Taki Magazine

Re: Re: Frumbag & the Blowhard

by Jack Hunter on March 11, 2009

Choosing between siding with David “Frumbag” or Rush “Blowhard” is really no choice at all. If Frum and his ilk murdered mainstream conservatism by transforming the GOP into a single-issue party (war), Limbaugh and talk radio were their accomplices, who happily disseminated neocon propaganda for popular consumption.

The primary difference is that Frum is a dedicated ideologue who seeks to advance the neocon agenda regardless of which party is in power. Limbaugh is a party hack, whose “conservatism” is defined entirely by partisan circumstances. Under Bill Clinton, Limbaugh was all about “Slick Willie,” Monica Lewinsky and sticky dresses. Bush’s most enduring legacy will be Iraq, so of course Rush hopped aboard, pounded his war drum and never looked back – and still won’t. Now Rush is simply anti-Obama, and if Limbaugh’s focus is suddenly exorbitant spending, it’s only because a Democrat is doing the spending. When did Rush ever criticize Bush’s unprecedented spending? Oh wait… Bush had to spend because of Iraq, the issue that defined or disqualified any “conservative” for the last eight years, thanks in no small part to men like Frum (ask Ron Paul or Joe Lieberman).

If I had to pick a side, it would be Limbaugh. Whereas Frum’s political evil is conscious and intentional, Rush’s is simply circumstantial.

Limbaugh is like a dog that behaves badly when his master is away. Rush was a good dog for Bush and spent eight years snapping at anyone he perceived as trying to hurt his master. Though dogs often misbehave, it’s hard to stay mad at them. Blind loyalty is all they know.

• Print Article
• Email Article
• Email the Editor