The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

An Answer to Jeffrey Lord’s Absurd, Speculative, Smear Jobs, Plural

By on 2.2.12 @ 3:00PM

Jeffrey Lord, who has intellectual integrity about equivalent to Bill Clinton’s, has become a purveyor of smear jobs utterly divorced from facts, logic, and decency. After an exchange of about a dozen emails back and forth in which he refused to acknowledge simple facts — not opinions, facts — the time has come to show him up for his growing and despicable hackery.

One of Lord’s obsessions these days seems to be the idea that Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post, and formerly of this publication, is “in the tank” for Mitt Romney (oh, really? How about this, Jeff?) and that she has written almost nothing in favor of any real conservative. I noted to him that she has written literally several dozen pieces that are absolutely glowing about Rick Santorum, whom Jeff does indeed accept as a real conservative. Despite easy Google access to the evidence, Jeff continued to refuse to acknowledge this fact, and refused to retract the smears against Rubin (which included smears against Elliott Abrams and others).

So, to set the record straight, here are a number of posts Rubin has written that are favorable to Santorum, or on balance critical of Romney, or more favorable of Santorum than of Romney. Here (way back in August) and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here (“Romney’s lack of connection to voters is precisely the opening Santorum can use to wedge himself in between Romney and a conservative base that has not yet embraced Romney wholeheartedly”) and here and here and here and …. oh gosh, I’m tired, but I could go on and on after these 21 I’ve already cited.

Why does this matter? Because there’s a sick trend out there, which is to try to read between the lines of a writer’s posts and ascribe motives to them that are different from what they actually write — in other words, to accuse them of deliberate deception, based on nothing other than some extensions of logic (as in: hmmm… if somebody is AGAINST Gingrich, AND it is accepted wisdom that this is a two-man race between Romney and Gingrich, AND if the conventional wisdom is right to the effect that Santorum has no chance and that a late entry has no chance, THEN, ergo, anybody who criticizes Gingrich, even if praising Santorum, must secretly be trying to help Romney).

Readers of these columns and blog posts repeatedly accuse me, for instance, of being in the tank for Romney even though they can find not one shred of evidence that I have written in praise of Romney’s substance in the past four years, and even though I have written several full columns and numerous blog posts harshly critical of Romney.

In short, everybody’s integrity is made suspect even without a shred of evidence that there is a reason for suspicion. Jeff did this to Rubin, for instance, through his long, rambling, connect-the-invisible-dots attempt to smear Rubin’s integrity by means of some imagined guilt-by-association-by-association-by-association link to Elliott Abrams’ wife.

Here’s a suggestion: Let’s discard the idiotic labels (Establishment Romneyite; RINO; Right-Wing-nutso; Neocon), and instead just focus on the substance of people’s records, proposals, and, yes, demonstrable public character. And let’s stop asserting that everbody who opposes one’s own candidate is therefore automatically excluded from the conservative club.

View all comments (150) |

Hobbes| 2.2.12 @ 4:24PM

Jesus, what is this? A game of who is the bigger NeoCon chickenhawk? Who cares? They all (Lord, Rubin, Gingrich, Lowry, Levin, Abrams) want to mire us in endless Middle East wars till we go bankrupt. Cut off all foreign aid. Bring home the troops!

Reg| 2.2.12 @ 7:12PM

Quin's joking right? Nobody takes Rubin seriously.

Bob K.| 2.2.12 @ 7:26PM

JEEZ QUIN!

WE ARE TRYING TO GET RID OF OBAMA AND ELECT A REPUBLICAN!

WHO GIVES A CRAP ABOUT YOUR DISPUTES WITH A COLLEAGUE WHICH TOOK PLACE IN PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE?

Analyst22| 2.2.12 @ 9:04PM

No Bob, the right wing of the party is in the midst of an attempted takeover. I'm sick of hearing about RINOs, republican establishment, not conservative enough, blah blah blah

We are a party that includes people with varying "degrees" of conservative ideology. Personally, I thought I was a conservative until journalists and bloggers attacked me because I think Romney is an outstanding candidate who can be a far greater President than Reagan. I can hear you all now...that is blasphemy! This is a different world from Reagan's day--my children who are all well above voting age don't even remember him.

Bloggers and journalists have also forgotten the way to win someone over is not by attacking them. This election cycle has changed my opinion of conservatives a great deal. I can just imagine how we must appear to independents and democrats who are unhappy with Obama. If I were them, I wouldn't be at all interested in the conservative cause. The greatest casualty of this election may be the loss of respect for conservatism.

Vern Crisler | 2.3.12 @ 12:32AM

I'm violating my rule about keeping it short, but I think it's necessary to be a little longer in this post.

Quin cited this article of Rubin's to prove she wasn't in the tank for Romney. It said in part, "Romney, for some Republicans [Rubin, actually], is the most mature and viable contender to go up against President Obama. But he makes himself unpalatable to the base [us] and to even more moderate voters [like her] by playing it too cute by half. In other words, he leaves open a spot in the race for a bold, reasoned and constructive Republican reformer [Santorum?]."

This is friendly criticism from a supporter of Romney, not snarky criticism. It's like Newt's criticism of Reagan, a friend badgering a friend to do the right thing.

The next article is supposed to show she supported Santorum. However, she uses Santorum as a way to criticize conservatives like Perry, and to make herself out to be oh-so-reasonable compared to those "talk-show" type conservatives:

"And while he remains a long shot to win the race, he actually has something to teach the party, the conservative punditocracy and his competitors about how a conservative can make progress and not simply mouth talk-show rhetoric. It’s not every candidate who has something to say that is worth listening to."

In Rubin's world, one is only worth listening to if one criticizes conservatism. Real conservatives like Newt and Perry need not apply. She is only praising Santorum because he is a "long shot" and she doesn't have to worry about his actually winning. If he ever came close, she'd be talking about his "hard corners" or "hard right" positions.

The next article praised Santorum, but then ended with Romney boosting:

"As for Romney, he showed a bit more verve, but he’s not, in contrast to 2008, trying to be someone he’s not. He’s the business guy. He’s the middle-of-the-road Republican. He’s the responsible internationalist. It’s not all that thrilling, but it may just be the best the GOP can do this time around."

In another article, notice how Rubin contemptuously dismisses conservatives as the "hard right":

"The hard right had every chance to select a more principled and ethical conservative. But Rick Santorum simply wouldn’t do, you see. The hard right, or at least the screechiest faction of it, doesn’t really want a viable, consistent conservative. Lacking the ideal conservative (who doesn’t exist anyway) they’d rather have a standardbearer as angry and vitriolic as they are, who will surely crash and burn, leaving them to grouse about the GOP “establishment” and the “socialist” president."

You see why she prefers moderate Mitt? Because in her angry and vitriolic way, she is telling us she doesn't really like conservatives, too "angry" and "vitriolic" for her. That's why we regard her as part of the old, dead Republican establishment. She, like Peggy Noonan, has sold her political soul in order to impress her liberal friends in Washington.

These Establishment Republicans and socialist wannabees, by trashing Newt and pushing that snake Romney, have virtually guaranteed Obama's reelection.

Margie| 2.3.12 @ 1:29PM

That was GREAT commentary, Vern.
Kudos.

jcp370| 2.2.12 @ 3:23PM

Could this writer actually be so clueless as to be unaware that Jen Rubin is the biggest joke on the conservative interwebz?

Calvin Freiburger | 2.2.12 @ 5:03PM

Rubin may be more sympathetic to Romney than other pundits, but last time I checked, that's no sin. It seems to me she's only considered a joke because self-righteous hypocrites want to draw attention away from their own bias for other candidates, who are rarely as ideologically pure as they insist.

Reg| 2.2.12 @ 7:30PM

Pointing out Newt's warts does not excuse Romney for having done nothing for conservativism in his life.

I'll vote Gary Johnson before Romney. The party is going to lose big if it gives Romney the nomination.

Analyst22| 2.2.12 @ 9:27PM

And you are an expert in everything that Romney has done in his life? Did you get your facts from Rush Limbaugh...what could go wrong there?

I'm sure everyone here has made $200M selling your solutions to problems. One or two of you have probably saved the Olympic games. Did anyone serve as a governor of a very blue state and manage to get a lot done? I'm sure most have created or saved tens of thousands of jobs at companies like Staples, Brookstone, Domino's Pizza, Home Depot, and countless nameless others. I would have thought that reversing that $2B deficit in Massachusetts was a "conservative" position.

I'd be willing to bet that NOT one reader on this story blog tonight has read Romney's book "No Apology - Believe in America." Here are a few of his agenda items...someone please tell me what isn't conservative here:

Some of his Agenda for a Free and Strong America

1. Promote small business and entrepreneurship through lower taxes
2. Stop the trillion dollar deficits and spend only what we have.
3. Publish an annual balance sheet for the country
5. Reduce and simplify taxes
6. Adopt a strong dollar strategy including spending restraint and entitlement sustainability
7. Reform entitlements
8. Adopt an annual budget for entitlements
9. Reform tort liability
10.Stop any new government growing stimulus programs
(these are just 10 of 64)

Harvard Business School wrote case studies about Romney's leadership in the SLC Olympic Games. In many of his pursuits, he has taken no pay (because he had enough)...as governor of Mass, as savior of the SLC Olympics, and even in a return to Bain to bring them back into the black.

Personally, I think he is an outstanding guy. Fortunately, nothing that you or any conservative journalist can say will change my opinion.

Rather than be critical of your candidate, I have simply told you why I'm voting for Romney. He's not perfect (he explains his change of heart about abortion in his book), but he is being unfairly criticized for Romneycare...he considers it a states' right issue, just as the founding fathers designed our government. He is against a federal mandate, unlike Gingrich.

I sincerely hope all republicans will take the time to learn about him by reading his book and considering all the facts before passing judgment...for the good of our country.

Reg| 2.2.12 @ 9:48PM

Romney's record is public, and he accomplished nothing as governor as MA that was conservative. Lots of democrats run businesses and make lots of money and write books nobody will read.

Dai Alanye | 2.2.12 @ 9:55PM

The listing of Romney's policies seems to have neglected two recent ones.
11. Repair the "safety net"
12. Increase the minimum wage

These are hardly conservative ideals.

Analyst22| 2.2.12 @ 10:14PM

You can't elect a conservative candidate. Romney won Florida--and can win the general election--without the right wing of the party. There are enough moderates, independents, blue dog and other democrats unhappy with Obama to win. The conservatives should have focused on congressional elections instead of the presidency. People have been watching the conservatives attacking moderate candidates, and it isn't appealing. It does nothing for the conservative cause or to help elect House and Senate candidates.

kf451| 2.2.12 @ 11:37PM

"You can't elect a conservative candidate."
Where's your evidence? All the milk toast moderates have done so well, haven't they? H. W. Bush 2nd term, after "read my lips, no new taxes", Dole, McCain? The list of moderate losers goes a lot further back than that.

Bob K.| 2.3.12 @ 12:25AM

Conservatives did focus on the 2010 elections which is why the House of Representatives now has a 63 vote Republican Majority and why the Senate picked up 5 more Republicans and why there are 5 more Republican Governors than Democrat Governors and why The Republicans took over control of 19 Democratic run state legislatures.

Why would anybody have a problem with that?

Think about it!

BullPasture | 2.4.12 @ 3:37PM

Romney did a fantastic job managing the Salt Lake City Olympics but please stop peddling this manure about him as a job creator. Most of your examples of job creation are retail roll-ups enabled by access to Wall Street capital. Staples, Sports Authority, Home Depot destroy as many jobs in small, locally owned businesses as they create. They siphon wealth out of local communities and concentrate it in the hands of financiers like Romney. The American economy won't turn around because Romney knows how to borrow money and use it to put small retailers out of business in favor of a larger chain.

teflon93| 2.2.12 @ 3:29PM

Well, sure, sticking to the facts is a good thing, Quin.

That said:

1. Is Elliot Abrams' wife one of Jennifer Rubin's friends? If so, shouldn't she disclose it in a post that turns on Abrams' credibility in attacking Gingrich?

2. Do the opinions of people who actually served in the Reagan Administration at that time not count because they contradict Elliot Abrams' newfound opinion?

3. What evidence is there that Jennifer Rubin is in fact a conservative? I mean a conservative---not Kathleen Parker with a bigger paycheck? When precisely did her conservative conversion occur and why? Was she not a liberal as late as 2004, when she was a John Kerry supporter?

4. What precisely is your relationship with Rubin?

Quin| 2.2.12 @ 3:40PM

1. I don't know. Jeff's case on that issue is based purely on speculation.
2. Of course they count. People in the Reagan admin have come out both in support of and against Abram's column.
3. Jennifer has written conservative columns for conservative publications (starting with this one) for five years. After Michelle Malkin and then I and others at the Washington Times broke the story of the killing of the Black Panthers case, Jennifer did as much as anybody alive to keep the pressure on and keep the story alive. Rubin also joined Andy McCarthy as the first and most strenuous opponents of the nomination of Eric Holder as AG, all her arguments coming from the right. (She was right on this, to her credit, even as I thought Holder was distasteful but less of an abomination than other Cabinet nominations.) She has been absolutely superb on conservative legal issues and battles. And she has always been very solidly against tax hikes, etcetera. That's a pretty good record, right there.
4. Rubin is a friendly competitor of mine. Indeed, sometimes I got miffed because I didn't think she was giving me enough credit on the Black Panther story. She's in DC and I'm down here in Mobile and, as with all sorts of other conservative journalists, we send each other our links after we've posted stories or comments on the web. Other than that, I think I've actually laid eyes on her no more than about five times in my life. I just hate unfair attacks and insinuations, especially when they can be directly refuted with direct, unambiguous evidence -- which is what I did in those 21 links above and, for that matter, what I did even in defending Newt Gingrich a week or so ago from the charge that he is a racist.

JeffC| 2.2.12 @ 3:53PM

on No 2. actually 2 Reagans have made it clear he was completely wrong in the column ... I think they count more than the rest ...

SpiralArchitect| 2.2.12 @ 4:27PM

Shift + Enter will create spaces useful for paragraphs etc.

Drek| 2.2.12 @ 6:22PM

Rubin has puffed the inconsequential Santorum so as to disperse all anti-Romney opposition. Were Santorum in any way a serious candidate, she'd be wigging out all over him like she has Perry and Gingrich.

Anyone who is serious in the race, such as Perry and Gingrich, of national stature, with national appeal, she's targeted.

Hillyer's defense of Rubin is just bizarre.

Quartermaster| 2.2.12 @ 8:56PM

We'll have to wait and see what happens in the primaries to come to see if Santorum is serious or not. He's polling better in flyover country than is Mittens and is the main threat to Mittens getting the GOP nod. I don't like Santorum, but he's worlds better than either of the two main RINOs that have been dominating headlines in SC and FLA.

teflon93| 2.2.12 @ 6:37PM

Thank you for your response. Hopefully having more facts in circulation will help.

I disagree on Rubin and am deeply suspicious of people who could support John Kerry in 2004 as a committed liberal and suddenly claim to be conservative a few years later without showing some signs of a Damascus conversion. How many people fundamentally change political philosophies so late in life? How many do so without a compelling conversion story, such as David Horowitz after the Black Panthers murdered that poor girl or Whittaker Chambers and the Alger Hiss spy case? It is why I and so many others are so deeply skeptical of Mitt Romney who only seemed to "become a conservative" when his political ambition demanded it. Isn't that the same thing with somebody aspiring to be the token conservative at The Washington Post or The New York Times, neither of which has ever hired a fire-breathing, three-legged-stool conservative?

Do you think it may have been unfair to label Gingrich as anti-Reagan given the evidence which has since emerged, including those rock-ribbed conservatives from the Reagan administration who have come out against Abrams' characterization?

More to the point, do you think Abrams' sudden interjection into the primary cycle was odd at all given nobody's heard from him since the 80s? That may be hyperbole, but he isn't on the radar at all and hasn't been for a long time. Why now?

Just asking the question; I'm a Santorum guy now and nothing would please me more than Newt and Mitt taking each other out.

JeffC| 2.2.12 @ 3:29PM

ok ... Romney is certainly not a solid conservative based on his record ...

Shafer Parker| 2.2.12 @ 3:31PM

Quinn,
I don't think you're going to win this one.
Shafer

Drek| 2.2.12 @ 6:24PM

The other thing here is that people are seeing through Hillyer's own puffing of Santorum, which veils his coming to terms with Romney.

He's made his peace with a Romney candidacy some time ago, ----------- this puffing on his part of the entirely implausible Santorum is window dressing, but window dressing for his soul...............

When a supposed conservative sells out to a Romney, ---- it's his soul that suffers.

javau| 2.2.12 @ 3:36PM

wait until santorum is a threat to rubins boyfriend. then write your post.

Marco2| 2.2.12 @ 4:11PM

If he waits until Fr. Rick becomes a threat to Romney, he'll NEVER be able to write his post.

JeffC| 2.2.12 @ 3:36PM

another Romney hack attacking the messenger (Lord) and ignoring the facts ... the fact is Rubin has been a strong Romney supporter and a Gingrich critic ... she is the House Conservative Writer at WaPo but that doesn't make her a conservative ...

Quin| 2.2.12 @ 3:43PM

Do you even know what a fact is? I just provided the evidence of at least 21 posts by Jen Rubin in favor not of Romney but of Santorum, plus another post (there are a number of others) pretty harshly critical of Romney. To be a Gingrich critic is not the same thing as to be a Romney supporter. In 2008, I was a McCain critic, but that didn't make me an Obama supporter. This isn't an "either/or" political contest.

JeffC| 2.2.12 @ 3:50PM

21 posts out of the over 1,000 she has posted since August ... how many where anti-Gingrich posts or pro Romney posts ? You don't have those facts on the tip of your tongue do you ?
Of course not ... you would hate to confuse the "facts" right ???

personal attacks are par for the course for Romney supporters ... based on that this and other posts of yours I have to assume you are a Romney fanboy ... that is fine but you better bring a better game than this to the fight ...

Drek| 2.2.12 @ 6:25PM

Yea,

She's a REAL LIVE Santorum lover.

She's got Ricky tattooed over her heart!

She's not for Romney at all, ----------------- move along, nothing to see here...........

mjs_pa| 2.2.12 @ 7:08PM

I follow what Rubin writes for the WP and on twitter because she is one of the few (besides Quin) to give Santorum a fair shake. Believe me she is not romney supporter. I could go anywhere else for that.

Too many people have become blinded by their partisanship toward the candidate they support and are not objectively looking at the facts.

This sort of cultist attraction is what obama used to get elected. I recommend conservatives wake up before we make the same mistake.

Vern Crisler| 2.2.12 @ 3:38PM

Maybe all of us conservatives can agree to stop using Mitt Romney's smear-type tactics. When Newt and others try to reply in kind they end up wallowing in the same gutter with Romney, not a good thing. Let's call a truce on the ad hominems, no?

Marco2| 2.2.12 @ 4:13PM

Never! Not until Newtie Pootie checks himself into a psycho ward.

Vern Crisler | 2.2.12 @ 10:12PM

This is the sort of crazy talk that Romney started in Iowa, and Newt and his defenders responded in kind. Once you start down that path, it's hard to put it back in the bottle.

Martin | 2.2.12 @ 3:48PM

Rubin is a neocon Romneybot, like those that infest National Review.

Santorum is a neocon RINO on economic policy, given an unjustified boost by the ghastly Iowans.

The conservatives were Perry, Bachmann and Paul.

However the neocon/establishment mafia have won yet again, with the help of many on this publication and most on NR. Unluckily for them, but almost certainly luckily for the rest of us in the long run, Mitt is an even more feeble candidate than McCain, and so will lose to O.

Wake me up in July 2015 for the next one, and meanwhile please, please get rid of Iowa.

Oldefarte| 2.2.12 @ 3:58PM

Sadly, you [along with all of us that care] will be awakened well before 2015 if Obama/Democrats defeat Romney [or whoever is the Republican nominee]. all of us will hear the explosion of this country crasing upon the shores of FINANCIAL BANKRUPTCY if we vote similarly to 11/3/08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Windy City Commentary| 2.2.12 @ 3:49PM

OK; whether or not you and Rubin support Romney or Santorum; both of you despise Gingrich and are doing whatever you can to take him down.

Bo Darville| 2.3.12 @ 4:14PM

Not necessarily a bad thing for those interested in defeating Obama...

Oldefarte| 2.2.12 @ 3:52PM

Whew/shazam, did I miss about a year somewhere from intoxication, sleep perhaps? Quin being accused of being '....of being in the tank for Romney.....' is astounding, since my contemplation of faithful readings of Quin's articles would conclude that Santorum if his favored candidate, not Romney. I'm 66 granted but I'm not mentally incapacitated. I'm also a ardent reader of Jeffrey Lord's editorials as well [and also very much admire and agree with most of his opinions]. Lord may have stepped over some journalistic line in his arguments, but in no way shape or form IMHO is he off the mark in his facts and conclusions regarding Ginguich. Michael Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Bill McCollum, and Sarah Palin have expressed similar opinions regarding Ginguich's attacks by other Republicans; and Ginguich was IMHO the very first Republican to attempt to primarily focus the debates upon Obama/Democrats in this nomination process [and only until he was viciously attacked by the others in order to deminish him/Newt and to enhance their political standings did Newt then go SCORCHED EARTH on the offensive against the others]. Santorum seemingly started out prophesizing about his political agenda rightfully [and being partially complementary of Newt] and then no doubt after sinking in the polls, decided to attack his fellow true-conservative Ginguich. Not only Santorum but primarily Romney and the rest gangbusters collectively circle-jerked Newt due to his rising popularity no doubt. ginguich and Santorum are again the only true conservatives, while Romney is at best a YANKEE MODERATE [POSSIBLY LIBERAL] IN A CONSERVATIVE'S DISGUISE, while Paul is a intelligent but partially senile old coot physician liberitarian. There is no way that Santorum can claim equality of conservatism with Newt, since he was/is/always simply a YANKEE PENNSYLVANIAN who has accompolished nothing substantial in the conservatism history. Did Reagan or other well-known established conservatives even know who [or care] Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania was/is? Did Santorum ever lead a conservative movement [as did Reagan and Ginguich]? Was Santorum ever acknowledged by Reagan [or Dick Armey, Michael Reagan, etc]? Just because Santorum [as a good Catholic father of five] is hot-to-trot for the abolution of abortion services by government does not totally qualify him as a conservative. Jeffrey Lord's defense of Ginguich IMHO is thoroughly warranted and just, and I mostly agree with his intelligent editorials concerning same!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 2.2.12 @ 4:24PM

PS: Everyone needs to contemplate Sarah's TRUTH of '.....Sarah Palin has joined a growing chorus of Republican observers who say that negative ads are blurring the purpose of the GOP debates and primaries — choosing the best candidate to defeat President Barack Obama. The former Alaska governor told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly Monday that all that really matters is the end game, but the “brutality” is taking its toll.
“What we just witnessed in Florida that brutality via $17 million in negative ads in a 65-to-1 negative ad ratio that was mounted against Newt Gingrich, which I think did result in him falling there in the polls and in that primary,” Palin said. “That brutality will help Obama only if Americans can concede Obama's point that he recently made and that is that America has gotten lazy.....' One more, IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS!!!!!!!!!!!

SpiralArchitect| 2.2.12 @ 4:30PM

Well said Oldefarte.

Question:

If you were mentally incapacitated...would you know? ;)

As I mentioned to Quinnn:
Shift + Enter will create spaces useful for paragraphs etc.

Oldefarte| 2.2.12 @ 4:44PM

Duh yeah I'm not blind enough to not be able to comprehend the LITTLE MEN ATTEMPING TO OUTFIT ME WITH THEIR WHILE LONG-ARMED JACKETS. Left unsaid above also is my much longer admiration, appreciation, respect and enjoyment from Quin Hillyer's editorials through my following him from Mobile to DC and his rightful return. I'm not however a fan of two of my most favored literary writers GETTING INTO AN UNNECESSARY P*SSING MATCH OVER UNIMPORTANT ISSUES. Breathe, gentlemen PLEASE, and keep one's eyeballs secured squarely upon the target noted above. Question: If I '...Shift + Enter will create spaces useful for paragraphs etc...' as instructed into and inserted the word 'SpiralArchitect' into Webster's Dictionary, would I perhaps find the word QUIN perhaps??????????

Oldefarte| 2.2.12 @ 5:03PM

I'd also like to respectfully remind a great writer that Newt [as a twice-graduate of Tulane] walked some of the same hollowed ground that both he and I once did, including possibly having to endure rides to Canal Street on the Freret Jet and maybe the University Inn in 1960's!!!!

Drek| 2.2.12 @ 8:09PM

Why did you seek to limit Gingrich's involvement in the Reagan revolution to the events of Iran/Contra?

Iran/Contra was a scandal that went down almost while RR was waltzing out the door right into history. That scandal never had a chance to seriously wound Reagan's domestic achievements, or his foreign ones for that matter.

I don't need any reminders of the minor role of Abrams during that time, nor do I need a refresher about the role of Newt Gingrich.

Abrams was entirely dispensable. Not so Gingrich in the House.

KateS| 2.2.12 @ 8:53PM

I would much prefer that Sarah return to Alaska and have a nice life. She quit her job as governor of Alaska (like Newt Gingrich quit his House seat). She decided not to run, which is fine. But I don't need Sarah to tell me who to vote for. She has no credibility with anyone but the far right wing of the party...to everyone else she is simply annoying.

Oldefarte| 2.3.12 @ 12:39AM

Many of us would alternatively prefer that Barry Boy return to his former job as head of Acorn Legal Community Organizing in Chicago, and take his thieving band of corrupt Democrats with him. Yeah, she quit her governor job in Alaska in 2008 to run as McCain's VP choice but we sadly know how that crap turned out, don't we? Annoying? I'll tell you what's ANNOYING with a capital A to many of us, and that is Welfarecare, Non-Stimulus to Labor Unions, $500 billions stolen from Medicare to fund Welfarecare, an Interior Dept's corruption of preventing oil drilling in the Gulf, a Justice Dept's suing state governments for passing their own immigration legislations and selling armaments illegally to drug dealers that end up causing many deaths including a US Border patrol agent, a criminally negligent and worthless AG who lies before congress in order to protect his boss, a US budget defecit and debt that has tripled that of the past three administrations' at an inflation cost to our children and grandchildren, etc. Those some of us are going to effect our CHANGE in November of this year and send Ol Robin Hood and his band of thieves on a one way trip back to the windy city permanently!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 2.3.12 @ 12:42AM

PS: So many of us will take the likes of Sarah any day, any time, any place over the alternative we're faced with today due to the stupidity of 11/3/08 in not voting for Sarah and in complete DUMBARS FASHION voting instead for the other candidate!!!!!!

Bob Miller| 2.2.12 @ 3:58PM

Every voter should try some kind of civic cost-benefit analysis of the candidates' total selves and action programs. Thinking always in horserace mode or convenient-labeling mode is a distraction.

JeffC| 2.2.12 @ 4:18PM

keep defending Rubin ... you are covering yourself in glory ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/....._blog.html

Windy City Commentary| 2.2.12 @ 4:29PM

Fine Quin; if you want to defend Rubin and smear Jeffrey Lord go ahead. Here's what Rubin wrote about the Trump endorsement today, when she thought the endorsement would go to Newt.

"Herman Cain, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Sarah Palin and now, it seems, Donald Trump have lined up behind Newt Gingrich. It’s convenient to have a candidate like Gingrich who attracts the unserious, the unpresidential, the uninformed and the unpalatable all in one convenient locale. It saves the time and effort needed to determine who is a credible Republican and who is not (Gingrich supporters)….

There is a weird commonality among Cain, Trump and Gingrich — an unseemly pattern of behavior with women. Perhaps that’s simply one manifestation of their egomania. And all of these pro-Newt characters share a penchant for extreme, nasty rhetoric with a disdain for productive governance. This is all about THEM and their PR machines….

Really, what’s next for Newt — a Duke Cunningham endorsement from a jail cell?"

Such a classy gal; and yet you say Jeffrey Lord has smear jobs. You and Jennifer will do and say anything to smear Newt. Notice, Jeff Lord was minding his own business when R. Emmet Tyrell and Abrams started the Bash Newt Brigade. Conservatives have no choice but to rebut falsehoods and half truths, but then when they do, you excoriate them. You write like you're in your 20s, but obviously looking at your picture you are far older, but still just as hysterical as when you were 10.
Hey Quin; why don't you go ask Abrams for a job so we can read this blog without having to endure your next temper tantrum toward your colleagues and Newt hit piece?

Windy City Commentary| 2.2.12 @ 4:32PM

Oh, I like how Rubin says Gingrich supporters aren't credible Republicans. Probably true given what the Republican Party has become. His supporters may be credible people, but they would be much less so, if they kept swallowing what the GOP leaders have been feeding them the past decade.

kingsmill| 2.2.12 @ 4:51PM

You beat me to the punch. Rubin is absurd.

Nolann Ryann| 2.2.12 @ 5:22PM

I'm sure this fact filled post by Rubin is just what Quinn was alluding to in his spirited defense that obscures fact and reality. Keep up the bad work Quinn.

teflon93| 2.2.12 @ 6:54PM

Didn't Trump endorse ROMNEY?

Will the next Rubin post be talking about how wonderful a "get" that endorsement is for Mittens?

Quin| 2.2.12 @ 9:04PM

No. As a matter of fact, she wrote not one but TWO subsequent posts criticizing Romney's camp for accepting, and boasting about, the endorsement from Trump. Look it up.

teflon93| 2.3.12 @ 8:34AM

Well, I did---referenced here:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2.....niac-oops/

Note however, Quin, that Rubin's criticism of Romney is very slight indeed compared to the blast she'd fired at Gingrich when she'd thought Trump was endorsing him:

"It’s unseemly for someone like Romney, who is running as a serious executive, to associate himself with Trump. It undermines Romney’s message that he is the responsible adult in the GOP presidential race."

Sometimes you seem to think we readers can't perceive tone in text---thus when you write something mildly critical of Romney while pulling out all the stops to slam Gingrich you think it's sufficient to say, "See? I criticized both of them!" when of course magnitude matters.

Only you know to what degree you are opposed to a Romney nomination. Some commenters are seeing the signs that you've "made your peace" with Romney at this point and only care about getting Gingrich out. Many see Rubin as being in the Romney tank and talking Santorum up only to the extent he clears the field for Romney.

Of course commenters can be mistaken---but professional writers ought to be able to be clear enough so that where they stand is unmistakable, no?

From what I see, you think Gingrich is absolutely unacceptable, Romney as acceptable though not preferable, and Santorum as preferable though not likely. If that's so, you can see why the "Quin's made his peace" argument is out there and why those of us still fighting for Santorum don't view you as favorably as you think we should.

fazsha| 2.2.12 @ 4:32PM

One thing we can all agree on: both Jeff Lord and Jennifer Rubin despise Ron Paul and will wildly swing the most absurd accusations. Jeff Lord actually accused Ron Paul of being liberal, even though a study determined that his voting was the most conservative in Congress when compared to all others over the last 70 years. It's all about Israel to him and his buddy Levin.

C Bowen | 2.2.12 @ 5:12PM

"Jeffrey Lord, who has intellectual integrity about equivalent to Bill Clinton's"

Quite true, which is why I didn't read the rest for fear of spoiling this moment of agreement.

Village Idiot| 2.2.12 @ 5:27PM

Jennifer Rubin is a joke of a journalist at this point, her column is a perpetual campaign ad attacking whoever Romney wants attacked.

I appreciate that Gingrich has had some heresies in the past, sitting with pelosi, attacking romney from the left, once supporting a health mandate.

But Gingrich has supported a long list of conservative laws and ideas, I can't think of Romney doing anything conservative, can you? Seriously!

TB| 2.2.12 @ 5:30PM

I like Santorum, but he can't win this year and never could. Pro-Romney folks know this and have been transparently using him as a blocking horse against Gingrich and Perry for months. That's clearly what Rubin was doing. Using her pro-Santorum columns as a defense against charges of being a Romneyite stooge is farcical; those columns are proof of the charge, not a defense against it. The question is whether Rubin has had much good to say about any candidate (other than Romney) with a serious shot at winning the nomination. I don't read every Rubin column, but my sense is that the answer is no.

Red Phillips | 2.2.12 @ 5:47PM

"Jeffrey Lord, who has intellectual integrity about equivalent to Bill Clinton's, has become a purveyor of smear jobs utterly divorced from facts, logic, and decency. After an exchange of about a dozen emails back and forth in which he refused to acknowledge simple facts -- not opinions, facts -- the time has come to show him up for his growing and despicable hackery."

Did you feel the same way when Lord was doing his hack jobs against Ron Paul? But I don't necessarily doubt Lord's intellectual integrity. I think he honestly believes that globalist interventionism is conservative and non-interventionism is inherently liberal. Such foolishness speaks to intellect for sure, but not necessarily intellectual integrity.

Oldefarte| 2.2.12 @ 9:20PM

Lets see now, would that be the same Ron Paul as perhaps this one????? :
'.....Romney-Paul Alliance Benefits Both Men
Thursday, February 2, 2012 01:10 PM
By: Henry J. ReskeIn the category of politics makes strange bedfellows, witness the friendship between former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. The two became friends during the 2008 presidential race and while others are attacking vehemently in the GOP race for the presidential nomination, they are not, The Washington Post reported.Not only are the two candidates friends, so are their spouses, Ann Romney and Carol Paul. While Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich snipe at each other, Romney has taken time at debates to praise Paul despite their differences on the issues. The Romney-Paul alliance has something for both. It gives Paul a seat at the table should Romney win the nomination and it gives Romney a chance to tap into a powerful group of supporters, the Post reported.“It would be very foolish for anybody in the Republican Party to dismiss a very real constituency,” one senior GOP aide told the Post. “Ron Paul plays a very valuable part in the process and brings a lot of voters toward the Republican Party and ultimately into the voting booth, and that’s something that can’t be ignored.”Another Republican adviser said that Romney’s camp is “quietly in touch with Ron Paul” and has even coordinated on such things as staggering the timing of each candidate’s appearance on television, the Post reported.....'

spoofproof| 2.2.12 @ 5:57PM

The Romney campaign bought 20,000 tee-vee commercials in Florida during the month of January2012. TWENTY-THOUSAND! Does a capable, sane man need that much re-enforcement to convince others of his worthiness?

William R| 2.2.12 @ 6:00PM

Bottom line. Jennifer Rubin is trash. Nothing more, nothing less

http://english.al-akhbar.com/b.....lestinians

Crassus| 2.2.12 @ 6:03PM

Man, I can swear I heard "Love in Bloom" playing in the background while reading this article. What a crybaby.

Paul McGrath| 2.2.12 @ 6:05PM

While the wolves are in the henhouse devouring chickens, the guard dogs are outside barking at each other. This is getting awfully tiresome.

steve b| 2.3.12 @ 9:07AM

Well said.Let's all get together and make sure obama gets reelected. real smart.

bobmontgomery| 2.2.12 @ 6:16PM

Quin: You are in the grips of some kind of hysteria. Jenifer Rubin is not the cause du jour, it is Elliot Abrams vs. just about everybody else who was there in the Reagan days. Lord's critique was professional and informed, and whatever speculation was in there was justified. Further, we can read, and we did read the link you provided at the top and Rubin's piece was ardly a scathing indictment of Romney. Please go back to the NBPP thing, Quin. You have ample credibility there.

Margie| 2.2.12 @ 8:56PM

Proof positive.^^

GAL. 5:12.

Margie| 2.3.12 @ 1:35PM

This above post of mine was in response to a Troll's comments, which have been removed.

W| 2.2.12 @ 8:55PM

Drek
I disagree. Take a look at Abrams' book, he was not dispensable to the foreign policy.
Did you read the speech?

Con Chef (NB) | 2.3.12 @ 7:01AM

Do you want a freaking cookie?

Margie| 2.3.12 @ 1:34PM

You're a LIAR.
I am not anti-Jewish, nor have any of my posts read such.
I am anti-Catholic because its teachings are anti-Scriptural.
You are a blatant LIAR.

W| 2.3.12 @ 6:00PM

No, you are the liar. You have said that converted Jews are not real Jews. So now you are the authority on who is a Jew and who is a Christian.

Margie| 2.3.12 @ 8:25PM

Actually, you fool, I quoted the Scripture, and you KNOW it. I thought you believed in God?
Oh, that's right, you have your OWN god, not the one of the Bible.
Oh, and I also stated the FACT that Jews don't consider a person whose Mother isn't a Jew, to be a real Jew.
Sorry, but that's a FACT.
And the Scripture is FACT as well.
Scumbag.

W| 2.3.12 @ 10:32PM

Keep lying, Mullah, that is all you know.White trash bigot.

Margie| 2.4.12 @ 1:33AM

Cardinal W:

You refuted nothing, as usual.
When you prove I'm lying, then you might have some standing.
But all you EVER have is name calling.
REV. 21:8.
God REALLY DOES throw liars into the Lake of Fire.

W| 2.4.12 @ 8:48AM

Parasite Bigot
$549 per week since august 2009, over $71,0oo in taxpayer funds to support you and your husband.

Ifyou are not the claimant, then it has to be your husband since you posted the ss number and claim info on your name. Don't tell us you did not benefit from the money.

Are you going to deny that you two received the money? Come clean? A true conservative would not sponge off the taxpayers for over two/half years at $71,000.

You are such a stupid unrepentant bigot you think the word Cardinal is a slur. Moron.

That was funny that your were a missionary. You must have converted many to atheism after listening to your bigotry. You must have preached at your locak KKK group about who is a Jew and who is a Christian.

Run along, go read your Jack Chick comic books.

Margie| 2.4.12 @ 1:34AM

Oh, and Catholics are "allowed" to lie.. and trash people here..

RIGHT, QUIN????

Where's that promise you made me, Quin?
Are you a man of your WORD??

W| 2.4.12 @ 8:50AM

Stop your bigotry and you will not be criticized. You are the one that start these daily fights with everyone here. You are obsessed with the Pope and Catholics. If you can't take the criticism, then behave, and stop whining.

Margie| 2.4.12 @ 1:53PM

You're an utter scumbag, a blatant liar and a hypocrite.

Your posts are filled with nothing but lies and distortions.

And the God I know and serve says He'll throw you into Hell for it, but you're such a fool, with no conscience what so ever, and a hardened heart, that you don't even care.

You have no heart, no soul, your heart is BLACK with SIN.

I do NOT collect unemployment you putrid scumbag.
And I AM a Christian woman who despises scum like yourself, who, for your lies and slanderings of me here and for your lies and slanderings of Bible believing Christians everywhere you post them~ are already burning in Hell.

It's just a matter of time before you're actually there physically.

Go mutilate yourself, you vile piece of TRASH.
GAL. 5:12.

W| 2.4.12 @ 2:18PM

You keep giving Clinton like anwers that You did not receive it when the question is did you or your husband receive it. If he received it then your received it because you used it. Stop playing Clinton like games here parsing your answer.

You can't tell the truth because you want to pretend to be a conservative here and getting $71,000 in Obam checks is not being a conservative. So just answer the question honestly instead of ranting and raving and foaming at the mouth with your usual biblical condemnations.

Maybe you are too dense to notice but nobody here is attacking Christians.

You are the only one here criticized for attacking Catholics and Jews. Another lie by you trying to deflect attention from your bigoted comments.

I don't care whether you continue to post or leave. But if you continue you anti catholic bigotry I will reply to you each time. Your other comments are not worth reading or responding.

Go read you Jack Chick comic books for more attacks on Catholics.

Margie| 2.4.12 @ 1:55PM

Oh, and one more thing you filthy scumbag: Just WHO do you think you are?

God?

You can't shut me up, you are a nothing and a nobody.

And Christ's recompense is coming your way sooner than you think.

W| 2.4.12 @ 2:19PM

Next time you talk to Jesus Christ, Mullah, ask him if he is God and if there is a Trinity. OK?

Margie| 2.5.12 @ 1:48PM

The next time you talk to Jesus (God) you will have to give an account to Him as to why, as a Catholic, you saw fit to repeatedly lie, slander and disgrace yourself as a human being.

Also why you saw fit to reject Scripture and His teachings and instead worship lies.

So, yes Cardinal is a fit name for you, for you see fit to accuse judge and be a one man jury against me.

Talk about Mullah!

You are disgusting~~ white trash?? I am no white trash nor have I ever been.
Go MUTIULATE yourself you filthy despicable creature!

Are you black trash?
How is it that Quin sees fit to allow your filthy posts to me, and yet won't allow me to post my own in my defense?
Quin a liar. He promised to remove your filthy posts, and has not.
He is a despicable as you, therefore.
What say you, Quin??

W| 2.5.12 @ 5:08PM

Blah, blah ,blah

You again refuse to anwer the question of the money.

You are the one who starts these fights so it is your filthy posts, which is all your posts, that will be removed, Mullah.
black trash? interesting, now you add racist remarks to your anti Catholic and anti semitic remarks. Do you know if I am black? It does not surprise me, for if one is a bigot towards Catholics, he, or she, is a general all around bigot to all others, as you have proven with your filthy language. White trash is for the filthy language you use, the bigotry towards Catholics, Jews,and now blacks, and having the taxpayers support you.

Next time you talk to Jesus ask him to clean your filthy mouth and remove your bigotry.

So since you fail to deny your husband received the $71,000 then we can assume you and he have had use of our taxpayer funds.

Have a pleasant evening.

PCP Smoker| 2.2.12 @ 8:25PM

Is it a surprise to you that there were disagreements within an organization? How is this logical? Are you married? Have you ever been part of a club? People disagree on issues all the time. The idea that Newt was some type of Reagan hater is not only stupid, but ridiculous. I know Romney and his surrogates want to discredit Newt by attacking him from the right, but keep in mind, Romney was NEVER a conservative.

Simon Templar| 2.2.12 @ 6:24PM

INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY.

That is really precious coming from you, Quin. As you can see from this thread, people have figured you out. The gigs up, pal. You systematically attempted to destroy every conservative candidate that rose to the top, said very little about Romney, made a few gestures once in a while towards Santorum, and defended the likes of Boehner, Rubin and a host of other beltway RINO establishment and you expect us to believe this tripe about Lord. Then there was the back and forth with Goldstein. That was entertaining.

Please do not use the words, intellectual integrity, it really is laughable coming from you.

William R| 2.2.12 @ 6:25PM

Quin, what kind of sick people defend the hideous skank Jennifer Rubin??

Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin promotes call for Palestinian genocide

http://theuglytruth.wordpress......ngton-post’s-jennifer-rubin-promotes-call-for-palestinian-genocide/

Occam's Tool| 2.3.12 @ 12:13AM

I doubt that, William R. But, every day, you call for Jewish genocide and islamic supremacy.

Red Phillips | 2.3.12 @ 12:48PM

There is nothing to doubt Occam, it's right there. You, of just nuke 'em all fame, should know a little something about advocating genocide.

Drek| 2.2.12 @ 6:29PM

It's pretty easy to tell that Jeff Lord and Mark Levin touched a nerve for poor Hillyer.

Lord flat out exposed Abrams, and exposed as well this entire fraudulent exercise of writing Gingrich out of the Reagan revolution.

I just love this too, writing off Gingrich as insufficiently conservative all so as to advance the most left leaning Republican candidate in our lifetime, probably even more so than Ford. And Hillyer is on board with it.

This is only going to get worse, get uglier.

When Romney is done with our party and its punditry auxiliaries, --------- there will be such a state of utter confusion that we'll be lucky if we can even recall our own names

Martin | 2.2.12 @ 6:34PM

Don't knock Ford, he was a good guy and cut spending effectively as President, which is more than ANY of his successors have done. Mitt is a combination of the worst features of the two Bushes -- wimpiness and left-appeasement of the father and pointless neoconness of the son.

PCP Smoker| 2.2.12 @ 8:26PM

Drek, you are on fire tonight brother. Keep it up. You should be writing for AS.

nibblesyble| 2.2.12 @ 8:59PM

wow, great response. I hope Quin and his ilk take heed.

Bumr50| 2.2.12 @ 6:30PM

What's your address?

I'll send you some cheese...

teflon93| 2.2.12 @ 6:47PM

Let's face it, gang---it is now open warfare between the GOP Establishment and the conservative GOP base. That means some innocents and fence-straddlers will get caught in the crossfire.

The trouble for Quin and the rest of the straddlers is simply this: war having been declared by the country clubber Ruling Class types, we conservatives are not in much mood to observe niceties such as lengthy friend-or-foe examinations before returning fire. If you're hanging out with a lot of brie-eaters, or going to great lengths to attack conservatives or defend RINOs or both, well, artillery shells generally aren't exemplars of battlefield discrimination.

And we're firing the heavy artillery this cycle.

It's not fair---but then the Establishment has never played fair except with liberal Democrats.

C'est la guerre.

jane| 2.2.12 @ 7:08PM

The utter hilarity of her posting about donald trump when she thought he was going to endorse Gingrich made my day see her tweet about clown
cars.. One
blogger said it best Trump endorses Romney. JEN Rubin hardest hit!

Margie| 2.2.12 @ 7:50PM

Telling the truth isn't smearing.
And Jennifer Rubin's attitude towards conservatives makes me ill.

Kevin Tierney| 2.2.12 @ 7:51PM

It's pretty simple.

Rubin claimed "anonymous Republican sources", when in fact they Romney's senior organizers, who got paid to say those things. Or how yesterday Trump's endorsement of Gingrich proves his candidacy is a joke.

Sure, today she wasn't happy with Trumps endorsement, but it doesn't make the Romney campaign a joke. Whatever one thinks of Lord, Jen Rubin is in the tank for Mitt Romney.

Drek| 2.2.12 @ 8:05PM

People,

just think of Jen Rubin right now, this night, after she set herself up with this whole Trump endorsement. She's bouncing off the walls, foaming at the mouth, ------------------ an ego of that size, -------- she's wilding right about now.

PCP Smoker| 2.2.12 @ 8:11PM

Relax Quinn. Sounds like she is Lewinskying you these days, but get over it and use your strong hand. Lord called it like it is. If you don't like it, then go pack san, you cretin.

Dr. Tesla| 2.2.12 @ 8:18PM

Quinn is smarmy here, as is Rubin. Rubin knows that a divided conservative vote benefits Romney. Sure she's talked up Santorum as who we conservatives should support but there's no doubt she's in the tank for Romney. She voted for John Kerry in 2004, does anybody really think she personally like Santorum?

It seems to me Quinn does the namecalling, as did Lowry. There was nothing wrong with Jeffery Lord's piece...Rubin didn't disclose a relationship she should have. This is journalism 101.

Dr. Tesla| 2.2.12 @ 8:20PM

Quin's a clown if he's defending a Romney shill like Rubin. Anybody that thinks this woman is a conservative is living in a fantasy world.

Margie| 2.2.12 @ 8:38PM

Rubin also supported Chris Christie over the great Steve Lonegan in NJ back in '09.

She's no conservative in my eyes.

nibblesyble| 2.2.12 @ 8:38PM

Quin, what a disaster you are! You made me laugh with your immature rant. I like Lord even more now, and you even less.

KateS| 2.2.12 @ 8:46PM

Conservative media deserve criticism for acting much like the MSM--not only shilling for their favorite candidate, but also attacking the character of other Republican candidates. People are very angry and I can say personally that many of them have changed my once favorable opinion of them. In particular, Mark Levin's questioning Mitt Romney's character. This out of line and should not be tolerated by others in the conservative media. I have a long list that includes Mr. Hillyer, and a much longer memory. I've cancelled my subscriptions to several newsletters and daily updates by e-mail.

PCP Smoker| 2.2.12 @ 8:58PM

I'm sure you won't be missed. Please leave the AS too. To insult Mark Levin, Esq., over mud slinging, mormon, and general creep Flip Flopper is beyond the pale. Go away, mad or otherwise, just go away.

Oldefarte| 2.3.12 @ 11:46AM

I hear that the NYT has a subscription special going on currently!!!!!!!!!

Jake| 2.2.12 @ 8:48PM

The Lord issue reflects what is happening all over the conservative blogosphere.
Unbridled hatred and vicious personal attacks towards anyone who doesn't follow the mandated candidate du jour of the far right.
Presently Newt Gingrich, previously Cain and Palin.
Woe to anyone who expresses an opinion that is in any way critical of Gingrich.
This nasty and uncivil behavior is reminiscent of the President Bush era when those opposed to the WOT savaged anyone who
supported the war in Iraq.
It is/ was rare to see supporters of Michelle Bachmann , Tim Pawlenty , Rick Perry, Mitt Romney , Rick Santorum or Jon Huntsman
attack fellow posters and columnists in the vile manner that Palin, Cain and Newt supporters often do.
This thread is Exhibit A.
The Ron Paul supporters don't always have clean hands , but, presently they seem to be bystanders in the latest war.
The right wing thought police who troll the internet for victims to attack are primarily anonymous posters who verbally castigate and many times threaten fellow posters
and scribes who do not follow their dictates.
I'm sure Judge Pirro or the person who reads her email got an eyeful this past weekend because many Sarah Palin supporters were furious that Pirro had not shown Palin enough respect in an interview.
Apparently asking thought provoking questions is now considered disrespectful .
What is being done to Jennifer Rubin and Quinn and Ann Coulter and Emmett Tyrrell and Judge Pirro and others ( the list grows each day ) in the name of conservatism actually shames the movement and dishonors
those who have fought so hard for it.

Vern Crisler | 2.2.12 @ 10:21PM

Uh, just who started all the name calling and smearing in Iowa? Could his name be Mitt Romney? If you don't want to get hit with stones, don't throw them in the first place.

Dave | 2.2.12 @ 8:53PM

Note sure what's really got Quin's undies all wadded-up, but from my vantage point, if Romney ever comes to a quick and sudden STOP, both his AND Rubin's noses would be about six inches up Mitt's a-s. In polite, political circles it's called ... tailgating.

But, we know what it really means. (wink)

Dr. Tesla| 2.2.12 @ 9:00PM

The main reason why so many Republicans are horrible these days is they spend way too much time defending their buddy pundits, as Quin does with Rubin, rather than get to the truth of the matter. Quin didn't even discuss the meat of Lord's piece....it was a rally around Rubin post, who did support John Kerry for president not that long ago and is the biggest Romney brown noser in the country outside of Ann Coulter.

Dr. Tesla| 2.2.12 @ 9:03PM

Rubin spend a lot of time on Twitter sneering at conservatives who like Palin, Perry, Cain, and prefer Newt to Romney. She doesn't conduct herself with class...she was sneering at conservatives on Trump and mocking Gingrich fans on a belief that Trump would endorse Gingrich and then Trump endorses her hero Romney and she's cool with that. Quin wants us to take this woman seriously? How did this guy get selected to write here? No logic at all.

Dr. Tesla| 2.2.12 @ 9:10PM

Don't all pundits speculate in general? Unless you can read politician's minds, your analysis is a lot of speculation, hopefully informed by the politician's or other individual's record of actions and statements.

If Quin is telling Lord speculating about what motivates people to paint Newt as anti-Reagan is somehow being a hack, Quin's a hack too, b/c he speculates about people's motivations all the time. Politics isn't some hard science.

Quin| 2.2.12 @ 10:21PM

Nope, I don't speculate about people's motivations. I challenge you to provide a single example.

Dr. Tesla| 2.2.12 @ 10:25PM

How do you analyze politics if you don't speculate using logical assumptions about people's motivations? You can't read minds, brother.

Dr. Tesla| 2.2.12 @ 10:33PM

I'm rather amazed you want to contend that Rubin is some kind of objective pundit when it comes to Romney. She takes to Twitter to lionize the man and demonize Gingrich and conservatives in general. Why is she attacking Perry, Palin on Twitter, for example? They are not in the mix now.

Some criticisms she had of Romney doesn't mean she's not a Romney SuperFan. She gets mocked all the time by conservatives for predictable analysis of Romney's debate performances.

Dr. Tesla| 2.2.12 @ 9:15PM

Romney's been running dishonest ads against Newt with regards to the ethics charges and other things. A lot of Republicans seem to think this is fine simply b/c Newt commited adultery and isn't a perfect conservative, but if Rubin rallies around a consistent liar like Romney, why does Quin treat her like a china doll when somebody criticizes her?

Dr. Tesla| 2.2.12 @ 9:23PM

I remember this Quin guy letting pundits on this very website smear J. D. Hayworth in favor of McCain despite having knowledge of both men and after it's way too late, he comes out and defends Hayworth from some false attacks. Does a man of character sit on the sidelines when real lies are being used to smear a man he knows is decent? Quin did.

Con Chef (NB) | 2.2.12 @ 9:50PM

Someone get this man a bottle of Blanton's Bourbon!

rmws1982 | 2.2.12 @ 9:43PM

Santorum has a really bad record as an economic conservative. He has supported ear marks on a number of occasions. He also has a terrible record on trade. He has supported a number of tariffs that would raise cost on consumers. He sponsored a bill that would raise tariffs and then given those tariff revenues to a special interest group.
http://www.examiner.com/bloomi.....e-on-trade

Con Chef (NB) | 2.2.12 @ 9:47PM

While I'm slightly amused by this back & forth between Mr. Hillyer & Mr. Lord, the fact remains that as the primary stands, I've not been convinced that Newt's the guy to be the "anti Romney." Santorum's the only one who fits that bill, lock, stock & two smoking barrels (nod to one of my favorite movies). I haven't given up on Rick, & have said many times that those who count him out do so at their peril.

Occam's Tool| 2.3.12 @ 12:17AM

Nikolai, from the wiki:


"Blanton's Bourbon has been highly rated by spirit ratings organizations. The San Francisco World Spirits Competition gave the single barrel bourbon one double gold, two gold, and one silver medal between 2007 and 2010.[1] The Beverage Testing Institute gave the bourbon a score of 94, well above its average score. Wine Enthusiast raters have generally been least impressed with Blanton's, rating it in the 85-89 point interval on one occasion and in the 90-95 point interval on another.[1]"

Let's try, all of us, not to be touchy. I mean, Clint is pretty clear when he insults, and if I'm discussing your ancestry, you can pretty much take it as an insult. But Con is a foodie of great skill and knowledge. So, Dr.T, consider that in your response, sir.

By the way, for what it's worth, I thought your assessment of Santorum was spot on, too.

Margie| 2.3.12 @ 12:29AM

He's a VILE Troll, Occam.

Con Chef (NB) | 2.2.12 @ 10:00PM

I wasn't insulting you, sir. I was agreeing wholeheartedly with you. I wasn't being sarcastic.

Oldefarte| 2.3.12 @ 11:50AM

I prefer Bushmills myself [aka Irish sweet tea]!!!

Con Chef (NB) | 2.3.12 @ 12:04PM

Black Bush! YUMMY!

kf451| 2.3.12 @ 12:08AM

Sorry. I don't give either Romney or Santorum a pass. The culture you come from has a lot to do with your basic philosophies. Throw them both out!

Besides, most recently Santorum has said we can't reform social security now because we need the money! We can't do it until the economy improves! In other words, after his presidency, should the unlikely event occur.

Dr. Tesla| 2.2.12 @ 9:53PM

The thing is, our precious Republican pundits care more about defending moderate pundits like Rubin than they do conservatism. Quin will tell you to stop talking about establishment Republicans while he acts like one in defending another.

Dr. Tesla| 2.2.12 @ 10:39PM

Do you burn in hell if you speculate, as Lord did, that the man that was suggesting Newt was anti-Romney may have been misleading to obtain a gig in our probable nominee's adminstration, or to settle scores, or he just doesn't like Gingrich for whatever reason?

It's all speculation, but that doesn't mean it's not the truth or smearing the man. If he's going to suggest Newt was anti-Reagan, and people disagree with that assessment, it seems logical they would speculate about his reason for making a claim they see as utterly false.

SVT| 2.2.12 @ 10:44PM

Mr. Hilyer - You are a great fool.

Dr. Tesla| 2.2.12 @ 10:45PM

I do want to remind people on here that Quin also went to the mat for Dave Weigel ...he seems to have a blind spot on liberals/moderates who are the house conservative or reporter on conservatives for the very liberal Washington Post.

kf451| 2.2.12 @ 11:50PM

I stopped reading Jen Rubin months ago. She seemed completely unhinged on candidates other than Romney. There wasn't any intellectual argument - just nonsensical hysteria. And it seems many online writers have a low opinion of her, and yes, think she's "in the tank for Romney". Now I read she talks up Santorum, a candidate I find insufferable and annoying, and not a fiscal conservative.

Rubin's your friend, which is affecting your judgment. And I found Lord's article to be quite fair - he did include sources of the statements Abrams referred to, in context. How nice that he let us judge for ourselves, instead of the questionable Abrams.

Margie| 2.2.12 @ 11:57PM

Some people just like certain other people and have a "rapport" with them, and will stick up for them no matter what.

It's the way of this World, but it isn't the way of God.

The TRUTH should matter above everything.. and personalities and friends should come second.

There is the cult of politics, with many different cliques, the cults of Religions, the cult of pop culture... but what about caring about the Truth?

If people really realized that serving the Truth is what matters to God, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in.

God isn't a respecter of persons, neither should we be.
Of course, you'll lose some so called friends for putting Truth first, but Eternity is a long, long time. And loving the Truth's the only way we can get there (to Heaven).

Occam's Tool| 2.3.12 @ 12:25AM

Quin, Jeff: now that the odious Dr. Paul has been essentially removed, do you think we can start asking our candidates how they would best attack Obama, and stop providing oppo research for free to Satan? I like Santorum, but I would cheerfully vote for Gingrich or Romney if they were the candidate, because both are LIGHTYEARS better than Obama. I wish Mitt would take his warchest and start showing us how he is going to kick Obama in the crotch with it in the main election, because the lack of vicious fire against the Bummer is one of the major criticisms of the Romney campaign. Only the paulbots and the Obama Zombies deserve this type of venom, guys.

Oldefarte| 2.3.12 @ 11:53AM

The calendar-clock is moving too slowely towards November for some of us!!!!!

Margie| 2.3.12 @ 12:38AM

Speaking of Satan, Occam, have you read the news that they SHOULD be reporting on here?

Check it out:

'Unto whom much is given, much shall be required': Obama reveals his "Christian" faith is behind call for wealthy to pay more taxes

Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....z1lIIiKKT1

And YET, here is Obama, the anti-Christ, MOCKING the Bible:

This is the REAL Obama:

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

former Republican| 2.3.12 @ 7:48AM

Hit him with your purse, Quin!

Jeebus, between this petulant fool Hilyer and Bob "Hitman" Tyrell, The Spectator has become quite the Republican cesspool.

OLDRAY| 2.3.12 @ 8:07AM

As an 87 year old I thought I'd seen publications slip down, down, DOWN. But nothing is as dissapointing as American Spectators slide into the slime. Quin Hillyer belongs there . His every article proves it. But it seems he simply reflects the views of his boss ET. His attack on Lord , one of the few really good writers on this rag is right in line with the kind of publication that carries the foul mouth kooks of Ron Paul.

Pete| 2.3.12 @ 8:40AM

Well Quin has a point, saying anyone is in the tank for Romney is a smear job.

David T| 2.3.12 @ 9:55AM

Quin--You have completely lost it. If you truly believe Jeffrey Lord has the intellectual integrity of a Bill Clinton, then you, in my estimation, are the moral and journalistic equivalent of a Clifford Irving. I will never believe another word you write.

WL| 2.3.12 @ 10:07AM

Ahhhhh........

Oh how sweet it is...to see someone let out the truth about themselves...

This article is proof positive of what many of us have known for a long time...

Hillyer is an establishment FLUNKIE...and everybody knows it now.

This is exactly what they do. Not only is Quin carrying Romney's water when by taking on Gingrich's only defender...he is trying to assassinate his character. THIS is the mark of the establishment flunkies who get their marching orders from up top.

Quin, you are a despicable writer and we know you are a stooge. You will never admit it, but we know it, and the facts are the facts. I am still kinda dumbstruck that you would actually blast your fellow AS writer like this...in such a sad little way...You are truly loathsome.

The real question, however, is about the AS in general, though...what is happening here? I fully understand that the commenters will have all sorts of hateful opinions (I admit I am hateful at times too)...but the publication is showing some scary marks of having bought in with the very Ruling Class that it published about a year ago...

NRO is gone with Rich in charge...
The Standard is halfway gone....
and ASpec. isn't far behind...

Something ain't right in Conservative-ville folks...
Hate on me if you want...
But deep down...no matter who you are...

You have to see it too...

WG| 2.3.12 @ 2:20PM

Quin,
Accusing someone of having the intellectual integrity of Bill Clinton is simply a foul blow. Jeffrey Lord's questioning, whether the Abram's statement is a legitimate criticism of Newt Gingrinch, is not. I was politically aware and active at the time, and Elliot Abram's parsing of Newt's statement from the Congressional Record is simply not a true reflection of what was going on. There is something called the rule of completion in trial that allows all of the complete statement to come in if someone tries to separate a particularly damning quote that is not reflected by the whole document. All Mr. Lord was doing was making sure that readers understand the context of Newt's statement and providing other statements in that same speech that undercut Mr. Abram's assertions. Also, I am well aware that sometimes these types of articles are not reflective of Speaking Truth to Power, but rather part of the battle in the Beltway for influence.

I have seen you infer many qualities about Newt and deftly counter assertions about Newt's conservatism. However, I don't think that Mr. Lord attacked your postings by claiming that your integrity was on par with Bill Clinton. If I am wrong, please feel free to provide examples. But absent those, I think that you do him a grave injustice. One can disagree without being disagreeable, but in your takedowns of Newt, you brook no disagreement with your premise. Thus, to many readers, it appears that your support of Santorum and then Romney is perfunctory simply because they are not Newt. That is your right and privilege as a knowledgeable commentator on Newt when you were a staffer. However, others, such as myself, recognize full well that Newt is problematic.

There are those of us that believe that Romney is simply is not an instinctual conservative and when in doubt, he veers left (see the poor and minimum wage comments this week). He has engaged the political community in 2008 and 2012, with negative ads defining others but leaving us to view a blank slate about him. Thus, many conservatives are at a loss regarding what he would do as President. His governing record in Mass is NOT conservative and his constant gaffes and inability to "get" conservatism right worries us. We are afraid of initiatives on global warming, poor judicial appointments, bad taxing and spending policies, political correctness etc. emanating from a Romney White House.

Santorum, on the other hand, is conservative but has not caught fire because of his primary focus on social values rather than economics. While social values are certainly important, the elephant in the room this election is the economy and how government decisions such as the stimulus and Obamacare have made us poorer during the Obama years. This is where a unifying winning coalition for president must be made. Only Newt, Perry, and before him Herman Cain, seemed to notice this. We are under no illusions that these individuals were perfect candidates but they at least seemed open to increasing economic freedom while not disrespecting traditional conservative policies on social matters.

At this stage, neither Romney's nor Santorum's tax policies are to be taken seriously and neither have as of yet promoted serious plans to reduce government expenditures.. Romney represents the status quo except instead of tax and spend, we borrow and spend. Santorum proposes neo-natalist taxing policies and mfg. preferences that actually worsen the current complexity of the tax code. In my opinion, the major question this year is not social issues, nor competence, but rather who can roll back these disastrous economic policies. Curiously enough, in the 1920 election, Warren Harding, a seemingly hack politician actually had the guts to fix the economy during a depression when he took office. He also was known for having affairs including carrying assignations out in the White House. Was Harding a moral giant? No, but at least people had jobs, the country had peace, government retrenched itself, and America speedily recovered from a depression. A restoration of Normalcy as he coined it would be wondrous.

Last, but not least, please also note that Jennifer Rubin is a grown women and can defend herself. I weigh information sources by the signal to noise ratio. In her case, the noise outweighs any real information. Her style is offputting, her snarkiness is unbecoming, and her constant prattle about her sources try to mislead the reader into thinking that she is important among the movers and shakers in Washington.

She is also absolutely intolerant about those who disagree with her. As I not think that she nor David Brooks, are conservatives, I reject the idea that these individuals are worthy of being considered important thinkers about conservatism. Mark Levin, G. Will, Thomas Sowell, etc, can and do think and write about conservatism seriously. Jennifer thinks and writes on par with Maureen Dowd, while Iowahawk's T. Coddington Vorhees columns pretty much captures the NR crowd with a few exceptions.

In close, we know how you feel about Gingrich, tell us about your favored candidate and what policies that they will pursue rather than taking potshots at others.

MikeG| 2.3.12 @ 11:49PM

Lord is not objectrive about Newt v. Romney. He is all in for Newt and slants his articles to favor Newt. Nothing wrong with slanting your opinion, that is expected from a commentator, but slanting the facts is different.

Jocon307| 2.4.12 @ 7:58AM

It's been pretty clear for a long time that Jennifer Rubin is in the tank for Mitt Romney. So much so that I have stopped reading her entirely even though she was really one of my favorites when she was at Commentary (I don't remember her writing here).

What's been bad isn't that she touts Romney, it's been the vitriol she has heaped on the other contenders. Someone described her as a "one woman wrecking crew" and that seems about right to me.

I'm sure she can stand the heat though, so I wouldn't worry about Jen.

What I'm worried about is not getting rid of Obama this November.

Immigrant| 2.7.12 @ 5:39PM

Goodness me Quin! Are we throwing our toys out of the pram?? It looks like one of them might be a little green monster. You sound like Gisele Bundchen. And libelously so.

SpiralArchitect| 2.2.12 @ 3:15PM

Waaaaaaah.

Sounds like someone missed their nap time.

More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/02/jeffrey-lords-absurd

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Jimmy Wray, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 4:19PM

The Spectator’s Spectacular: May 18-May 25

Patrick Ryan | 10:45AM

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Stein on IRS Scandal

Patrick Ryan | 5.24.13

Latest Headlines

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|26 comments

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|80 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|45 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|59 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|93 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|35 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

Most Popular Articles

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.23.13

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord | 5.23.13

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey | 5.23.13

Obama's Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.23.13

Lerner's Plea

Ray V. Hartwell | 5.23.13

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer | 5.23.13

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara | 5.22.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.