House of Eratosthenes

…I’ve received a great deal of e-mail. Most of these e-mails say some version of the same thing: if you don’t agree with Rush [Limbaugh], quit calling yourself a conservative and get out of the Republican Party. There’s the perfect culmination of the outlook Rush Limbaugh has taught his fans and followers: we want to transform the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan into a party of unanimous dittoheads—and we don’t care how much the party has to shrink to do it. That’s not the language of politics. It’s the language of a cult.

Yeah, I think I know why they’re saying that to you, and it doesn’t have a whole lot to do with cults. It has to do with some of the outlandish things you’re saying:

Rush Limbaugh is a seriously unpopular figure among the voters that conservatives and Republicans need to reach. Forty-one percent of independents have an unfavorable opinion of him, according to the new NEWSWEEK Poll. Limbaugh is especially off-putting to women: his audience is 72 percent male, according to Pew Research. Limbaugh himself acknowledges his unpopularity among women. On his Feb. 24 broadcast, he said with a chuckle: “Thirty-one-point gender gaps don’t come along all that often … Given this massive gender gap in my personal approval numbers … it seems reasonable for me to convene a summit.”

Limbaugh was kidding about the summit. But his quip acknowledged something that eludes many of those who would make him the arbiter of Republican authenticity: from a political point of view, Limbaugh is kryptonite, weakening the GOP nationally. No Republican official will say that; Limbaugh demands absolute deference from the conservative world, and he generally gets it. When offended, he can extract apologies from Republican members of Congress, even the chairman of the Republican National Committee.

So people like Frum don’t get any of that sweet, sweet deference that is so regularly plied upon the unpopular Limbaugh. How unfair.

Frum goes on…

Look at America’s public-policy problems, look at voting trends, and it’s inescapably obvious that the Republican Party needs to evolve. We need to put free-market health-care reform, not tax cuts, at the core of our economic message. It’s health-care costs that are crushing middle-class incomes. Between 2000 and 2006, the amount that employers paid for labor rose substantially. Employees got none of that money; all of it was absorbed by rising health-care costs. Meanwhile, the income-tax cuts offered by Republicans interest fewer and fewer people: before the recession, two thirds of American workers paid more in payroll taxes than in income taxes.

We need to modulate our social conservatism (not jettison—modulate). The GOP will remain a predominantly conservative party and a predominantly pro-life party. But especially on gay-rights issues, the under-30 generation has arrived at a new consensus. Our party seems to be running to govern a country that no longer exists. The rule that both our presidential and vice presidential candidates must always be pro-life has become counterproductive: McCain’s only hope of winning the presidency in 2008 was to carry Pennsylvania, and yet Pennsylvania’s most successful Republican vote winner, former governor Tom Ridge, was barred from the ticket because he’s pro-choice.

Frum is undecided about whether he wants to bellyache about people not being liked because they make too much sense, or about people not making enough sense because they’re too busy trying to be liked. To him, it seems, likability trumps reason and logic if, and only if, you’re talking about the right people doing the liking or not-liking: Non-conservatives.

Mr. Frum, I think that might be why you’re getting the mail. Your core message is that conservative principles don’t count.

Here’s an idea. Why don’t you publish a brand-new article called “I Told You So,” pointing back to this one, to be put into print once we have a chance to see which policies work? Zowee! Is that a paradigm shift or what? That would involve educating oneself on reality, rather than fixating on personalities and popularity contests like some smitten fifteen-year-old girl.

Do you realize how many times, just in the twentieth century, conservatives lost the affections of the electorate in a big, big way? Lessee…I think we should go ahead and count William Jennings Bryan, although he never did actually triumph…we should give it to Wilson even though he got a decisive benefit from the vote-splitting in 1912…Roosevelt in 1932…Camelot…Watergate…Iran-Contra…The Man From Hope.

It seems escape velocity from Planet Conservative is never quite reached. Something keeps pulling us back in. What would you think that is? Is it that conservatives are so seductive, so smooth and silky, such good speakers, so freakin’ fun? Or could it be the Diebold machines?

Heh. It is to laugh.

Nope, it’s reality. To see what I’m talking about, just catch a plane ticket to any big city run by a solid majority of democrats. Walk around in the seedier sections of that town for awhile. Buy some coffee. Buy some groceries. Buy some gas. Bend the rules a little, fire off a pellet gun in your backyard, throw some batteries in the garbage and tell people about it. Get a job without belonging to a union.

Live there long enough to be on both sides of the law. Get mugged. Have your car keyed.

You vote for a solution that sounds good, but isn’t…you vote for another one, and another one…you watch all these things get implemented and then turn to crap. You watch your government go into debt, and then step into the money-lending market as the 800-pound gorilla on the consuming side of that counter…inflation skyrockets. Crime skyrockets too. Women violated, kids abducted, old people mugged — people get tired of this after awhile.

Limbaugh is unpolished and unappealing because he can afford to be. After living in a crime-infested, over-inflationed, crude-oil-deprived fantasy land for awhile, people don’t care what other people look like. They start to care more about ideas and reality.

So conservatives don’t need to change a damn thing.

They just need to identify, and reject, people like you. Good for them.

It will come as no surprise that I agree with Frum. I read the article last evening and nodded my head north-south a whole frickin’ bunch. You left out the bits where he compares Limbaugh to Gingrich… could it be that those bits don’t fit your narrative, Morgan?

We’ve been dueling a bit on this subject over the course of the last week or so… even longer if you wanna go back to our Fred-Rudy discussions during last year’s primaries. But… earlier this week I mentioned the intolerance I’ve noted of late on the right… a decided antipathy for opinions that deviate, however slightly, from orthodoxy as defined by… Dittoheads. So Frum publishes his piece and your reaction is…

They just need to identify, and reject, people like you. Good for them.

Au contraire. What’s needed is MORE debate and discussion, not rejection. One could begin with Frum’s point that the GOP has lost the college educated voter, whereas in the past we OWNED that demographic. Now why do you think that might be? And no, that’s not an opening to another treatise on “useless credentials.” Not every BA/BS holder got his/hers for basket-weaving… even though I tend to agree there are a LOT of educated idiots out there. There’s something else in play and Frum gets as close to reality as I’ve read lately, with the possible exception of the things Newt’s saying.

I suggest you buckle up and get ready for more people like The One and his minions, coz that’s EXACTLY what we’re gonna get unless we “modulate” our positions. Your Mileage OBVIOUSLY Varies. 😉
- bpenni | 03/08/2009 @ 15:05
Au contraire. What’s needed is MORE debate and discussion, not rejection.

Well then when’s the debate and discussion start?

The economic plans instigated by The One — the ones Rush Limbaugh has hoped would not succeed, thus inspiring all this “moderate” wrath from folks like yourself and Frum — are based, entirely, not just a little bit, on the notion that Keynesian economics might work. Collect some loot from all around, put it in a massive pot, inject it in the economy, and presto you get better results than you’d get if people were left to spend their own lucre as they saw fit. What’s been done since January depends *entirely* on that. Entirely, not just a little bit.

Was there some discussion on whether or not that would work? Did you hear of any? I didn’t. I just got a reply from one of my two Senators, in response to my missive to them, that hey — it’s better than doing nuthin! Meanwhile…there’s no indication from history that this will work at all. The plan went into motion, Obama talked the economy down, and away we go…the Dow is worth 50% of what it was…your 401k is worth 50% of what it was…misery all around.

So how come Obama, Frum, et al get this reputation for conducting or participating in debate & discussion? How are they any more deserving of that than Limbaugh? About all I’ve seen ’em do, is accuse everyone who didn’t agree with them of being racists, idjits, or both. Of course YOU discuss and debate. But you’re not an Obamaton.

We seem to have hit a rather bizarre empasse, one where “open-mindedness” has come to mean something opposite from the classic definition. It seems to have something to do with possessing, in fact, a closed mind; a steely resolve to try ideas that are known to be deleterious.
- mkfreeberg | 03/08/2009 @ 21:09
So how come Obama, Frum, et al get this reputation for conducting or participating in debate & discussion?

Well… I didn’t think, and still don’t, Frum was on about Obama. And neither was I. What I think needs to be discussed is the future of the Republican Party… that was Frum’s point, wasn’t it? We’re agreed Obama has put this country in the proverbial handbasket and it IS gettin’ hot in here. No argument there. But whither the GOP? THAT’S what we need to discuss.
- bpenni | 03/08/2009 @ 21:18
Well, here’s my whole point…maybe I’m not wording it right. Sometimes, in life, moderation is not only possible, but necessary for a beneficial outcome. Other times, it’s just laughable. Whenever you’re dealing with concepts, moderation is laughable. Nothing more than a perverted lip-service for dealing with truth and logic.

Here’s something where there’s no gray area possible: Minimum wage. If you hike it, you make it more expensive to hire people…yes? Conservatives say: Of course! Can’t be any other way. Liberals say: No! It’s the patriotic duty of the employers to hire just as many people at a higher wage as they would’ve otherwise. Or more! You can hike the minimum wage just as high as you want, and there’ll be no consequences.

There’s no middle ground between those two positions.

it’s not my point, here, that conservatives are correct. (They are, of course — it’s simple mathematics, and by participating in such a discussion you lower yourself to debating what happens to products of multiplication equations in which the factors are embiggened…it’s not a matter of opinion.) My point is, simply, that if you accept one side is even a little bit correct, you have to reject the idea that the other side can also be a little bit correct. It’s not possible. It’s a one-or-the-other proposition.
- mkfreeberg | 03/08/2009 @ 21:34
I went back and re-read Frum… just to make damned sure I didn’t miss anything. I didn’t… and I think you did. Frum’s closing paragraph:

I’m a pretty conservative guy. On most issues, I doubt Limbaugh and I even disagree very much. But the issues on which we do disagree are maybe the most important to the future of the conservative movement and the Republican Party: Should conservatives be trying to provoke or persuade? To narrow our coalition or enlarge it? To enflame or govern? And finally (and above all): to profit—or to serve?

I could have written that. Frum’s article was never about Obama… it was about US. So… whattaya wanna do, Morgan? Provoke or persuade? Enlarge our coalition and govern? Or get smaller and smaller while sitting in the corner and alternately sulk and rage? I’d prefer to govern, myself.
- bpenni | 03/08/2009 @ 21:35
Ahh…. here we both are… in real time! 😉
- bpenni | 03/08/2009 @ 21:36
My point is, simply, that if you accept one side is even a little bit correct, you have to reject the idea that the other side can also be a little bit correct.

Hunh? I’ve read this four times and it doesn’t make sense. And need I say “stopped clocks, twice a day?”
- bpenni | 03/08/2009 @ 21:45
It’s got to do with policies working, versus other policies not working. A hike in the minimum wage will increase unemployment, or at least exert a force in that direction — or else it won’t.

This is pretty much the beef Ayn Rand was picking with her adversaries. It’s the Aristotelian law of Either-Or. If Obama relied only on those who were mistaken, thinking the socialist way of life was the way-to-go…he’d lose. But you throw in people who haven’t thought about it too much, people who simply lack the skull-balls to acknowledge that some questions are indeed black-and-white…and now he’s our new President.

You know who I think hasn’t been reading things — it’s Frum, vis-a-vis Limbaugh. Does Frum really think when Limbaugh says “I hope [Obama] fails,” that Limbaugh is talking about the economy going into the tank, and people suffering? He doesn’t come out and say so. In fact, at one point in Frum’s article, he quotes Limbaugh where Limbaugh specifically explains the opposite, so he should know better.

I don’t see where Frum engages what needs to be engaged for the good of the country — what policies work, versus what policies don’t work? His point seems to be that it just doesn’t matter. When the majority goes off in a bad direction, and embraces policies that don’t work, it seems his point is, that’s the way to go…come what may. Well okay then. That’s what the election was about, the non-Republican won, so let the non-Republican prove that bad policies can be good. What’s so important about having Republicans go along with it?

The way things are now, Republicans are just going to sit outside and say “no, no, no,” like either party does when it isn’t running things. What in the world is wrong with that? Buyer’s remorse is setting in, people are growing up. Seldom in modern history has any loyal-opposition party ever been better justified in saying “I told you so.”

I would add a post-script: This is the way socialism works. Political “leaders” who are ready to give up on capitalism, like The Anointed One, are “moderates”; those of us who are ready to give up for good on socialism, just for that and nothing more, are extremists. But in reality, it is far, far more reasonable and more moderate to give up on socialism. It’s been tried so many times, and hasn’t worked yet. Giving up on capitalism, which is what the election was really all about, is what’s really extreme. There’s so much history you have to ignore, to even entertain the idea.
- mkfreeberg | 03/08/2009 @ 22:19
Sorry for jotting down some of this stuff in such a way that it doesn’t compile error-free the first try… 😉 My son and I are trying to figure out the new Tomb Raider as I try to make you see the error of your ways.
- mkfreeberg | 03/08/2009 @ 22:34
I think what amused me the most was the suggestion (from the Left, no less) that the Republican Party needed to “fire” Mr Limbaugh. As if the GOP leadership was in any position to do so. I have a news flash: LIMBAUGH DOESN’T WORK FOR THE RNC! He’s a self-employed radio broadcaster; head of the EIB network which hosts the Rush Limbaugh Show and of his monthly newsletter. He’s commander-in-chief of every endeavor in which he is involved.

In short, Limbaugh does not answer to anyone except his advertisers who pay his bills, the radio stations which carry his show, and all of these people ultimately answer to Limbaugh’s listeners.

The idea that anyone is in a position to somehow “get rid of him” or reduce his influence is very amusing. Sorry bluebloods, sorry RNC, sorry GOP moderates. Rush doesn’t work for you; stuff it.
- cylarz | 03/08/2009 @ 22:57
suggest you buckle up and get ready for more people like The One and his minions, coz that’s EXACTLY what we’re gonna get unless we “modulate” our positions. Your Mileage OBVIOUSLY Varies. 😉

I’m not interesting in abandoning my conservative principles (coincidentally, the ones that Limbaugh articulates on the radio each day) just to win more elections. Call me a purist; I would rather the public elect liberals and then let them get the blame for screwing up the economy and squandering our national prestige abroad. It’s better to lose than allow the public to think that limp-wristed fools like McCain are what we’re about, over here on the right.

Not only would what you suggest, be a betrayal of what I hold dear (including some ideas that are straight from the Bible), but it doesn’t even win elections. It fails even on a practical or pragmatic level. Not only is it wrongheaded from a moral standpoint, it won’t even work. It’s one thing to talk about communicating the message more effectively; it’s quite another to talk about diluting it just to win more of these “college educated” people that you think we’re hemmorraging. (I’m got a Bachelor’s degree myself, incidentally, so don’t be so cocksure of yourself.)

Oh, you say, but we have to attract younger voters and immigrant voters and my Aunt Sally and Joe down the street who lost his job at the Ford plant. You know what, pal? You do that by pointing to the historical record. Tax cuts = economic growth. Strong military = peace. Secured borders = less crime in border communities. You give people the truth and trust them to figure it out. That’s what our American experiment in self-government has been about since the beginning. You don’t agree with that, tough. Get the hell out of the GOP. Stop battling with us for control of the party and go someplace else where your liberal-lite ideas are welcomed.

You moderate types, the ones who want us to water down what the GOP has traditionally stood for? Y’all can get bent as far as I am concerned. In fact, why don’t you do us a huge favor and re-register with the Libertarians or something? I’m sure they’d welcome your more “nuanced” positions on issues like pot legalization and gay marriage. I’m sick and tired of the likes of you blaming us social cons for our party getting its butt handed to it in the last couple of elections.

Conservatism wasn’t even on the ballot in 2008; “moderation” (read liberal-lite) was on the ballot. The one conservative in that race wasn’t even running for president; she was brought onto the McCain ticket as an afterthought, and if the polling numbers are any indication, it’s about the only thing the man did right in the entire campaign.
- cylarz | 03/08/2009 @ 23:10
Can I call him David Frum Mars?
- cylarz | 03/08/2009 @ 23:43
Ya know, cylarz, you could have saved a whole helluva lot of space by just typing “ditto.” I’d have understood your point. Such as it is.
- bpenni | 03/09/2009 @ 10:58
Ya gotta admit, Buck, it’s really difficult to state the case that the election last year was run on a platform of “Whatever Limbaugh Says, Goes.” The Republicans pretty much allowed the New York Times to pick the champion…at least…had they deferred to the editorial board for the final decision, the outcome would’ve been the same. McCain’s value was in his potential to deliver crossover votes. People were supposed to say, oh look, Republicans can flex after all.

And sooner or later, you have to stop blaming the defeat on the hockey mom.

What was McCain’s GREATEST moment? At the Rick Warren interview, asked about when life begins, the question which Holy Man answered with a bunch of ums, ers, ahs, “above my pay grade.” McCain answered clearly, simply, in the booming tenor voice one can muster only when one believes firmly in what one is saying, “it begins at conception.” Wild applause…not just from the religious tighty-righties, but from the mainstream America whose votes he needed.

All the other conservative principles, he either did not hold, or else he held them but simultaneously apologized for doing so. His central message seemed to be, “if saying it will win me votes, and it happens to be true, but it could be construed as a little bit negative, then my campaign won’t mention it.” People don’t appreciate that. And now, the evidence says McCain won how many of these coveted cross-over votes? Close to none. Certainly a lot fewer than Reagan ever did.

Cylarz is right. This put-the-finger-in-the-air, see-what’s-hip-and-jiggy thing, the appeal of it is that it is supposed to win elections. But it doesn’t even do that. So what’s the point?
- mkfreeberg | 03/09/2009 @ 11:34
I’m with cylarz. Getting a “Republican” in office when there is no conservative principle established is the very definition of a Pyrrhic victory.

Pope Benedict has gone on record as saying that the present social situation may in fact result in a smaller Catholic church, composed only of the people who are serious about it. And that’s all right.

Seems to me his reaction is a perfect characterization of Conservatism in the U.S.
- rob | 03/09/2009 @ 12:17
I live in China and don’t get to hear much of Mr. Limbaugh. Before moving here I used to listen at times. I always found him somewhat arrogant and can see how moderates and especially liberals don’t like him. Sometimes it isn’t what you say but how you say it and perhaps he should choose his words more carefully.

This especially true because the host is absolutely right. There are positions that are mutually exclusive. You cannot believe that both freedom and slavery are good things. You cannot believe that black is white or up is down. You cannot believe that immorality is really moral. If you believe one of these things then you must reject the other. Where Mr. Limbaugh errs is not calling liberals out for false beliefs but in making them feel like idiots when he does it. Granted, it is hard not too but he does not seem to even make the attempt. This to me explains his gender gap. It also may explain why he has been married three times. You don’t keep a wife by pointing out her flaws and then laughing at them; even if you are correct and even if they are funny.

By failing to convince Mr. Limbaugh ends up, perhaps unintentionally, browbeating his opponents.

That said, it is a mistake for the democrats to challenge him the way they have. He does not work for the republican party anymore than Charles Gibson works for the democrats. But, he has lots of money. Piles and piles of money. More money than most people can imagine. That means that if they go after him he has the wherewithal to take them to court and win. Liberalism cannot afford to loose its mantle of inevitability. Trying to take down Rush Limbaugh and failing would be devastating.

On second thought, maybe I should hope the liberals do try to take Rush Limbaugh down.
- Fai Mao | 03/09/2009 @ 20:36
Thanks for the kind words, guys. I knew you’d see it my way.

And Bpenni (or is it Buck?) I don’t “ditto.” I make my own point in my own way. I don’t repeat talking points handed to me by someone else; that’s what the Left does.
- cylarz | 03/09/2009 @ 21:15
Where Mr. Limbaugh errs is not calling liberals out for false beliefs but in making them feel like idiots when he does it. Granted, it is hard not too but he does not seem to even make the attempt.

The man tells it like it is. He doesn’t see any need to build up his opponents’ self esteem while demolishing their philosophy and arguments. Neither do I, frankly. A lot of times people don’t come around until you make them see that they’re thinking and acting like total morons.

This to me explains his gender gap.

The gender gap is simply a fact of life; it shows up in polling data prior to every election. Men simply are more conservative. I happen to think that men simply are more naturally given to the logical thought processes required to become conservative; only a minority of women are able to set their feelings aside and do likewise. Don’t get me wrong – there ARE some great female conservative thinkers – Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, etc. Just not as many.

It also may explain why he has been married three times. You don’t keep a wife by pointing out her flaws and then laughing at them; even if you are correct and even if they are funny.

Perhaps, but I really have no idea what went on in the Limbaugh household prior to any of his divorces, and frankly neither do you. It’s more likely that he simply wasn’t home enough. I find this comment uncalled-for at best.
- cylarz | 03/09/2009 @ 21:20
I’m going to circle around your topic, Morgan.

I’ve been reading you for about nine months, correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to consistently come down on the side of libertarian/classical liberal conservatism. The good stuff. Neither Frum (neo-con) or Rush (social/paleo) seem to suit your brand of ideology, so I’m wondering why you’re even entertaining this little tit for tat?

I have no interest in the internecine wars blasting the remnants of our political juggernaut to shreds. The conservative men calling the shots decided greasing the rim was more important than principle and furthering small government policy – they’re no better that the liberal dems currently in power. Count off a handful of good men still worthy of respect, chuck the rest under the bus.

I don’t enjoy Rush. I respect him, but I don’t listen. The man’s all Dick and Jane, a good primer for the unschooled, an obnoxious bore for people who can count without using their fingers.

Frum’s a New York elitist asshole. Who in the hell cares what he writes?

I know neither man influences you, Freeburg.
- Daphne | 03/09/2009 @ 22:28
I come down on it like an engineer. Certain things work; certain other things don’t. Life counsels us on which things work and which things don’t, and in my opinion these lessons do not change, all that changes is our readiness, willingness and ability to learn.

Even the wisest among us have a wide assortment of tools we can use to not do the learning. I went through a high-level, coarse list of these tools here (this went up last month, somewhat before the Limbaugh/Obama thing). I would call your attention to Item #3 in the list of how to persuade large numbers of people toward dumb things, without taking responsibility for it:

3. Switch moderation and extremism with each other, by using the words “always” and “never” to describe any alternatives to your idea;

People are particularly susceptible to this. Everyone wants to be a “nuanced” thinker; everyone wants that rep.

Reality, however, doesn’t smile on nuance. Cylarz said it quite well: “Not only would what you suggest, be a betrayal of what I hold dear (including some ideas that are straight from the Bible), but it doesn’t even win elections. It fails even on a practical or pragmatic level.” In the same way that down-is-down ALL the time, certain ideas fail all the time and certain other ideas succeed all the time. Noticing it doesn’t make you an extremist. Pretending they aren’t consistent, when they in fact are, does make a person an extremist. Keynesian economic theory — doesn’t work. Raising the minimum wage — does lead to increased unemployment. Higher tax rates — do constrict tax revenues by constricting business.

Frum’s thesis is so disengaged from reality, it doesn’t even deserve to be taken seriously. As I pointed out before, his whole point is that things stop being true, when a sufficiently large number of people stop believing in them. Call it the “Tinkerbell defense.” It’s somewhat justified, or seems to be, when Frum talks about it all leading to winning elections. But waitaminnit; if the liberal ideas fail, can’t Republicans win converts without contradicting themselves one single time? Just wait for the electorate to grow up? It’s worked every single time it’s been tried.

His argument also depends on the mistaken idea that Limbaugh, in saying “I hope [Obama] fails,” really means he wants the economy to tank and for people to suffer. Anyone who thinks that is the case can simply open up the transcript and see what the spirit behind Limbaugh’s remark really was. So this mindset is only fitting for those who are ignorant and lazy…plus those others like Rahm Emmanuel, who are trying to sell something to the ignorant/lazy. Which camp is Frum in? I really don’t know, and I really don’t care.

My blogger friend Buck, God bless ‘im, is known to me to be neither ignorant nor lazy. But I do think he’s fatigued by something that isn’t quite as related to this topic as he’d like it to be, and this is the outlet he’s chosen. I disagree with him in moderating the tone of the Republican party. To my way of thinking, that’s exactly what just got done four months ago. Didn’t work out that hot. Girls don’t accept dates with timid guys, and voters don’t vote for candidates that are timid about the things they’re supposed to believe. If an idea is good, it’s worth promoting without apology.
- mkfreeberg | 03/09/2009 @ 23:24
But I do think he’s fatigued by something that isn’t quite as related to this topic as he’d like it to be, and this is the outlet he’s chosen.

I’m not particularly fatigued by any one thing at the moment, other than The One and the state of my 401(k), which are directly related. I am slightly put off by the internecine combat amongst ostensible allies, though. But, Hey! Whatever. We’ll keep on truckin’. Always have. 😉
- bpenni | 03/10/2009 @ 21:44

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

You’re Hurting Frum’s FeelingsSunday, March 8th, 2009

You’re Hurting Frum’s Feelings
Sunday, March 8th, 2009