Waterloo

[Mr. Peabody]

Interesting take on the passage of the HCR bill by conservative David Frum -


Waterloo
March 21st, 2010 at 4:59 pm by DAVID FRUM | 101 Comments |

http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.

It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:

(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.

So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:

A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu1q17rUkVU

:lol :lol

[balli]

No wonder republicans are losing it. Deep in their cruel, vicious little souls they know exactly what is happening. Whether they admit it or not, I couldn't even begin to imagine the self loathing and fear they feel about who and what they are and how they've chosen to not compose themselves.

Too bad their hatred is projected out at the rest of us, but hey, I can take being called a 'fascist' by a bunch of unintelligent and hate filled sub-humans. If that's the cost of doing business, so be it, because I think the gut-punch 'conservatives' just took is entirely self inflicted and they know it. The column did a good job of summing up just that.

[Marcus Bryant]

There's little difference between "ObamaCare" and "RomneyCare." Now, as a condition of your citizenship, or your existence, if you prefer, you are required to transfer a significant amount of personal funds to large corporate insurers on an annual basis. Seems more in line with the status quo than a sharp change, but whatever gets you through the night.

[Marcus Bryant]

No wonder republicans are losing it. Deep in their cruel, vicious little souls they know exactly what is happening. Whether they admit it or not, I couldn't even begin to imagine the self loathing and fear they feel about who and what they are. Too bad their hatred is projected out at the rest of us, but hey, I can take being called a 'fascist' by a bunch of unintelligent and hate filled sub-humans. If that's the cost of doing business, so be it, because I think the gut-punch 'conservatives' just took is entirely self inflicted and they know it. This column did a good job of summing up just that.

You're a fucking moron.

[balli]

You're a fucking moron.

Right back at you. In fact, in addition to being a moron, you're just some fucking hypocrite trying to play it like you have an ounce of decency or intelligence beyond that of the average tea-bagging idiot. But you don't fool anybody with your wanna-be moderate image. In fact, I think you're just a fucking chump like the rest, without the courage of conviction. Basically, a pussy.

[Marcus Bryant]

That you believe me to be a "moderate" speaks well to your intellect.

[balli]

And that you think that I think you're a moderate, speaks poorly of yours.

[Marcus Bryant]

Straw man. I never did, dumbass.

[Marcus Bryant]

Now that we've established that the Congress can require every individual to purchase something from the corporate interests that own them, what's the limitation now? Not to mention that the impetus for this was provided by liberal Democrats/progressives/whatever, the self-chosen saviors of us all. What else can we expect the benefactors of our Congress to require us to pay for?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That you believe me to be a "moderate" speaks well to your intellect.

Mostly youre a political contrarian from what I can tell.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Now that we've established that the Congress can require every individual to purchase something from the corporate interests that own them, what's the limitation now? Not to mention that the impetus for this was provided by liberal Democrats/progressives/whatever, the self-chosen saviors of us all. What else can we expect the benefactors of our Congress to require us to pay for?

Ever heard of car insurance?

[Marcus Bryant]

Driving on a public road is a privilege. Next.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Driving on a public road is a privilege. Next.

Thats not the point. The point is that there is empirical evidence of a similar system where you are mandated by law to purcahse an insurance policy and youre not fucked in the market.

I don't give a shit about your personal opinion on human rights.

[Marcus Bryant]

Kinda similar, that is. Not to mention that would be a state requirement.

I don't really give a shit about your existence, but to each his own.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Kinda similar, that is. Not to mention that would be a state requirement.

I don't really give a shit about your existence, but to each his own.

Feeling is mutual, bucko.

Care to expand on the federalist angle or are you just going to spew the cliche corporate overlord schtick again?

Bottomline is that there is a working system in another insurance industry where the state compels you to purchase said insurance. There are also parallels to water and power. All you posit is typical fearmonger corporate boogeyman nonsense.

That is not to say that lobbyists are not a concern but quite frankly your take smacks of Galileo and the WTC. Nebulous fear is lame.

[whottt]

No wonder republicans are losing it. Deep in their cruel, vicious little souls they know exactly what is happening. Whether they admit it or not, I couldn't even begin to imagine the self loathing and fear they feel about who and what they are and how they've chosen to not compose themselves.

Too bad their hatred is projected out at the rest of us, but hey, I can take being called a 'fascist' by a bunch of unintelligent and hate filled sub-humans. If that's the cost of doing business, so be it, because I think the gut-punch 'conservatives' just took is entirely self inflicted and they know it. The column did a good job of summing up just that.

Hypocrite? When was the last time you went and paid for a stranger's health care?

I have no insurance, I'm thinking getting some dental work tomorrow. You need to pay for it.

[Marcus Bryant]

Not the same, cuckoo.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hypocrite? When was the last time you went and paid for a stranger's health care?

I have no insurance, I'm thinking getting some dental work tomorrow. You need to pay for it.

Uhmm every paycheck he ever has a withholding from?

[balli]

I have no insurance, I'm thinking getting some dental work tomorrow. You need to pay for it.
Okay. That's not what this bill does. But okay. My family is rich as fuck compared to most. I think we can afford to break off 3.8% of our capital gains so that your southern, texas fried teeth don't fall out.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not the same, cuckoo.

No shit its not the same. But at least its a similar model where it works.

All you have is:

FEAR THE CORPORATE OVERLORD!!! HE IS UNDER YOUR BED!!!!

Hmm?

Which is the more compelling argument?

[whottt]

Thats not the point. The point is that there is empirical evidence of a similar system where you are mandated by law to purcahse an insurance policy and youre not fucked in the market.

I don't give a shit about your personal opinion on human rights.

Who says you're not fucked? I've paid probably 20k thousand dollars in automoble insurance in my lifetime. I have yet to collect on a dime of it. My insruance company has yet to pay out a dime on my behalf to anyone.

Don't tell me I am not getting fucked when I have paid 20k for nothing imbecile. Even the stupid of fucking morons should understand that is a horrible fucking deal.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Who says you're not fucked? I've paid probably 20k thousand dollars in automoble insurance in my lifetime. I have yet to collect on a dime of it. My insruance company has yet to pay out a dime on my behalf to anyone.

Don't tell me I am not getting fucked when I have paid 20k for nothing imbecile. Even the stupid of fucking morons should understand that is a horrible fucking deal.

So youre advocating no compulsion to purchase auto insurance?

[Marcus Bryant]

No shit its not the same. But at least its a similar model where it works.

All you have is:

FEAR THE CORPORATE OVERLORD!!! HE IS UNDER YOUR BED!!!!

Hmm?

Which is the more compelling argument?

LOL. Yeah, being required to drop a large amount annually to a Congressman's sugar daddy is no big deal. And yes, there's also a difference between the cost of auto and health insurance.

[whottt]

Okay. That's not what this bill does. But okay. My family is rich as fuck compared to most. I think we can afford to break off 3.8% of our capital gains so that your southern, texas fried teeth don't fall out.

Then why weren't you doing it idiot. Why weren't you and your family taking your 3.8& capital gains, and going and paying for health services for the 50 million that lack them? Since it is something you feel strongly about..why didn't you get off your dumbfucking ass and go do it?

You think funneling it to the poor through the governement is a more efficient way of doing it?

It's like like scoring a bag of weed with 15 middle men in on the deal.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL. Yeah, being required to drop a large amount annually to a Congressman's sugar daddy is no big deal. And yes, there's also a difference between the cost of auto and health insurance.

There is a difference cost and inflation between a regulated and nonregulated insurance market? Absolute brilliance. Who would have ever conceived of that?

What happened to the federalist angle or are you just going to throw out more half formed shit until something makes sense?

Here's something to think on. My auto insurance premiums have only increased a bit over 5% in the last 8 years. This is despite the evil corporate overlords forcing me to buy it or I cannot drive to work.

[whottt]

So youre advocating no compulsion to purchase auto insurance?

In my case? I have't had a wreck in 20 years...I should get 20+ years of free coverage, and or 20k, which ever comes first. I damn sure shouldn't have to continue paying for it at this stage. They've made a small fortune off of me for absoutely nothing. A years salary to one of their low grade employees perhaps?


Why don't you just give me 20k if you are struggling to see where I am coming from..it shouldn't be that hard to do.

[Oh, Gee!!]

when will republicans get back to producing more than hot air? when they figure that out, they might resume power.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In my case? I have't had a wreck in 20 years...I should get 20+ years of free coverage, and or 20k, which ever comes first. I damn sure shouldn't have to continue paying for it at this stage. They've made a small fortune off of me for absoutely nothing. A years salary to one of their low grade employees perhaps?


Why don't you just give me 20k if you are struggling to see where I am coming from..it shouldn't be that hard to do.

And yet if you get in a single accident and you havent even met the single minimum requiremnt for bodily injury.

Oh and you can also depostit $25k with the state and you dont have to pay insurance btw. You have to cover your potential liability.

[Marcus Bryant]

There is a difference cost and inflation between a regulated and nonregulated insurance market? Absolute brilliance. Who would have ever conceived of that?

True, an unregulated market for health insurance would be a welcome change.




What happened to the federalist angle


It's still here.



or are you just going to throw out more half formed shit until something makes sense?


That's your specialty.




Here's something to think on. My auto insurance premiums have only increased a bit over 5% in the last 8 years.


Congrats. We are discussing health insurance.


This is despite the evil corporate overlords forcing me to buy it or I cannot drive to work.

Perhaps you should consider another line of work, if you are so capable.

[whottt]

And at this stage I have to pretty much say fuck the poor. We already have a government sponsored health care plan for the poor...it is a corrupt piece of a shit. Just recently a psychiatrist in Austin was found guilty of fraud for roughtly 600lk dollars in fradulent billings of that same system over a 5 year period.


I say kill the rich and fuck the poor. The two segments of this country that are the greediest and the stupidest, by a wide margin.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

True, an unregulated market for health insurance would be a welcome change.

It's still here.

That's your specialty.

Congrats. We are discussing health insurance.

Perhaps you should consider another line of work, if you are so capable.

I laugh at libertarian ideals.

Its obvious its pointless to talk to you. Youre hung up on a mindless absolutist ideology that makes no sense.

Do you know what a vertical demand slope entails?

[Marcus Bryant]

You should laugh at your education, because that is so worthy.

[Oh, Gee!!]

And at this stage I have to pretty much say fuck the poor. We already have a government sponsored health care plan for the poor...it is a corrupt piece of a shit. Just recently a psychiatrist in Austin was found guilty of fraud for roughtly 600lk dollars in fradulent billings of that same system over a 5 year period.


I say kill the rich and fuck the poor. The two segments of this country that are the greediest and the stupidest, by a wide margin.


sounds like whottt is boo-hooing himself to sleep tonight. suck your thumb, baby. if that doesn't work, suck a dick.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You should laugh at your education, because that is so worthy.

Again what does a vertical demand slope entail? or are you just mad because you fucked up on the original rights argument? Your acting like a petulant douche.

[whottt]

And yet if you get in a single accident and you havent even met the single minimum requiremnt for bodily injury.

And why do you suppose it doesn't meet the minimum requirement for bodily injury?

Do you think it would meet the minimum requirement for bodily injury in the Nepal?




Oh and you can also depostit $25k with the state and you dont have to pay insurance btw. You have to cover your potential liability.

Good to know...I'll just march on down there and give them the 25k.



Maybe my insurance company will give me 20k of it back since they never had to pay it out and won't be required insure me in the future.


Thanks for pointing out how unfucked I am.

[Marcus Bryant]

You mean you have taken econ 101? Impressive!

I never 'fuck up,' as it were. Especially when dealing with community college grads such as yourself.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And why do you suppose it doesn't meet the minimum requirement for bodily injury?

Do you think it would meet the minimum requirement for bodily injury in the Nepal?




Good to know...I'll just march on down there and give them the 25k.



Maybe my insurance company will give me 20k of it back since they never had to pay it out and won't be required insure me in the future.


Thanks for pointing out how unfucked I am.

You can always not drive.

Its pretty obvious you just want to mindlessly piss and moan.

If youre were to get into an accident tomorrow and kill someone the minimum benefit would be more than what you paid in over 20 years. And you think thats a fucked deal?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You mean you have taken econ 101? Impressive!

I never 'fuck up,' as it were. Especially when dealing with community college grads such as yourself.

More ad hominem lovely.

You cannot expand on any argument you just spew ad hominem. Its pretty sad.

And yes you did fuck up. You thought I was talking about a rights argument. I wasn't and ever since youve been acting like a 5th grader.

[whottt]

sounds like whottt is boo-hooing himself to sleep tonight. suck your thumb, baby. if that doesn't work, suck a dick.

LOL. It's so hilarious to fuck over a segment of the population. It never leads to hard feelings or payback. It's just like...one side wins and that is the end of it.

It's exactly like that...

[whottt]

You can always not drive.

I want to thank you for kicking your own ass. :tu

[Marcus Bryant]

More ad hominem lovely.

If it's available to you.




You cannot expand on any argument you just spew ad hominem. Its pretty sad.


Oh, I can. It's appropriate for you, however.




And yes you did fuck up. You thought I was talking about a rights argument. I wasn't and ever since youve been acting like a 5th grader.

No, I didn't. Perhaps to the voice in your head your argument makes sense, but otherwise, not so.

[Marcus Bryant]

I want to thank you for kicking your own ass. :tu

Let's give him some accolades for participation.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Driving on a public road is a privilege. Next.


If it's available to you.

Oh, I can. It's appropriate for you, however.

No, I didn't. Perhaps to the voice in your head your argument makes sense, but otherwise, not so.

Soyou were saying that driving is a privilige (and thus not a right) followed by saying next as if it discounts my argument but you never thought that I made the argument based on human rights?

Thats great.

I actually was looking forward to a discussion of regulating an insurance industry on the state versus the federal level. I am pretty familiar with how the Texas Department of Insurance operates.

You just want to be a dickhead.

Go ahead, have the last word and go fuck yourself.

[whottt]

Let's give him some accolades for participation.

Agree.


And now that the government is going to provide medical care, medical costs for personal injury will no longer be factored into auto insurance premiums and our auto insurance rates will drop to reflect this wondrous change. And all those laywyers forced to toil in PI cases for the good of humanity, that absolutely hate the Democratic party with a passion, are going to be celebrating this final ultimate triumph...and the achievement of their ultimate goal of rendering their profession unnecessary.

I fully expect announcements reflecting all of the above manana.

The dawn of a glorious new era is upon us.

[ElNono]

I figured there would be some flames going after this, but I'm just going to opine on the OP. I think the Republicans did indeed do a disservice to themselves and the people that voted for them by not sitting down and really trying to find some sort of compromise. They tried to play tough while forgetting they're indeed the minority at the moment, and they're just as guilty that this piece of shit of legislation has gone through in it's shape and form. Hopefully it's a lesson learned that we're all better off when parties talk to each other instead of getting into pissing contests.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Agree.


And now that the government is going to provide medical care, medical costs for personal injury will no longer be factored into auto insurance premiums and our auto insurance rates will drop to reflect this wondrous change. And all those laywyers forced to toil in PI cases for the good of humanity, that absolutely hate the Democratic party with a passion, are going to be celebrating this final ultimate triumph...and the achievement of their ultimate goal of rendering their profession unnecessary.

I fully expect announcements reflecting all of the above manana.

The dawn of a glorious new era is upon us.

No they won't. You don't know how indemnity works.

If you hit someone that has insurance now its still paid out.

[whottt]

I figured there would be some flames going after this, but I'm just going to opine on the OP. I think the Republicans did indeed do a disservice to themselves and the people that voted for them by not sitting down and really trying to find some sort of compromise. They tried to play tough while forgetting they're indeed the minority at the moment, and they're just as guilty that this piece of shit of legislation has gone through in it's shape and form. Hopefully it's a lesson learned that we're all better off when parties talk to each other instead of getting into pissing contests.


Agree 100%. It's just like the antiwar people that didn't want us to go into Iraq are actually responsible for us being there :tu


Those politicans of which you speak are primarily worried about getting re-elected, and that's pretty much what they accomplished with their opposition. They aren't particularly bummed over the passing of this bill.

[Sec24Row7]

Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them.

[whottt]

No they won't. You don't know how indemnity works.

If you hit someone that has insurance now its still paid out.

Absolutely right...I don't know shit about this. I worked for a PI lawyer for 4 years, I worked for a bill collector whose accounts were primarily individuals that were supposed to be covered by medicaid, medicare and champus. I work with the guy who was one of the lead investigators on the case I mentioned of the Psychiatrist defrauding medicaid/medicare out of 600k. Haven't got a fucking clue how it works. You just nailed me. :tu

I guess you're right. Our government is totally incorrupt and our systems completely proofed from indivuals seeking to exploit the funding for our various government opped health care systems. And most importantly, our politicians are concerned not with re-election and political grandstanding, achieving status, power, and wealth, not to mention not serving the money that put them in office, but rather simply helping uninsured Americans. Especially the Democrats.

I mean those existing government programs kick serious fucking ass, are about as efficient as it's humanly possible to be, and do exactly what they are supposed to do as the passing of this new legislation proves.

And I think if anyone can agree that our goverment pretty much is corruption proof it should be Democrats...I mean hey, you guys sure taught that bastard Bush a lesson. In a lesser government that would have never been possible.

And it's only those goddamned Republicans keeping this country from being the Utopia Obama knows it can be.


You are right...I have been naive. I want to thank you and your non-contradictory non-circular arguments for opening my eyes to the reality of the world. Thank you fuzzy :tu


This is truly a magnificient piece o legislation. I look at it and I marvel at the genius, care and thought put into this. Seldom have our politicians served us, the people, so well.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Absolutely right...I don't know shit about this. I worked for a PI lawyer for 4 years, I worked for a bill collector whose accounts were primarily individuals that were supposed to be covered by medicaid, medicare and champus. I work with the guy who was one of the lead investigators on the case I mentioned of the Psychiatrist defrauding medicaid/medicare out of 600k. Haven't got a fucking clue how it works. You just nailed me. :tu

I guess you're right. Our government is totally incorrupt and our systems completely proofed from indivuals seeking to exploit the funding for our various government opped health care systems. And most importantly, our politicians are concerned not with re-election and political grandstanding, achieving status, power, and wealth, not to mention not serving the money that put them in office, but rather simply helping uninsured Americans. Especially the Democrats.

I mean those existing government programs kick serious fucking ass, are about as efficient as it's humanly possible to be, and do exactly what they are supposed to do as the passing of this new legislation proves.

And I think if anyone can agree that our goverment pretty much is corruption proof it should be Democrats...I mean hey, you guys sure taught that bastard Bush a lesson. In a lesser government that would have never been possible.

And it's only those goddamned Republicans keeping this country from being the Utopia Obama knows it can be.


You are right...I have been naive. I want to thank you and your non-contradictory non-circular arguments for opening my eyes to the reality of the world. Thank you fuzzy :tu


This is truly a magnificient piece o legislation. I look at it and I marvel at the genius, care and thought put into this. Seldom have our politicians served us, the people, so well.

You said the PI claims would no longer be paid out. You are wrong because currently people have insurance, get hit and then the casualty insurer pays the health insurer any money its paid out. Like I said its indemnity; and I dont give a shit who you are working for you dont know shit about it.

I never made a circular argument and again, you obviously don't know what one is. The rest of your strawmen are meaningless. Bluster is tiresome.

I don't jump at ghosts anymore than I do at evil governments and corporate overlords. Those are just words with no meaning. I am interested in discussing specifics, not the boogeyman.

I am interested in things in how the oversight of rate control is going to be handled and by whom. I am interested in how much actuarial information the insurers have to provide etc.

All youre babbling about is dualistic political spin and buzzwords. That doesnt mean very much to me.

[whottt]

You said the PI claims would no longer be paid out. You are wrong because currently people have insurance, get hit and then the casualty insurer pays the health insurer any money its paid out. Like I said its indemnity; and I dont give a shit who you are working for you dont know shit about it.

I never made a circular argument and again, you obviously don't know what one is. The rest of your strawmen are meaningless. Bluster is tiresome.

I don't jump at ghosts anymore than I do at evil governments and corporate overlords. Those are just words with no meaning. I am interested in discussing specifics, not the boogeyman.

I am interested in things in how the oversight of rate control is going to be handled and by whom. I am interested in how much actuarial information the insurers have to provide etc.

All youre babbling about is dualistic political spin and buzzwords. That doesnt mean very much to me.

Um, yeah, I know the PI claims will still be paid out. It was fuckng sarcasm. Every PI lawyer I have ever known is a yellow dog Democrat.

If you know of one that isn't...I would sincerely like to meet him.

You need to get out more often...meet more poeople.

[Winehole23]

So youre advocating no compulsion to purchase auto insurance?I advocate personal responsibility for myself, but if I had the opportunity to do it, I'd sure vote for no compulsion to purchase auto insurance. The penalties alone breed a permanent subclass of onerously feed and fined offenders who become more or less permanent non-participants.

I am insured now, but one time when I wasn't, and it was my fault, I surrendered my entire paycheck to pay for the minor damage I did to an early 70's Oldsmobile Cutlass Vista Cruiser.

http://tlentz.oldsgmail.com/71vista.jpg

The whole rear quarter panel had to be replaced, because I put a fist sized dent in it. Damn collectible cars.

[whottt]

Anyway fuzzy, I don't give a fuck how smart you think you are, I agree with Marcus Bryant on very little...but at least he does know there has been a total corporate takeover of our government, which makes him smarter than you and every one else that thinks this health care bill is something benevolent.

Yeah yeah...tort reform. Don't hold your breath on that when the party of the guys who become wealthy because of a lack of that very thing are controlling our government.

You see, your knowledge of the insurance industry means jack shit...what you need a better grasp of is the legal profession. You'll be much smarter once that happens...and the fact you don't think it matters much in this dicussion says more about your intelligence than any amount of words you want to type in any way you can type them.

[whottt]

I advocate personal responsibility for myself, but if I had the opportunity to do it, I'd sure vote for no compulsion to purchase auto insurance. The penalties alone breed a permanent subclass of onerously feed and fined offenders who become more or less permanent non-participants.

I am insured now, but one time when I wasn't, and it was my fault, I surrendered my entire paycheck to pay for the minor damage I did to an early 70's Oldsmobile Cutlass Vista Cruiser.

http://tlentz.oldsgmail.com/71vista.jpg

The whole rear quarter panel had to be replaced, because I put a fist sized dent in it.

I say we make the left most lane for the insured and the other lanes for the uninsured. All single lane roads belong to the uninsured. If you have a wreck in the uninsured lanes you are fucked where collecting from the other party is concerned whether you are insured or not...if you are uninsured and you have a wreck in the insured lanes, you are equally fucked and at the mercy of the lawyers etc.

I realize that sounds ridiculous, but it would solve a hell of a lot more problems than mandatory auto insurance.

[Winehole23]

(urp)

[whottt]

Just tell me honestly...if such a system were to come about, do you think there would be more insured people or more uninsured?

Will of the people indeed.

[Winehole23]

(scratches neck)

[whottt]

Ok c'mon...pretend I'm spurms :tu

[Winehole23]

I'm not so keen on designated lanes for the uninsured and anyway it is probably unenforceable. A+ awarded for originality though. :king

[whottt]

Ok well first of all by single lanes belong to the uninsured I mean...if you have a wreck tough.

I suppose it could dependent on the speed limit for single lanes...the speed limit determining whether it is governed by the rules of liability or not.

But were such a thing to happen, do you think more people would go uninsured, or insured?

That was the question. I suspect the overhwhelming majority of the country would elect to be uninsured and be less enamored with expensive vehicles.

I don't think there's a doubt about it. It's in our very nature to be revulsed by parasitic entities and that is exactly what insurance companies are. And the worst thing about them is that inflated prices on the properties they insure work to their direct benefit and serve to make them a necessity, and in our reality that means mandatory. These industries and those that work within them also benefit by inflated prices. Lawyers benefit from them, people seeking to defraud the system benefit from them.

The only people that don't benefit are those that aren't trying to get richer.

[Winehole23]

I was briefly intrigued by your idea of dedicating all *single lane roads* to the uninsured, but then I realized I have no idea what *single lane roads* are.

Little help?

[Winehole23]

Do you mean two-lane blacktops?

[Winehole23]

http://www.jdmfilmreviews.com/images/two-lane-blacktop1.jpg

[whottt]

I was briefly intrigued by your idea of dedicating all *single lane roads* to the uninsured, but then I realized I have no idea what *single lane roads* are.

Little help?

Any road that doesn't have enough lanes for both an insured lane and an uninsured one. One lane road, 2 lane road. Dirt road. The logic behind goverining them with the rules of the uninsured being that the smaller the road, the less people traveling on it, fewer wrecks, fewer severe wrecks.

Anyway, the biggest bitch to this would not be enforcing it...I mean we generally know to stay off the left side of the road on a 2 lane road...the biggest bitch would be turnlanes and intersections. We would probably have to give those to the uninsured too....because if we didn't the insured could seriously fuck uninsured people over.

Basically..my idea is to make insurance more of a luxury item than driving, as it should be :tu

[boutons_deux]

"you are required to transfer a significant amount of personal funds"

This is already the case, only it's hidden as employer provided insurance, $13K+/year to for-profit insurers for a family of four, salary denied to the employee, skimmed off to the corps. The company claims it as business expense, and employee pays no tax on the benefit in kind.

[Winehole23]

But were such a thing to happen, do you think more people would go uninsured, or insured? You mean if we had any choice. I suppose people could opt out en masse, like you have recently suggested, but this result is compromised by adherence to the "reality principle" and more generally to simple expedience.

I suspect the overwhelming majority of the country would elect to be uninsured...Agree 100%

...and be less enamored with expensive vehicles. Disagree 100%. That ship already sailed.

I don't think there's a doubt about it. It's in our very nature to be revulsed by parasitic entities and that is exactly what insurance companies are. And the worst thing about them is that inflated prices on the properties they insure work to their direct benefit and serve to make them a necessity, and in our reality that means mandatory. These industries and those that work within them also benefit by inflated prices. Lawyers benefit from them, people seeking to defraud the system benefit from them.For purposes of trade and estate-management, some insurance is needful, but what you're saying is true also.

The only people that don't benefit are those that aren't trying to get richer.Jesus said the first shall be last and the last shall be first. But I don't think he meant in this world.

[boutons_deux]

"make insurance more of a luxury item"

It's already priced like a luxury item. $1200/month for family of four, now with increasing co-pays and deductibles.

In your fucked scheme, anybody who bought insurance would be a sucker because they could "Just Go To The Emergency Room(c)" and get treated for free at taxpayer-financed hospitals and clinics.

[Winehole23]

whottt's talking about auto-insurance, b_d.

[Winehole23]

Any road that doesn't have enough lanes for both an insured lane and an uninsured one. One lane road, 2 lane road. Dirt road. The logic behind goverining them with the rules of the uninsured being that the smaller the road, the less people traveling on it, fewer wrecks, fewer severe wrecks.Tough luck for country folks, eh?

[whottt]

You mean if we had any choice. I suppose people could opt out en masse, like you have recently suggested, but this result is compromised by adherence to the "reality principle" and more generally to simple expedience.

I don't consider insurance to be very real, at least on the payoff end. It's very ethereal and dependent entirely on whether or not the insurance company says it exists. The most real thing about it is the monthly payment.

My reality is that I don't like paying for it, at all.






Disagree 100%. That ship already sailed.
For purposes of trade and estate-management, some insurance is needful, but what you're saying is true also.

Only because real estate is so expensive. It's basically a charm to ward off bad luck.



Jesus said the first shall be last and the last shall be first. But I don't think he meant in this world.

I suspect Jesus would be getting on the Doctors asses for putting the accumulation of wealth over the alleviating of suffering.

[whottt]

Tough luck for country folks, eh?

I am country folk. The personal accountability principle is what they like...on both sides. With country folk insurance (and government) is really not needed. They're kinda socialist like that :tu

[Winehole23]

They're kinda socialist like that :tuIowa and Kansas believe you. Cotton and sugar farmers do too. :p:

[Winehole23]

I don't consider insurance to be very real, at least on the payoff end. It's very ethereal and dependent entirely on whether or not the insurance company says it exists. The most real thing about it is the monthly payment.

My reality is that I don't like paying for it, at all. You won't get any argument from me on this.

[scott]

meh.

[boutons_deux]

"hilarious to fuck over a segment of the population. "

very noble, and very American to unfuck a segment of the its own population.

[EVAY]

Interesting take on the passage of the HCR bill by conservative David Frum -

You know, BACK TO THE OP I think Frum is right.

I think he hits the nail on the head in virtually every respect.

I think it is a brilliant piece. Thank you for finding it and posting it, Mr. P.

[SAGambler]

And yet if you get in a single accident and you havent even met the single minimum requiremnt for bodily injury.

Oh and you can also depostit $25k with the state and you dont have to pay insurance btw. You have to cover your potential liability.

Not quite true. In Texas you first must own 25 or more vehicles in order to "self insure". Secondly you must put up $55,000.

It varies some from state to state. But most are pretty much in line with this.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not quite true. In Texas you first must own 25 or more vehicles in order to "self insure". Secondly you must put up $55,000.

It varies some from state to state. But most are pretty much in line with this.

They changed it ? I remember hearing that when I took my prep class for my P and C license. It was a long time ago so I very well misremembered.

[ElNono]

Political Memo: Republicans Face Drawbacks of United Stand on Health Bill (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/us/politics/23repubs.html?hp)
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

WASHINGTON — Passage of the health care legislation challenges the heart of the Republicans’ strategy this year: To present a unified opposition to big Democratic ideas, in this case expressed in a stream of bristling anger and occasional mischaracterizations of what the bill would do.

From a legislative perspective, the Republican strategy did not work, despite months of predictions from Republicans that the bill would fail and that that would cripple the Obama presidency.

President Obama will sign the bill Tuesday, although with the support of only Democrats. An additional package of amendments to remove some of the more politically problematic provisions is likely to become law within weeks.

In political terms, Republicans face strong crosscurrents. Polls suggest that a sizable part of the nation is unenthusiastic about the bill or opposed to it. Conservatives see it as a strike at the heart of their small-government principles, helping to explain why Republicans are optimistic that they will make gains in the midterm elections in November.

“There is no downside for Republicans,” Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee chairman, said Monday in an interview. “Only for Americans.”

But at the same time, many provisions of the bill that go into effect this year — like curbs on insurance companies denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, or the expansion of prescription drug coverage for the elderly — are broadly popular with the public. The more contentious ones, including the mandate for the uninsured to obtain coverage, do not take effect for years.

And in a week when Democrats are celebrating the passage of a historic piece of legislation, Republicans find themselves again being portrayed as the party of no, associated with being on the losing side of an often acrid debate and failing to offer a persuasive alternative agenda.

David Frum, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative research organization, said Republicans had tried to defeat the bill to undermine Mr. Obama politically, but in the process had given up a chance of influencing a huge bill. Mr. Frum said his party’s stance sowed doubts with the public about its ideas and leadership credentials, and ultimately failed in a way that expanded Mr. Obama’s power.

“The political imperative crowded out the policy imperative,” Mr. Frum said. “And the Republicans have now lost both.”

“Politically, I get the ‘let’s trip up the other side, make them fail’ strategy,” he said. “But what’s more important, to win extra seats or to shape the most important piece of social legislation since the 1960s? It was a go-for-all-the-marbles approach. Unless they produced an absolute failure for Mr. Obama, there wasn’t going to be any political benefit.”

Republicans also face the question of what happens if the health care bill does not create the cataclysm that they warned of during the many months of debate. Closing out the floor debate on Sunday night, the House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, warned that the legislation would be “the last straw for the American people.” Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, proclaimed several hours earlier, “Freedom dies a little bit today.”

Yet there are elements of the bill, particularly in regulating insurers, that could well prove broadly popular, and it could be years before anyone knows whether the legislation will have big effects on health care quality and the nation’s fiscal condition. Indeed, most Americans with insurance are unlikely to see any immediate change in their coverage, and several Republicans warned that the party could pay a price for that.

“When our core group discover that this thing is not as catastrophic as advertised, they are going to be less energized than they are right now,” Mr. Frum said.

He warned that the energy Republicans were finding now among base voters would fade.

The head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, offered a similar argument. “When this bill goes into effect, and none of the things Republicans warned about begin to happen — none of the death panels, none of the government takeover, none of the socialism — Republicans will have no credibility,” Mr. Menendez said.

The final deliberations, which drew protesters from across the country, including many Tea Party activists, cast an angry tone to the proceedings that also stirred concern among some Republicans. Some Democratic lawmakers said they had been taunted with racial epithets and homophobic slurs as they walked into the Capitol over the weekend to vote. Representative Randy Neugebauer, Republican of Texas, shouted out “baby-killer” on the House floor when Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan, one of the most fervent Democratic opponents of abortion in the House, outlined a deal he had worked out with the White House, which he said assured that the health care bill would not finance abortions.

Republican leaders dismissed any suggestion that the bill would hurt the party over the long term.

“Someone at Harvard or in San Francisco might think that, but not the rest of the country,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee.

Mr. Alexander said Democrats would soon find themselves saddled with blame by Americans whenever they ran into a problem with an insurance company, even though Democrats have made a point of criticizing the insurance industry in the debate and asserting that without legislation the nation faced never-ending increases in premiums that would make health coverage less and less affordable.

“Insurance premiums are going to go up normally, and millions of Americans are going to experience higher premiums,” Mr. Alexander said. “All this is going to be coming, and the health care bill is going to get blamed for a lot of it.”

The bill has energized the Republican base in a way that could produce a spike of contributions and increase voter turnout.

But Mr. Menendez said that he was advising Democratic Senate candidates to challenge opponents about whether they would vote to repeal the bill — particularly, an expansion of prescription drug benefits for the elderly or requirements that insurance companies not deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

“We will challenge them,” he said. “What parts of this bill do you want to repeal?”

Gov. Haley Barbour, the head of the Republican Governors Association, said he believed that the bill was so unpopular that that line of political attack would not work.

“I would be for repealing the law,” Mr. Barbour said. “I would be for something better. There’s nobody that argues we don’t need health care reform. The argument is whether it’s good reform or bad reform.”

[boutons_deux]

“I would be for something better"

Then spit out for everybody to see, or STFU.

Repugs' proposals were silly, did nothing to cover the uninsured, and did nothing to reduce costs.

The Repugs dishonest tactics are the same as for TARP. The Repugs proposed TARP, then when the Dems voted it up, the Repugs, who would have also voted for it, all voted against it, knowing it would pass and they could say they voted against it (while being for it). Cocksuckers, every last one of them.

eg, they have brought back the racist "state rights" bullshit, while also saying they don't want to regulate for-private insurers (can sell across state lines). This is the same scam as the credit card industry locating in a state where there are no usury laws.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

“I would be for something better"

Then spit out for everybody to see, or STFU.

Repugs' proposals were silly, did nothing to cover the uninsured, and did nothing to reduce costs.

The Repugs dishonest tactics are the same as for TARP. The Repugs proposed TARP, then when the Dems voted it up, the Repugs, who would have also voted for it, all voted against it, knowing it would pass and they could say they voted against it (while being for it). Cocksuckers, every last one of them.

eg, they have brought back the racist "state rights" bullshit, while also saying they don't want to regulate for-private insurers (can sell across state lines). This is the same scam as the credit card industry locating in a state where there are no usury laws.

States rights isn't racist.

[Oh, Gee!!]

States rights isn't racist.

depends on the state. hey yo!!!

[jacobdrj]

There's little difference between "ObamaCare" and "RomneyCare." Now, as a condition of your citizenship, or your existence, if you prefer, you are required to transfer a significant amount of personal funds to large corporate insurers on an annual basis. Seems more in line with the status quo than a sharp change, but whatever gets you through the night.

I think even true 'small government' people agree that a major function of a federal government is defense. Lots of money goes to defense, and a good portion of those employees (G.I.'s, whatever) are directly employed by the government and is controlled directly by the Commander In Chief. However, the defense budget calls for large quantities of cash to go to corporations, such as Boeing and Halliburton, and neither the states or the constituents get to say a damn thing about it.
Granted, this new legislation compels money to go directly to the corporations instead of through tax payers>treasury>defense budget>corporations, but still, it is going to corporations. If anything, this bill cuts out the middle man.

As long as it is regulated, we as a people can deal with this. The problem comes when we have these kind of compulsionary laws without regulations.

[jacobdrj]

States rights isn't racist.

States rights' are as states rights' does...

[boutons_deux]

states rights is a racist/KKK/cracka/red-state/hate-all-govt/militiamen/"patriot" dog whistle

[boutons_deux]

Vast Ring Wing Conspiracy isn't anything if not intolerantly, purifyingly monolithic.

========



David Frum, AEI SPLIT: Conservative's Position 'Terminated' By Major Think Tank

First Posted: 03-25-10 03:09 PM | Updated: 03-26-10 10:21 AM

See late updates below...

Former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum has resigned from the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, Frum announced on his Web site Thursday afternoon -- a move which suggests the conservative movement has cut ties with Frum over the straight talk he has been providing all week.

Following the passage of health care reform in the House, Frum made waves with a column for CNN.com declaring that health care had proven to been "Waterloo" for the GOP, not for Obama as Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) infamously suggested. Republican lawmakers quickly dismissed Frum, a prominent reformist conservative, as a mere "former staffer."

Then Frum said on "Nightline" that the Republican Party's lockstep with the Fox News attack machine has hurt the party, and that "we're discovering we work for Fox." That may have been the last straw for AEI.

"I have been a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute since 2003. At lunch today, AEI President Arthur Brooks and I came to a termination of that relationship," Frum wrote on his Web site. The full text of his "resignation" letter is below:

Dear Arthur,

This will memorialize our conversation at lunch today. Effective immediately, my position as a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute is terminated. I appreciate the consideration that delays my emptying of my office until after my return from travel next week. Premises will be vacated no later than April 9.

I have had many fruitful years at the American Enterprise Institute, and I do regret this abrupt and unexpected conclusion of our relationship.
Story continues below

Very truly yours,
David Frum

While Frum has been willing to speak out on Republican failings, he's hardly become a liberal since leaving the Bush White House. In a column published Wednesday night, he recommended that Obama either ignore the issue of immigration reform or encourage "self-deportation."

But the conservative movement has a tendency to excommunicate anyone who breaks ranks, says Bruce Bartlett, who was fired by the National Center for Policy Analysis, another right-wing think tank, for writing a book critical of Bush policies. "In the years since, I have lost a great many friends and been shunned by conservative society in Washington, D.C," Bartlett wrote in the wake of Frum's resignation.

Bartlett, who served as a domestic policy aide for Ronald Reagan and a deputy assistant Treasury secretary under the first President Bush, claimed Frum told him privately a few months ago that conservatives on AEI's payroll had been "ordered" not to speak to the media about health care reform "because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do." Frum himself certainly violated that order.

[UPDATE: Supporting Bartlett's claim, Paul Krugman points out that a 2003 health reform proposal from the Heritage Foundation, a think tank considered more right-wing than AEI, looks a lot like the bill Obama just signed.]

[UPDATE 2: Frum tells Mike Allen that "donor pressure" related to his "Waterloo" post was indeed responsible for his termination. Frum claims "the core of the story is the kind of economic pressure that intellectual conservatives are under" -- meaning AEI couldn't risk displeasing its base by keeping Frum on after he criticized the Republican Party. "[T]he elite isn't leading anymore," said Frum. "It's trapped."

Earlier, Frum told Greg Sargent he and AEI parted ways over money, not ideology -- they offered him the chance to continue on at a salary of zero -- and that his criticisms of the Republican Party were "welcomed and celebrated" at the conservative think tank.

Allen reports that AEI is standing by their earlier story that it was Frum's decision to leave.]

[boutons_deux]

Krugman:

March 25, 2010, 5:21 pm

David Frum, AEI, Heritage And Health Care

David Frum* has been fired by the American Enterprise Institute; one has to assume that this is a response to his outspokenness about the Republican failure on health reform.

In discussing the Frum firing, Bruce Bartlett asserts that AEI has muzzled its health-care experts, because the truth is that they agree with a lot of what Obama is proposing. I find this quite believable; back in 2003 Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation, which is supposedly harder-right than AEI, proposed a health care reform consisting of … drumroll … an individual mandate coupled with subsidies to make insurance affordable. In short, Obamacare.

I was struck, by the way, by Butler’s recommendation that we

Provide support to people to obtain health care based on their need, not where they happen to work, or their eligibility for welfare, or their military record, or their age.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?

[Winehole23]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/182/411933358_91a309929c.jpg


11th Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican

[EVAY]

Vast Ring Wing Conspiracy isn't anything if not intolerantly, purifyingly monolithic.

========



David Frum, AEI SPLIT: Conservative's Position 'Terminated' By Major Think Tank

First Posted: 03-25-10 03:09 PM | Updated: 03-26-10 10:21 AM

See late updates below...

Former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum has resigned from the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, Frum announced on his Web site Thursday afternoon -- a move which suggests the conservative movement has cut ties with Frum over the straight talk he has been providing all week.

Following the passage of health care reform in the House, Frum made waves with a column for CNN.com declaring that health care had proven to been "Waterloo" for the GOP, not for Obama as Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) infamously suggested. Republican lawmakers quickly dismissed Frum, a prominent reformist conservative, as a mere "former staffer."

Then Frum said on "Nightline" that the Republican Party's lockstep with the Fox News attack machine has hurt the party, and that "we're discovering we work for Fox." That may have been the last straw for AEI.

"I have been a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute since 2003. At lunch today, AEI President Arthur Brooks and I came to a termination of that relationship," Frum wrote on his Web site. The full text of his "resignation" letter is below:

Dear Arthur,

This will memorialize our conversation at lunch today. Effective immediately, my position as a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute is terminated. I appreciate the consideration that delays my emptying of my office until after my return from travel next week. Premises will be vacated no later than April 9.

I have had many fruitful years at the American Enterprise Institute, and I do regret this abrupt and unexpected conclusion of our relationship.
Story continues below

Very truly yours,
David Frum

While Frum has been willing to speak out on Republican failings, he's hardly become a liberal since leaving the Bush White House. In a column published Wednesday night, he recommended that Obama either ignore the issue of immigration reform or encourage "self-deportation."

But the conservative movement has a tendency to excommunicate anyone who breaks ranks, says Bruce Bartlett, who was fired by the National Center for Policy Analysis, another right-wing think tank, for writing a book critical of Bush policies. "In the years since, I have lost a great many friends and been shunned by conservative society in Washington, D.C," Bartlett wrote in the wake of Frum's resignation.

Bartlett, who served as a domestic policy aide for Ronald Reagan and a deputy assistant Treasury secretary under the first President Bush, claimed Frum told him privately a few months ago that conservatives on AEI's payroll had been "ordered" not to speak to the media about health care reform "because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do." Frum himself certainly violated that order.

[UPDATE: Supporting Bartlett's claim, Paul Krugman points out that a 2003 health reform proposal from the Heritage Foundation, a think tank considered more right-wing than AEI, looks a lot like the bill Obama just signed.]

[UPDATE 2: Frum tells Mike Allen that "donor pressure" related to his "Waterloo" post was indeed responsible for his termination. Frum claims "the core of the story is the kind of economic pressure that intellectual conservatives are under" -- meaning AEI couldn't risk displeasing its base by keeping Frum on after he criticized the Republican Party. "[T]he elite isn't leading anymore," said Frum. "It's trapped."

Earlier, Frum told Greg Sargent he and AEI parted ways over money, not ideology -- they offered him the chance to continue on at a salary of zero -- and that his criticisms of the Republican Party were "welcomed and celebrated" at the conservative think tank.

Allen reports that AEI is standing by their earlier story that it was Frum's decision to leave.]

The biggest thing here is "THE ECONOMIC PRESSURE THAT INTELLECTUAL CONSERVATIVES ARE UNDER".

That is what may eventually create a third party of 'intellectual conservatives', moderate democrats and independents, none of whom can conitnue to accept the extreme, non-thinking wings of either party.

Or maybe that is just wishful thinking on my part.

[Winehole23]

Welcomed and celebrated.


Your pay is zero. There's the door.

[ChumpDumper]

Of course, the failure of Republican obstructionism is solely due to the guy who pointed out its failure.

[Winehole23]

In March 2003, he wrote a feature (http://old.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp) for National Review entitled "Unpatriotic Conservatives," which amounted to an argument for why neoconservatives deserved supremacy within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. Frum tiptoed right up to calling "paleoconservatives" like Pat Buchanan fascists, and ended on this note:

They began by hating the neoconservatives. They came to hate their party and this president. They have finished by hating their country.


War is a great clarifier. It forces people to take sides. The paleoconservatives have chosen -- and the rest of us must choose too. In a time of danger, they have turned their backs on their country. Now we turn our backs on them.
You won’t find much of a defense of Buchanan or the paleoconservatives here, but that kind of bombast -- "war is a great clarifier" -- sure doesn’t look great in retrospect. Frum and his allies weren’t just trying to drum some unsavory types out of the movement. They were also working at making it impossible for a Republican to oppose the party line on the crucial issue of the day -- an issue on which they turned out to be disastrously wrong themselves.


Now that Frum is the right wing's victim, rather than its enforcer, he's easy to sympathize with. But it seems that the fundamental problem is more in the idea that conservatism has to be a monolith at all times. For a movement that has become obsessed with warding off the evils of socialism, the right wing does dearly love a purge.


http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/03/26/frum_aei

[Winehole23]

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/jan/28/00019/

[EVAY]

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/jan/28/00019/

Assuming that the linked article is true (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), is this a 'what goes around comes around' moment?

[Winehole23]

Partly, yes. The article recaps Frum's career as a pundit.