The American Spectator

bela (B)Pelosi| 4.29.09 @ 4:35PM

More poop from David Frum's superrumpsious web site?

This is a clear case of addition by subtraction.

BD57| 4.29.09 @ 5:49PM

Yet another article from the self-styled 'smart people' telling the 'stupid voters' to get with the program .....

"New Majority" tells us we should ditch the social conservatives and rally around .... what?

"Specter calls himself a Republican and that's good enough for us"?

Specter loses the confidence of Pennsylvania Republicans - - - and Frum's bunch wants to fire the Pennsylvania Republicans.

Ran| 4.29.09 @ 6:27PM

Mr. Antle,
"Predictable and"... "disappointing"? I can't tell whether the cause of such a statement is due to immaturity or simple intellectual sloppiness. It's not merely a quibble with one part of a statement.

It's the sort of nonsense that drove me to quit reading Frum back in '04. Look at his latest invention: The very notion of "building a conservatism [a new, "moderate" conservatism?] that can win again." Win? Again? It was "compassionate conservatism" that damaged the brand and lead us down to the present crises.

It was committed, full-blooded conservatism that won the day when Reagan stepped-up. Complexity is one thing, contradiction and inconsistency quite other things; Reagan new this. So to your question, I can't figure out just who the "New Majority" crew are hoping to reach amongst critical thinking Conservatives.

Dan| 4.29.09 @ 6:27PM

Perhaps the line was intended to capture the attention of those that are "San Francisco Democrats," what with their fixation on "rumps."

thirteen28| 4.29.09 @ 6:52PM

The piece as a whole is stupid because of the inherent contradiction therein. The author begins by whining about Jim DeMint and the general failure to back Alren Specter ... and then offers a laundry list of reasons as to precisely why Republicans (DeMint included) were right to not back Specter.

Ran| 4.29.09 @ 8:19PM

If I may unscientifically use numbers todrive home a point... Frum's "Conservatism" that Can Win "Again" has sold 25 kilo-copies. Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny is in, what, 18th printing, fifth week at the top and roughly a million shipped? Meet the New Majority, Same as... you get the point.

Basil Plumley| 4.30.09 @ 12:30AM

Ran| 4.29.09 @ 8:19PM
If I may unscientifically use numbers todrive home a point... Frum's "Conservatism" that Can Win "Again" has sold 25 kilo-copies. Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny is in, what, 18th printing, fifth week at the top and roughly a million shipped? Meet the New Majority, Same as... you get the point.

Somewhere in the bowels of Media Matters, Bob is thinking of a cogent response to your post. Maybe Bob could write a best selling book titled, Great Moderates In American Politics.
Speaking of bowels, where is TP?
Jeremiah/TP should be posting a pithy diatribe.

Good post as usual, Ran!

Ran| 4.30.09 @ 7:26AM

Basil, old man, thanks once again for the biblio. I'll get to the local lieberry on Sunday.

About lies... yeah, Bob. Child protegé, war hero, intellectual titan, captain of industry... for such a polymath he can't even come up with a convincing fib. Poor sod. I love that title:
Great Moderates In American Politics - Bob

Yeah, well, at least it will be brief.

Bob| 4.30.09 @ 8:12AM

Ran/Basil, thank you for the reference. I see that I control your behavior even when I don't post.... Again, Ran, if you think I am lying about anything, you can have someone at AmSpec check my references. But you won't because you don't have the integrity to do so.

Basil Plumley| 4.30.09 @ 11:56AM

Actually Bob, the integrity is is incumbent on you to prove your "bona fides". After all, repeating a lie does not make it the truth. Perhaps, a little more humility from you would go a long way to convincing the skeptics.

@ Ran
About the book you read on the subject ......
It is a decent book that explores one side of the founding of this nation. There was certainly a very strong "Enlightenment" influence among certain Founding Fathers (notably Jefferson and Franklin) but it does not adequately explore the Christian foundations of this nation.
I tend to be of the opinion that the reason the Founding Fathers did not codify Christianity in the Constitution is they assumed that America would never forsake Christian principles.
As much as Jefferson's Danbury Letter gets much mention by the Left to prove separation of Church and State, I believe Washington's letter to the Touro Synagogue in Newport RI was more important to show tolerance.
History has given John Adams a status of a gadfly and a pest. He was actually quite amazing. His works gives us an idea of the reasons the Revolution flourished. Adams insight as to the pros and cons of a Revolution should be harkened in this day and age.
Another unsung great thinker of the time was Fisher Ames. His insights were spot on concerning the potential problems of the French Revolution when others were pooh-poohing the Reign of Terror.

Like I said, the History of that time is fascinating. It's too bad that for most folks, History begins the day they were born.

Bob| 4.30.09 @ 12:14PM

Then, Basil, why do you continue to lie? Repeating lies about me does not make it the truth, you know. You are certainly a coward in this respect. Live with it. You and Ran have no integrity -- we all know that.

Ran| 4.30.09 @ 12:20PM

Basil, thanks!
Perhaps one additional reason the Founding Fathers were relatively neutral on religion was that the Jewish community - in particular Hayyim Solomon [?] of the Shearith Israel Congregation - had risked everything to support and finance the Revolutionary War. I think you're absolutely right - America had deep Christian values assumed immutable by the Founding Fathers. That these values were shared by the Jewish community perhaps lent Washington and the Founders the realization that what they had accomplished was potentially universal.

Thanks for the comment - more to add to the homework! [Does it ever end?]

Basil Plumley| 4.30.09 @ 12:21PM

Hey Bob-
About lies... yeah, Bob. Child protegé, war hero, intellectual titan, captain of industry... for such a polymath he can't even come up with a convincing fib.

Don't change the subject, I am not the one with the Walter Mitty experience. And somehow I am a liar?
Like I have said before; keep posting Bob, we need the humor.

Bob| 4.30.09 @ 12:32PM

...and keep on lying Basil. Anyone at AmSpec can check my background -- they know who I am. You are not convinced because you seem to have achieved virtually nothing in your life. Am I right? Stop with the envy, Basil, and start telling the truth.

Basil Plumley| 4.30.09 @ 12:55PM

Bob ...... you just don't "get it".

Most folks post here in good faith. You post, not in good faith, but in the mantra that you are the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-smart, all-experience phenom that will lead Conservatives out of their stupidity.
You have shown intolerance towards women (notably Sarah Palin and a couple of female posters). You pose as a "fiscal conservative" and cite your alleged support of Romney. Gee Bob, how did Rudy not get your support?
He would be a lot closer to you than Romney and not have the social Conservative "baggage". You then support Ron Paul while John McCain is fundamentally a moderate, like you. My head is spinning trying to make sense of your posts.
I have other reasons to believe you aren't who you claim you are. Perhaps, another time ......

Either you have no values or you can't keep your story straight. One makes you amoral, the other a psychopathic liar. I will let you decide.

@ Ran
Thank you for the kind words.

Bob| 4.30.09 @ 4:21PM

Basil, I understand now why your limited comprehension forces you into this position. I have my beliefs and you have yours. I have no intolerance to Palin -- she has a huge knowledge gap and has proved that to be the case. As I've said, I won't vote for anyone who is not well educated and understands the fundamentals of our Constitution.

My position as a "fiscal conservative" is based on my belief that we should use analysis and data to come to conclusions rather than ideology with the goal of limited government, balanced budgets, and individual responsibility. Your lack of economic knowledge prevents you from understanding basic concepts like tax cuts not being stimulative. If you really want fiscal conservatism, then you must deal with fact. Your refusal to do so makes you unqualified to be a fiscal conservative.

Rudy did not get my support because Romney was better educated and more successful in his career. Given the economic crisis, I believe that Romney was the most qualified to deal with those issue. My first priority is fiscal in nature. The fact that he is a social conservative is secondary. The same is true of Jindal.

Your problem is that you cannot separate fiscal conservatism from social conservatism as most intelligent people can. You've proven time and time again that you know practically nothing about economics and business and can't deal with trended, normalized data.

Am I overbearing? Absolutely. But again, I have never lied. The liar is you because you cannot believe your knowledge base is so irrelevant.

Have a great day, Basil the Unknowing....

Again, the people here at AmSpec can check me out if you so desire. But again, you seem to be afraid of the truth...

Basil Plumley| 4.30.09 @ 4:59PM

Bob--explain to me/us why it is worth our time to "check you out"?
Are you that egotistical to think that we really care who you are?

Seriously, after all of your bashing of Reagan, Palin, Conservatives, and fellow posters, you really think we are wondering who you are and that we won't sleep another moment until we know your identity?
Your opinion of you is frankly off the charts. It is the height of arrogance to say the least.

You said-My position as a "fiscal conservative" is based on my belief that we should use analysis and data to come to conclusions rather than ideology with the goal of limited government, balanced budgets, and individual responsibility.

Well, the first half of that statement would put you at home with the Kerensky or Dubcek Administrations. Oddly, I have never seen any posts of yours espousing the second half of that statement. Perhaps, it got mixed up with your constant bashing of Social Conservatives and women. Maybe, your message was misinterpreted with that Dems are educated smart and GOP folks are stupid posts of yours.

You said-The liar is you because you cannot believe your knowledge base is so irrelevant.

That's pretty funny Bob---what dictionary did you pull that definition from?
Don't tell me your seeing eye dog got a hold of your password again. Well, keep thinking we care about your identity. You are quite entertaining.

Bob| 4.30.09 @ 5:12PM

Again Basil the Uneducated, you show your lack of reading comprehension. I've said that tax cuts are not stimulative and that Reagan created more debt than anyone except Bush. Those are facts. Furthermore, I've said that Reaganomics weren't all that successful and I've given a reference to one of Reagan's own chief economists. However, I did say that I thought he was one of the better Presidents because of his actions in stopping the Soviet Union. In fact, I said I thought he was a better President than Clinton. What part of that do you not understand?

The fact that you cannot analyze normalized trend data is a fact.

If you are going to call me a liar, I suggest you prove it. You are certainly afraid to check me out because that will make you look more like the fool you are. Perhaps you should go back to school and get an education.

By the way, how is your alter ego, Ruth? Are you sure you aren't the same person?

Basil Plumley| 4.30.09 @ 7:31PM

Bob, you colossal jewel of ignorance, exactly how did Reagan create more debt?
Did he pass spending bills all by himself?
Perhaps, he donned a Tip O'Neill mask and forced the Democrat led House to pass the spending bills. Maybe, in the dark of night, he sneaked in some offices and increased all the figures on these spending bills since no politician ever re-reads such things.
Tell us Bob, how did Reagan accomplish this when the Constitution and my Civics class say he can't?
Perhaps, you tell us how Bush accomplished the same feats in the last two years under Pelosi's rule.

Tax cuts are not stimulative? Praytell Bob, why don't your precious Democrats just increase taxes and quit hemming and hawing around the subject. If that is what is good for the nation, they should take the lead and pass tax increases to pay for all of the government programs.
Damn it Bob, you should be shouting from the rooftops and street corners about the wonderful tax increases. Maybe, you could share a padded room with that one chief economist of Reagan.

If tax cuts were good enough for Milton Friedman, they should be good enough for you. Perhaps, his education and bona fides do not impress you?

It is this thought process of yours that makes me conclude that you went to Harvard allright ............. Harvard High School.

I stand by this comment--Either you have no values or you can't keep your story straight. One makes you amoral, the other a psychopathic liar. I will let you decide.

q74wh564e| 3.9.10 @ 10:10PM

Whenever I hear friends talking about MBT shoes, my feeling would always be a painful mixture of envy and helplessness.

hotrjkm| 3.9.10 @ 10:11PM

My hair is just over my ears.