My letter to David Frum after seeing him on the Rachel Madow show

[rainy]

David Frum,

I saw you on the Rachel Madow show and I read your blog about it. First you said you don’t watch the show, but, you accused her show of contributing to the discourse in this country. How would you know if you don’t watch it? Truth has a well known liberal bias as I like to say. The right has been very wrong about much throughout history starting with the greatness of Christopher Columbus.

Next, you mentioned to Rachel that she should have Paul Wolfewitz on as if he had any credibility left. He was wrong about EVERYTHING in the Iraq war, no weapons of mass destruction, no greatings as liberators, not paid for by oil money, lasted way longer and continues to this day.



Rachel is a Rhodes Scholar and she has very intelligent conversations with her guests; about the most intelligent and in-depth conversations you will find on TV these days plus she keeps it fun. You were as wrong about her as Wolfie was about the War.

[whistle]

1. Please post his response if you in fact get one

[rainy]

3. sure thing! He was so condesending and I really wish Rachel

had discredited Wolfewitz right then and there.

[AllieB]

2. Do you have a link to his blog/email?

He is such a tool I want to email him also.

[rainy]

5. [e-mail] I just sent it here as a letter to the

editor and to David Frum.

[jberryhill]

4. What I can't figure out about what Frum said

Was his point that the screaming over on Fox is preferable to a civil conversation?

[rainy]

6. That's because he doesn't watch the show. He admits it on his

blog site at the National Review web page.

[Viking12]

7. Why waste your time engaging that scumbag?

You're never going to influence him. Put your efforts into influencing undecideds, i.e writing LTTE, GOTV, or some other productive activity.

[Jane Austin]

8. I thought Rachel handled it pretty well

considering how he sandbagged her.

But I wanted her to ask if he's also been on Limbaugh's show, Hannity's, etc, telling them that their sarcasm and "humor" lower the political discourse.

[Carolina]

11. exactly!

[npincus]

9. didn't he create the idiotic slogan "axis of evil"

talk about provocative, destructive discourse!

[AFSCME girl]

10. Hi rainy!

Excellent letter! I emailed Rachel last night to tell her what a great job she did putting Frum in his place.

:hi: :yourock:

[ladjf]

12. Good letter. But, it will have no impact on Frum.

I found his assertions to be marginally coherent. The man is overrating his own intelligence.

[bigtree]

13. my two letters to Frum

fu

[Jane Austin]

17. LOL!

and Snort!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Maddow made a fool out of him.

And Frum knew it from the second she started responding to him.

If haven't seen anybody shit their pants so hard since, we'll... I'm not supposed to bring it up here.

[Overseas]

15. Yeah !! His pushing her to invite Wolfie was very odd.

That's what I wrote to Rachel-- why does he want you to bring on someone like Wolfie, who was so wrong about the Iraq War? You wouldn't bring him on to discuss national security unless you wanted to affirm Republican incompetence in that arena. Mr. Cakewalk wouldn't be on my list of "experts."

But then Frumm was very very wrong about his big claim to fame too-- The "Axis of Evil" statement. That set U.S. diplomacy back at least ten years. We'd been quietly getting North Korea to open up inch by inch and let us keep an eye on their nuclear programs and once Frumm had Dubya make that ominous declaration, things were clamped shut. Making Iran another part of that was also extremely counterproductive.

But smashing Iraq, when they used to be the major balance against Iran's power in the region, which Frumm championed with his buddy Wolfowitz, was the biggest foreign policy and national security disaster in decades. They created thousands more Al Qaeda members with those moves and strengthened Iran enormously by crushing their biggest enemy in the region.

So where David Frumm comes off thinking he is one half as smart as Rachel Maddow is beyond me. He has been WRONG WRONG WRONG on a sequence of issues, so he really shouldn't have tried to lord it over a scholar like her. She's way too sharp for him. Glad she derailed his sidebar sabotage attempt.

But I guess he expected her to kiss his ring because he was one of the few Republicans who would dare appear on her program. There is a concerted campaign among them to freeze Rachel out because they are mad that Keith has survived and succeeded. They'd feel just awful if we had two liberals anchoring shows among their sea of conservatives.

We're supposed to be happy with the few crumbs tossed to us by the likes of Chris Matthews on his good days when he allows himself to speak as a moderate Democrat.

[applegrove]

16. Neocons desperately want to spread their propaganda over any bright light.

Maddow is a bright light. She is the Enlightenment on the TV.

[genna]

18. When he attack Rachel off the back, I thought what the HELL IS THIS!

It is one thing to engage someone you disagree with while claiming you want civility, but he completely tried to throw her off by making her feel like she wasn't doing her job.

I've watched lying significant others try to throw the innocent partner off by this tactic, but I was JUST SHOCKED. Keith Olbermann won't even try to have these guilty Republicans on. Rachel tried to extend her hand to them and she was blindsided.

If they are interested in having civil debates, why don't they start with themselves first?

[rainy]

19. They are bullies. They don't care about anyone. Very selfish people. nt