-
Johan Santana Shines on Rusty Staub Bobblehead Day
May 26, 2012 | 7 comments
-
WaPost Criticizes Romney's Lack of Rhythm
May 25, 2012 | 10 comments
-
Warren Pulls Even with Brown in New Poll
May 24, 2012 | 22 comments
-
Quigley's Quixotic Defense of Liz Warren
May 23, 2012 | 23 comments
-
Robin Gibb, R.I.P.
May 20, 2012 | 15 comments
The Spectacle Blog
I seem to have hit a raw nerve with Quin Hillyer when I asked him if he would support President Obama should Newt Gingrich be the GOP nominee in 2012. Here is his reply in the comments section of the blog post:
Aaron,
Get real, man. Can you even read? I used the Duke example to explain, at length, how VOTERS can process information in a way that makes them akin to jury nullifiers. What they see themselves becomes more important than older evidence to the contrary. That's it. In no way did I compare Gingrich to Duke. And of course I would personally vote for Gingrich over Obama.
As for Duke, I have every good reason to use his example to make a political point, seeing as how I was a leader in the effort to block him. I spent three solid years fighting against him, and thus had plenty of opportunity to study, and learn from, what made him so sickeningly successful.
While Quin might believe I am functionally illiterate, let me assure him that I am well aware of his efforts against Duke with the Louisiana Coalition Against Racism & Nazism and he is to be commended for it. However, it doesn't make him immune from criticism.
Quin insists to the high heavens that "in no way did I compare Gingrich to Duke." Well, let's read Quin's concluding paragraph, shall we:
A leopard can't change its spots. A grand wizard Kluxer under his sheets (à la David Duke) can hide his wizardry. And no debate can help Newt alter his lizardry.
Hmmmm, it would appear that Quin just made a comparison between Newt Gingrich and David Duke.
I fully realize that Quin isn't likening Newt to Duke because of the latter's racism and anti-Semitism. But notwithstanding Quin's first-hand experience with Duke, are we to believe there is no other person in American politics, past or present, he could have picked to stand along side Newt in this article? It's fairly safe to say that most Americans don't care for Duke very much. So when someone utter Duke's name while talking about another person it is usually done for the purpose of casting that individual in the most negative light possible.
But in fairness to Quin, he did ultimately answer my question. Despite the fact that Quin believes Newt possesses an "utter disdain for real individual liberty", "wouldn't trust Gingrich in power any farther than I could throw a Mack truck with my pinkie" not to mention Gingrich's "erraticism, his emotional instability, and other unseemly characteristics", I am delighted to hear that Newt can count on Quin's support in 2012 should he earn the Republican Party's nomination.
View all comments (16) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/07/glad-to-hear-newt-can-count-on
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ed| 12.7.11 @ 12:44PM
Shorter version: Quin's a cretin.
Jack in Wi| 12.7.11 @ 4:53PM
Newt is the cretin and all sane Republicaans know it. He was booted out as Speaker for being an ineffective and corrupt windbag. He was Clinton's poodle who got rolled and blackmailed on numerous occasions. He has a mountain of baggage both new and old that make him totally unelectable and unacceptable
Dai Alanye| 12.7.11 @ 12:49PM
Per the example above, there are plenty of fools looking for intra-party fights in the various comment sections. Let's not have the staff of AmSpec brawling with one another.
Dan| 12.7.11 @ 4:19PM
Quin is foaming at the mouth.
What is there to be done but take him on?
And if that means other writers at American Spectator have to do it, ----------- then it has to be done.
We've seen Will brand Gingrich a Marxist, something most sane folks missed during Gingrich's long fight up on Capitol Hill to keep the Contras funded.
Jen Rubin called him "not an intellectual," something sane folks missed when perusing his many books on history and policy.
Quin is now speaking of him in the same breath as the KKK.
And these are supposed Republicans, supposedly those right of the political divide.
All of which tells me that Newt cannot be relied upon by the establishment types to play ball.
The more some rail against a Gingrich candidacy, the more merits therein are to be perceived.
Bo| 12.7.11 @ 1:08PM
So, Quin doesn't like Newt? Big deal. Neither does about 70% of the rest of America.
teflon93| 12.7.11 @ 1:17PM
75% of Republicans don't like Romney.
So no Newt, no Mitt. Time to give Santorum a look.
Humphrey Dumfries| 12.7.11 @ 4:06PM
heh heh... heh heh... teflon said "santorum." heh heh... Giggitty...
Interested Conservative| 12.7.11 @ 1:27PM
IIRC Mr. Hillyer feels similarly about Gov. Huckabee, and has eloquently and thoroughly expressed his views. Aside from the issues unique to each man, it may be the underlying populist nature of the appeal which is distasteful.
Newt seems to revel in this the least, but he clearly leads the current field in that approach.
Quin| 12.7.11 @ 2:49PM
By this logic, I was comparing Gingrich to a leopard. Jeez. I was using the familiar saying about how people don't change their essential natures.... and, as I had already used the Duke example for OTHER purposes, I saw a chance for the word play of "wizardry" and "lizardry," the latter being a made-up word. newt... lizard..... newt... lizard. Get it? Don't you even recognize word play?
But, again, if you insist that any parallel mention of sentence subjects is a COMPARISON, then I plead guilty to comparing Newt to a leopard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Leopard Not that Newt should mind.
aware| 12.7.11 @ 3:09PM
I still say Newt is more chameleon than lizard or leopard.
Occam's Tool| 12.7.11 @ 3:11PM
Quin: ya should have picked another analogy. I caught that you weren't making a direct comparison, and a direct comparison would be ridiculous, since Newt has always been a philosemite.
But, you use analogy to increase one's impact. And in this case, it did not go over well. Republicans are pissed off that Duke ran as one of them. Oh, well. That's why you are a writer and not a surgeon.
I still like ya.
David T| 12.7.11 @ 3:11PM
Quin--Just wave the white flag and be done. Your explanation reminds me of what George Will recently said about Newt's attempt to walk back something he said. Will called it "devious recasting."
teflon93| 12.7.11 @ 6:26PM
Compare Mitt Romney to Little Lord Fauntleroy and we're square.
Sterling Abernathy| 12.7.11 @ 3:38PM
If Mr. Hillyer wasn't slamming Newt or comparing him to David Duke, just what was it I read that offended me. I'm sure it wasn't those subliminal neo-Nazi compliments I was unable to discern, or was I!!!
Dan| 12.7.11 @ 4:31PM
Just think too, that the Romney campaign DEPENDS on such garbage as that which Hillyer just spewed forth. On their own, the Mormon has repeatedly FAILED to advance any salient reason why the Republicans should award him their nomination. But he persists in trying to foist himself upon us.
And depends on the nonsense we've seen from the likes of Hewitt, Rubin, Will, and now Hillyer, all in an abject panic for they're staring the calendar before them, and after six long years, he's no closer to the nomination than when he began!
Romney, on his own, can't exceed 25% within Republican polls. But he's supposedly the one eminently electable. Something that most of us seem to have missed while desperately looking for somebody other than him to champion the cause and the party. NOTHING so definitively demonstrates Romney's unsuitedness for the nomination than the fact that after six long, long years of campaigning endlessly for the nomination, that to this very hour he still hasn't a clue why he and his candidacy fails to resonate with the rank and file.
And I'm not about to clue him in.
somnolence| 12.7.11 @ 5:57PM
Newt may very well get my support also: within one minute to 30-15 seconds before the polls close I will then get in line to vote if he is the nominee. And that is the extent of my support for Newt Gingrich. Any questions?