Google+
Close

The Corner

The one and only.

Reading Frum



Text  



Over at David Frum’s blog, he writes, in part: “Now, first, a reality check: It is Rush, not me, who has repeatedly mused that he would prefer to see Republicans lose this election if McCain were nominated. So who is the advocate of ‘surrender’ here? And since Obama has pledged early and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq, it’s not just an election that Limbaugh equably contemplates losing – it is a war.”

First, David, I assume unwittingly, is conflating party with philosophy. And yet, Rush’s statement, which he quotes, says nothing of party and addressed Ferrara’s piece relating to reform. So, “surrender” would relate to philosophy, not party. Here’s the direct quote:

So what we have here, there was a great piece, Peter Ferrara in the American Spectator last week writing in this case about David Frum, who is a conservative commentator and author, writer, National Review Online. In this whole concept that I constantly rail against, and that is accepting the premises put forth by the left and then trying to monkey with them a little bit and change ‘em so they’re not quite as bad, add a little conservative touch to it, there’s a term that Peter Ferrara came up with to describe this, it’s two words, the second word is “surrender.” That’s what apparently is going on here.

Indeed, the earlier Rush statement also cited by Frum underscores the point: “We have David Frum; we have Bill Kristol; we have David Brooks, and all of the learned conservative intelligentsia are all looking for ways to water down conservatism now.”

David also rails against Bush and the Republican Congress for their abandonment of, well, conservative principles. Most of us do, and rightly so. Rush does it more effectively than anyone, IMHO. But how does that prove Frum’s prescription for electoral victory? There’s agreement on the failings of the Republicans. This disagreement is on what to do about it. As such, reciting Republican failures is of no help.

I think David is off to a bad start not only in his line of early argumentation, but in his tone. If he is planning on actually addressing Rush’s comments, it should be interesting. But if he is going to divert and attack, it won’t be. We shall see how this develops as David promises more edification.



Text  


Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review