The Bitchy Bitchiness of Davey Frum

Via Mark Levin’s twitter feed:

David Frum, idiotcnn.com/2012/08/13/opi… fb.me/1SeCJ0Nk2

— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) August 14, 2012

Oh how dangerous it is to be a logical person trying to interpret David Frum’s collection of words that mean nothing.

This year, an incumbent even more embattled than George H.W. Bush has his own preferred election theme. He doesn’t want to debate his own record, which is pretty dismal. He wants to debate the record of the congressional Republicans elected in 2010, a bunch radically less popular even than the president himself. You’d imagine that Romney’s job was to refuse the Democratic invitation, to choose his own ground for the election, and to keep his distance from the congressional GOP. You’d imagine, but you’d be wrong.

Sigh. David, if the congressional Republicans are less popular than the President, how did they get where they are? I’ll answer it for you, though it bores me to death. The “radical” Republicans you refer to are “tea party” republicans put in office by ordinary people out here in the sticks who are vastly more intelligent than you and the President in the ways of history and what America stands for. The congressional picks that you don’t like, because they have principles and a vision for bringing America back to its founding, are the future of the Republican party. If the ideology is so unpopular, explain Mourdock and Cruz. I’m waiting. Only a booger-eating moron would refuse to get on board with the intellectual heart of the nation when it’s thumping like a base drum. Thankfully, Romney is not a booger-eating moron.

Romney has instead chosen to bolt himself to the House Republicans. He has chosen as his running mate Paul Ryan, the House Republican leader — not their formal leader, but their intellectual leader, the person who set their agenda. He has effectively adopted Paul Ryan’s agenda as his own: big immediate cuts in spending, a dramatic cut in the top rate of income tax to 28% and a bold reform of Medicare for those 55 and under.
Obama’s message in 2012: “Forget the economy. It’s Medicare, stupid!”
The Romney-Ryan response? “We agree. Medicare it is.”

I understand this part, coming from Frum. I’ve read enough of his crap to understand he’s a fraidy-cat who couldn’t argue himself out of a paper bag because he’s too busy asking if the King is finished dumping so he can wipe.

OK, what Frum is saying is that he’s sensitive to what the Democrats are going to say, so in order to win, he feels the Ryan pick will make them say words that we will not be able to reply to.

Keep reading, it’s getting tricky..

The Romney-Ryan team will tell you that fixing Medicare is crucial to their plans for economic growth. By assuring markets that Medicare costs will grow more slowly after 2023, a Medicare fix — it’s argued — will ignite job creation in 2013. In the meantime, federal spending cuts and upper-income tax cuts will restore business confidence.
Will voters accept this argument? Possibly, although relatively few economists will do so.

I agree that few economists would accept the argument, but only the way Frum frames it. Here’s the problem. Frum missed the boat in 2010, all the tea party people across this nation, in every district already know the Ryan budget argument and the tax argument because we went through the same thing in 2010. So when Frum goes through this argument in his head, he is assuming the voting public doesn’t know anything, when he is the one who’s behind the ball, and the following proves it.

Most economists would draw a distinction between the government’s fiscal problems over the medium term and the economy’s problems in the near term. The economy’s near-term problems can be traced to the housing crisis.
Americans assumed crushing levels of debt in the 2000s to buy expensive homes, homes they assumed would continue to rise in price forever. In 2007, household debt relative to income peaked at the highest level since 1928. (Uh oh.) When the housing market crashed, consumers were stranded with unsustainable debts, and until those debts are reduced, consumers will drastically cut back their spending. As consumers cut back, businesses lose revenue. As businesses lose revenue, they fire employees. As employees lose their jobs, their purchasing power is reduced. As purchasing power is lost throughout the economy, housing prices tumble again.

Duh.

I mean, we were arguing that in 2008, step it up, Davey.

Conservatives ardently believe that big future deficits are the cause of today’s unemployment. They feel it. They know it. And they don’t want to hear different.

Hmm, according to Frum, I ardently believe that what happens in the future is causing unemployment now. Hmm. I see. Right. No, I can’t say that I even buy that, so I’m not sure where Frum got this idea that he puts forward as fact. Just another sticky part of the cobweb between Frum’s ears.

And I am ignoring his interpretation of the Reagan campaign because he can’t understand Reagan, the tea party, conservatism and traditional American values. If Frum was the last (whatever he is) on earth, I wouldn’t ask him to explain Reagan.

No such leeway for Mitt Romney. He has been constrained first to endorse Paul Ryan’s budget plan (which he did in December 2011 after months of attempted evasion), to endorse a cut in the top rate of income tax to 28% (March 2012), and now finally to choose Ryan himself as his running mate. No leeway — and now no exit.
Conservatives exult that the GOP will now offer the country “a choice, not a referendum.” That phrase does not make a lot of sense. (What is more of a choice than a referendum?) But there’s good reason why conservatives say it. They are looking for a rephrasing of the slogan uppermost in their minds: “a choice not an echo” — the title of the best-selling manifesto that helped persuade Republicans to follow Barry Goldwater to disaster.

Ok, so if you’ve been keeping score at home, Frum bitched that if the GOP nominee was anyone but Romney or Huntsman, he was leaving the party. Then, Frum agreed with, and went further than Ann Coulter on how great Romneycare was, to the point of embracing universal healthcare. Then, he bitched out Philip Klein for calling him on his advice to Romney to embrace Romneycare, and had to apologize for his snit. And now, butt boy truly believes this nation will not respond to conservative ideology, well articulated.

Frum castigates Phyllis Schlafly, Barry Goldwater, and stops short of criticizing Reagan, but gets him wrong. He goes further than the liberal positioning of Ann Coulter in this election, and ends up spelling doom for the vision this nation was founded upon.

If universal healthcare is what Frum is pining for, let him go back to Canada. This is America, and if you want to bitch about rampant rugged individualism and free market principles, you may as well pack your bags.

America is not going down without a fight.