New York: When Did the GOP Lose Touch With Reality? by David Frum

[Madison Redskin]

that is a fine, and completely expected response from you.

and i will just leave it there, and let our dear readers judge whether the presented figleaf covers the emperor's exposed butt.

It covers his ass, but I think I see his wang poking out.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Or, as Frum himself put it a little while back: "Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us, and now we are discovering we work for Fox.”

No doubt. You just know that Faux News has benefited from the Obama presidency, what good does it do them for a Republican to get elected? Right now they have a legion of angry viewers who were so blinded by rage that they thought Glenn Beck was making sense.

[Teller]

Gotta hate it when those liberals start painting the other side with a broad brush.

Gotta hate the fact that I never said he was a liberal.

I swear, for the side that says Fox makes **** up, you certainly have no problem with doing so elsewhere.

[mcsluggo]

could you please elaborate on the purpose and meaning of the "red paint" portion of your first post in this thread?

[PeterMP]

2 pages into a thread where a conservative bashes the GOP and nobody is actually stepping up and explaining why he's wrong.

Nobody can say this part of the article is wrong and here's why.

I think that says all you need to know.

[Teller]

FWIW, I agree in principle that the GOP is broken right now. The hardline conservatives have the market cornered on social issues. While people who have no business calling themselves conservative have control of our spending ideals. If anything, the exact opposite should be true.

I will always be a fiscal conservative (real sense, not lip service while drastically increasing the size of the federal government.) Yet I've become a social moderate over the last few years, thanks in no small part to arguing with some well-educated friends on the other side right here on ES. I now favor civil unions for ALL consenting adults. I understand (if not support) abortion in an ever-expanding variety of cases. And there are any other host of social issues that I find myself taking a moderate, or even left-leaning stance around here.

The problem is, there's no voice for people like me in my own party. There's no place for those who want to see us working with democrats to find real, true consensus, especially on social issues. And I think that's going to be the key to the GOP's success going forward. We're going to have to give ground on some of these social issues. We're going to have to be rational, and responsible, and realize that times change; and on some levels, our values need to adapt.

I'm fine with drawing a hard line in the sand fiscally. I'm fine with reining in spending. I'm fine with opposing a mandate to purchase a private product. I think fiscally, if we'd actually DO it, conservatism would be good for us right now. But we simply have to be more progressive socially, or we will, and should, get left behind.

---------- Post added December-14th-2011 at 06:16 PM ----------

could you please elaborate on the purpose and meaning of the "red paint" portion of your first post in this thread?

IMO, he made such far-reaching blanket generalizations about republicans (that aren't nearly as homogenous as some think) that he might've even gotten some of that paint on some liberals. Like I said in my previous post, I'm AT LEAST a social moderate. At least. And yet I get painted with that brush. Why not ASF?

Now. Could you please explain where I said anything resembling "pinko commie?"

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't think Frum is a staunch right wing conservative. I think he is more along the lines of a Centrist Republican. This is not what I would consider a traditional conservative.

His cousin is Paul Krugman. I don't think he necessarily reflects the opinions of the Right in many instances.

[Larry]

It painted "conservatives" with a broad brush. Like the point that the GOP base is made up of uneducated whites. That may be true of some, but certainly not all. That's what? A broad brush.

Could you point at where he said "all"? Since you're so big on not having people put words in other people's mouths, and all.

:halo:

[Teller]

Could you point at where he said "all"? Since you're so big on not having people put words in other people's mouths, and all.

It is precisely these disaffected whites—especially those who didn’t go to college—who form the Republican voting base.

Where's the qualifier in that sentence? Do you see a "most of" or "a lot of" there?

[SnyderShrugged]

Mr Frum, they lost touch with reality when you and the other neo-cons started your big war, corporatist, spending spree of course. Figured you knew that?

[elkabong82]

I consider myself centrist. I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I am pro-welfare and pro-gun, for example, though I do believe in some limitation/regulation for both.

There are things about both parties I like, and a bunch I don't like. The sad thing is, since the neocons and Faux news have been prominent, I rarely find myself agreeing with their talking points because they push the narrative too far to the extreme. Had they been in existence in the 18th century I'm afraid our nation would have never gotten off the ground.

It's bad enough that the party majority favors denying equal rights to citizens based solely on sexual orientation, which means as a full equal rights advocate I can't support any candidate against gay marriage and marriage rights (even though hypocrites like Newt are divorced and remarried yet use sanctity of marriage to defend their position), but to then also have to deal with a typically extreme and therefore a likely illogical narrative, one that is predictable and seemingly scripted, it makes it even more difficult to take any of their candidates seriously.

So until the GOP can reign in the whackos and stop the rhetoric, basically until the GOP leads, instead of being led by the propaganda network, I can't support 90+% of their candidates. Many of them may love the staunch adherence to party lines and refusal to compromise, confusing politics with war, but they do so while sacrificing any perspective of free-will or independent thought. Nobody wants to vote for a robot, except other robots.

Now I'm not suggesting these problems don't exist on the left, they do. But I just haven't seen it go to the extreme on such a regular basis with them as I've seen with the right (though this is mostly reflected in Fox News). I really do believe that conservatives need to call for the dismissal of Fox news. Many of them may love the narrative, but overall it is detrimental to their cause. People will only buy nastiness and pessimism for so long.

[Larry]

Where's the qualifier in that sentence? Do you see a "most of" or "a lot of" there?

Ah.

So, I, and others, can put any word in your mouth, as long as one sentence in one of your posts fails to contradict the word we want to put in there?

[PeterMP]

Where's the qualifier in that sentence? Do you see a "most of" or "a lot of" there?

In the very NEXT sentence where actually gives the number?

"It is precisely these disaffected whites—especially those who didn’t go to college—who form the Republican voting base. John McCain got 58 percent of noncollege-white votes in 2008."

[Teller]

Ah.

So, I, and others, can put any word in your mouth, as long as one sentence in one of your posts fails to contradict the word we want to put in there?

You called BS on what I said. I quoted it. Period. It's OK to be wrong. It even happens to me sometimes.

Now, in the spirit of bipartisanship and fairness, maybe you could find my "pinko commie" reference. And Nicole Brown's real killer. kthxbai.

[Larry]

You called BS on what I said. I quoted it.

:secret: And it didn't say what you claimed.

[Teller]

In the very NEXT sentence where actually gives the number?

"It is precisely these disaffected whites—especially those who didn’t go to college—who form the Republican voting base. John McCain got 58 percent of noncollege-white votes in 2008."

That's not "the number" at all.

That's like saying "Obama got 88% of the black vote. So the black vote is the democrat base."

[twa]

I don't think Frum is a staunch right wing conservative. I think he is more along the lines of a Centrist Republican. This is not what I would consider a traditional conservative.

His cousin is Paul Krugman. I don't think he necessarily reflects the opinions of the Right in many instances.

he is what usually gets called a establishment conservative,and always bemoans the corrupting influence of the other wings(especially the populous movement and social cons)

I read his site everyday,this is nothing new for him.

[Larry]

BTW, am I the only person who's waiting for one particular person to respond to the OP line:

Eighty percent of the net new jobs created in the state of Texas since 2009 went to the foreign-born.

[Teller]

:secret: And it didn't say what you claimed.

What you quoted:

It painted "conservatives" with a broad brush. Like the point that the GOP base is made up of uneducated whites.

What he said:

It is precisely these disaffected whites—especially those who didn’t go to college—who form the Republican voting base.

Nope. No resemblance at all there.

[Madison Redskin]

Now, in the spirit of bipartisanship and fairness, maybe you could find my "pinko commie" reference.

FWIW, my statement that "he's no commie pinko" had nothing to do with your post.

[Larry]

What you quoted:

My entire post, including "what I quoted": (Including the part you edited out, so you could falsify things)

It painted "conservatives" with a broad brush. Like the point that the GOP base is made up of uneducated whites. That may be true of some, but certainly not all. That's what? A broad brush.

Could you point at where he said "all"? Since you're so big on not having people put words in other people's mouths, and all.

:halo:

Want to try to make anything else up?

[DeaconTheVillain]

So until the GOP can reign in the whackos and stop the rhetoric, basically until the GOP leads, instead of being led by the propaganda network, I can't support 90+% of their candidates. Many of them may love the staunch adherence to party lines and refusal to compromise, confusing politics with war, but they do so while sacrificing any perspective of free-will or independent thought. Nobody wants to vote for a robot, except other robots.

I'm sure they would like to, but then they lose votes from the poor, uneducated white folk. Let's not forget the number one concern of a politician is to get reelected. The tea party did some damage/good (depending on your viewpoint) this past election and people who wouldn't fall in line with the tea party lost their seat. In a representative democracy, its the people that need changing.

Therefore, I see the GOP as being dominated by a laughable group of wackos for several years to come. Which is pretty much how all of Europe views the Republican party in America.

[twa]

BTW, am I the only person who's waiting for one particular person to respond to the OP line:

I thought about it, but I'd rather hear someones reason why he didn't use the same metric for the figures for the rest of the US ....a real conservative wouldn't flinch from it.

I believe I know his source for that number though,and if you are truly interested I will link to a debunking.:evilg:

Otherwise I'll just rest in the comfort of Texas's welcoming arms...no matter my color or place of birth

[Larry]

I'm sure they would like to, but then they lose votes from the poor, uneducated white folk. Let's not forget the number one concern of a politician is to get reelected. The tea party did some damage/good (depending on your viewpoint) this past election and people who wouldn't fall in line with the tea party lost their seat. In a representative democracy, its the people that need changing.

I do think that that's a point worth repeating.

A lot of Americans like to complain about politicians, while denying responsibility, themselves.

(I assume lots of other people do, too. It's just that Americans are the only ones that are important. )

---------- Post added December-14th-2011 at 07:17 PM ----------

I thought about it, but I'd rather hear someones reason why he didn't use the same metric for the figures for the rest of the US ....a real conservative wouldn't flinch from it.

I believe I know his source for that number though,and if you are truly interested I will link to a debunking.:evilg:

Otherwise I'll just rest in the comfort of Texas's welcoming arms...no matter my color or place of birth

I don't know of anybody who's trumpeting job creation for the rest of the US.

But I do confess, that when I saw the claim, I saw a lot of qualifiers, which made me suspect cherry picked data. It did kind of stand out.

[The Evil Genius]

I don't know of anybody who's trumpeting job creation for the rest of the US.

Well when you job creation is mostly stealing...erm..."re-locating" jobs from other states, then there are only so many that can trumpet it.

I'm still curious how this method will create jobs on a national level.