's feet throughout the 2008 campaign--just ask Hillary Clinton---the majority of Americans simply didn't know enough about him on election night to make such a determination.

His cratering approval rating---already worse than Jimmy Carter's at the same point in that failed presidency---is an indication that Americans are finding plenty not to like about him.

His coldblooded stance on the Born Alive Infants Protection Act reveals his true character quite clearly.

I'll predict right here and now that before his term is up, you too will be rooting for his defeat on Election Night 2012.

He's that bad.

And this is only the beginning.

ruth| 3.18.09 @ 7:41PM

I don't know Teflon93, Jeremiah is a true believer. I think he's part of David Axelrod's 'Astro-turf' strategy to destabilize political opponents. They did this to Hillary in the Demo Primary. I think the boy's a paid Obama operative; that's why I play around with him and rarely engage him in serious debate. Ridicule is my game.

ruth| 3.18.09 @ 7:42PM

C'mon, Jeremiah: I just called you out. What are you REALLY doing here?

ruth| 3.18.09 @ 9:33PM

From Rush's show today: TOTUS--Teleprompter Of The United States. I'm sorry, I just had to.

Jeremiah| 3.18.09 @ 9:50PM

Ruth --

Hard as it may be for you and your friends to believe, I read Am. Spec. for the same reason I read the Weekly Standard and for the same reason I listen to Limbaugh -- or read Brooks or Frum for that matter.

I'm genuinely interested in conservative ideas and opinions.

It's a trait I share with millions of others, people who can believe one thing while being interested and respectful of opposing views.

Now, when I'm hear I like to do a little fencing here and there, as well. But I generally just like to read the articles and comments. Most of my remarks are geared toward issues of rhetoric, because I believe passionately that our country would be better off with a more refined -- yes, actually, a more elitist -- culture of political discourse. I've never tried to get a conservative person to abandon conservatism, really.

Son Of Sam | 3.18.09 @ 9:58PM

Debating with a liberal is like trying to play volleyball with a goldfish:
they don't get it
they can't do it
it's a waste of your time

My good friends, loyal Americans all, don't waste your time with these fools. Think who they are: an idiot who thinks that guillotines only decapitate the rich (and could never be turned on the likes of him) , a hate-filled ranter peddling the tired old line that "conservatives are stupid" --whoo! wicked original-- and a fossilized ex-rock star who thinks he can recapture his glory days by coming here and talking trash.

My friends, their time is over; they're just to dumb to realize it. WE need to keep our eyes open, get organized, and start acting to defend America from the ObamaNazis and their Kool Aid chugging zombie slaves.

until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.geocities.com/samadamssos/

Basil Plumley| 3.18.09 @ 9:59PM

Jeremiah

If only you on the Left were only complaining about W's inartfulness with the English language, I would not have a problem with you and your ilk.
However, it was everything Bush did that you criticized, even to the detriment to the troops in the field.
Bushitler-Hail to the Thief-Bush Lied, People Died-No Blood For Oil ...... do these ring a Pavlov bell with you?

Why don't you just stoop to the level that any and all criticism of Obama is racism? Cue Interloper .............

For the sake of creativity and witty satire why don't you, Bob, Interloper, Jharp, and your fellow travelers follow the Yellow Brick Road. You are all in dire need of a Brain, Heart, and Courage.

Say hello to the man behind the curtain from all of us.

Hey Ruth---TOTUS? That is hilarious!!!

I will beat that Team Obama is regretting picking a fight with the guy behind the golden microphone.

ruth| 3.18.09 @ 10:13PM

Jeremiah, really--did you see the hideously contorted screaming liberal faces that I saw at rallies, marches and protests over the last 8 years? Did you study these people, as I did, wondering why they wanted our country to die? How about BusHitler, or my personal fave: the little liberal pervert wearing a t-shirt with a disgusting, obscene name for Sarah Palin? And you have the nerve to lecture me on 'refined political discourse'? How dare you. It's gone too far, Jeremiah--little miss nice ruthie doesn't exist anymore (at least in the political discourse arena). I had to kill her to survive in your liberal brave new world. You guys created this nightmare--I'm just trying to live in it. Sorry, all's fair in love and war. This is war.

Jeremiah| 3.18.09 @ 10:18PM

"This is war"

Ruth, that's really silly. You need to get some perspective.

ruth| 3.18.09 @ 10:30PM

My daddy always told me that only a fool brings a knife to a gun fight: Well, the Stupid Party has been doing exactly that for too long. We've got to change and become tougher, before you morons totally destroy our country. That's perspective.

ruth| 3.18.09 @ 10:36PM

Jeremiah, why don't you EVER address my comments regarding lousy liberal behavior? You defended Harry Reid for saying the Iraq War was lost--when we had boots on the ground. You defend Nazi Pelosi (mother of five) who champions partial birth abortion. Is there a liberal low that is so low that even you won't defend it? I'm curious about you--you are an interesting creature. You'd be a good psychological test subject.

Nick| 3.19.09 @ 12:06AM

This is perfect!

Wesley Crusher, I mean Rachel Madcow asked disgruntled staffers to "rat-out" the "conserva-dems" in the senate who won't support B.O.'s agenda. She seems to be shocked that 15 democrat senators are daring to say no to the TOTUS.

If the RNC & NRSC had any brains, they would target heavily all these dems from red states instead of trying to help RINO's like they did Linc Chafee in the past. Idiots. Ditto for the NRCC.

But it will be oh so enjoyable to watch the moonbats go after Bayh and others, won't it?

Sweet Thing| 3.19.09 @ 12:20AM

Rachel Madcow--LOL!!

Guy| 3.19.09 @ 2:04AM

Wow!
It really doesn't seem all that complex from the advantage of hindsight. It might have started with the phrase "compassionate conservatism", as if conservatism itself, in principle, saddled with a compassion deficit. Equality of opportunity is pretty compassionate in my book.

But then we discovered that Mr. Bush and, apparently, Mr. Frum we were not really very conservative at all. Certainly not in any way that Buckley or Reagan would have recognized. There was the odd matter of the war that caused us a painful gulp when we pulled the lever for Bush yet again in 2004. It's not like we had options. The Republicans then nominate yet another non-conservative candidate in J-Mac, twenty years after the last conservative president left Washington. But I don't think J-Mac got waxed because the electorate thought he was conservative. The electorate knew better than that, they had the evidence to go on after all.

Now comes Mr. Frum to tell us we need more of the same. He's like a Krugman op-ed on deficit spending; we're always just a bit short for it to be really effective. We need to reach out; to open the big tent. People go under the tent to get out of the rain and, when it's raining hard enough, they don't much care who their tent mates are. begging them to come in only makes one a carnival barker. Sales are slow, too.

Given the choice between a Democrat and a Republican acting like a Democrat, the people will choose the Democrat every time. And if it's raining hard enough, people will run for the tent. It's getting set to pour, from where I'm sitting. But we can screw it up even then by following the advise of Frum, et al. There's nothing wrong with the message; it's just not popular. What does popularity have to with principle, and principle executed properly; competence? I'd rather live the next twenty years in governing purgatory than dilute the principle of conservatism. I doubt I'll have to do so as it looks like rain, but I'd be sore disappointed to achieve success only to have it resemble the bait and switch that Republicanism has been these last eight years.

Modify conservatism? Why? We haven't even turned that engine over in the last sixteen years. Frum wants to chrome up a dead engine. Instead, let's get out the Marvel mystery oil, squirt some down those rusty cylinders, and see if we can raise some compression. We've got an empty tent for the mechanics to work under; we'll pick up the passengers on the way when we roar out from under.

Sue| 3.19.09 @ 6:05AM

Bob really does have a chip on his shoulder. I also worked my way through college, without any government help,graduating seven months pregnant with my second child, a two year old, keeping a full time job, blah, blah, blah. I attained higher education through professional licensing, maintained a marriage, career, and family and always did right by my employer, family, and government. I paid my taxes on time, no cheating, and took pride that I lived in the best Country in the world. I have listened to Mr. Limbaugh for 19 years. Not only does he live by principle, he educates, according to Bob, "the ignorant classes." A Harvard graduate gripping about "anyone" educating the "ignorant classes.?" That's telling.

As far as the three failed marriages, I believe Mr. Limbaugh couldn't find a decent "conservative" woman to match his principles. I would find it very difficult to live with a "liberal" male or female, who believes that abortion is a "God given right," guns are evil, and the answer to all our problems lies with the "government." Once a person is married, the true "colors" of ones belief system is exposed, and the real "dancing" begins.

As far as the "drug" use, I believe there is a great deal of difference in "recreational" abuse of drugs, and "medical" abuse of drugs to eliminate excruciating body pain. At no time was Limbaugh ever accused of "recreational" drug use. Anyone with severe pain, will do anything to alleviate it so he can continue participating in the environment in which he lives. All in all, defending Mr. Limbaugh is not needed by me, Bob. Mr Limbaugh can defind himself quite adequately. What Mr. Bob needs is a good dose of reality. Just because you graduated from an "elite" school, does not license you to spread your insane "belief" system of non-principled living. Finally, Mr. Bob needs to get the chip off his shoulder and just listen to Mr. Limbaugh. He has a lot more in common with him than he thinks. And as far as the money goes, if anything, his Harvard "elite" school degree should have taught him that envy is evil. I'm happy that Rush makes $400 mill. a year and I really don't care. Live your life as you want, not envious of others, but caring for others in your own way. That is true fullfillment. I don't have a fancy house, fancy car, jet airplane, but what I do have is mine and mine alone. Not the government's. That's standing on and living by principles and a deep love of this Country.

Mr. Bob would have been more successful if he HADN'T gone to Harvard! He could have been a "Limbaugh." Throw off the shackles of your "elite" degree and help all of us make this Country better by living by "principle" not "emotion."

Trackback| 3.19.09 @ 4:36PM

The American Spectator : Mr. Frum's Cult, on article, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Bookmarked your post over at Blog Bookmarker.com!

stmichrick| 3.19.09 @ 11:16PM

Teflon:
I'd like to continue with the stupid and evil thread:
Exhibit D Nancy Pelosi
Exhibit E Keith Olberbyte
Exhibit F David Mathews (on the global warming
threads)
Exhibit G Robert Gibbs
Exhibit H John Murtha

....please continue

Daphne| 3.19.09 @ 11:45PM

I've noticed that Nasty Pelosi has had her lips plumped. What an awful vain old woman. Putrid.

Tracy Swann| 3.25.09 @ 1:56PM

A fascinating and provoking article, though I'm quite late to the discussion.

In my view, Limbaugh is the anti Frum, however his cult dines at Denny's, Frum's at a eatery no one outside of DC would recognize the name of.

Daphne| 3.26.09 @ 9:39PM

I love Rush and no way would I eat that crap at Denny's. Sorry--it just tastes nasty.

jialoo| 12.16.11 @ 8:51AM

Your post is short by taking the value of information and straight to the point. It has been a delight to go through. Thanks www.itunes.com/download. itunes.com is needed in order to sync your device, and also to download or sync applications or music from the App Store.

burning fat loss | 5.7.12 @ 3:20AM

Bless you for making the effort to explain the terminlogy for the inexperienced persons!also I have a blog about fat loss and burning fat, hope that we can exchange.

Latest Headlines

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|3 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|7 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|3 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|3 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|3 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|2 comments

Catholic Culture In America

G. Tracy Mehan, III|1 comment

The Spectacle Blog

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 5.22.13

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5.22.13

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?