-
Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd
June 18, 2013 | 14 comments
-
Hannity: Secure the Border First
June 17, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Charles Krauthammer and The Limbaugh Theorem
June 14, 2013 | 27 comments
-
GI Told He Can’t Read Levin, Hannity, Limbaugh
June 7, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Will Christie Appoint a Conservative?
June 6, 2013 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Quin, you ignorant slut.
(Sorry, I still love that old Dan Aykroyd/Jane Curtin Saturday Night Live routine of TV pundits with Dan’s classic opening line to his presumed colleague.)
Now, I like my friend Quin Hillyer. Seriously and really, I do. Life is too short for silly feuds. Particularly when one party to the feud has no idea whatsoever what can generate such emotional, visceral…well…I don’t know what to call it. You decide…here is his all-points bulletin about me from last week.
So.
Let’s indulge Quin. Let’s help Jennifer Rubin out, shall we?
She’s for Santorum, my colleague Quin Hillyer says flatly. Not… repeat not… Romney.
“She” would be Ms. Rubin, the Washington Post’s designated conservative columnist who has been widely and repeatedly reported to be a supporter of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
As seen here in US News and World Report, here in the Daily Caller, here in New York Magazine, here in Forbes Magazine, here in Politico quoting Blogger Dan Riehl and here and here in Red State, the first time by Erick Erickson. Also here, at Let Freedom Ring.
If you don’t have time to read, Ms. Rubin is routinely described in media outlets from right to left variously as a shill for Romney, a fan of Romney, the unofficial spokesperson for Romney, compared to Romney’s in-house PR, a Romney blogger and so on. And on.
None of this is true says my friend the indignant (thin-skinned?) Mr. Hillyer. None of it.
These are nothing but what he likes to call “smear jobs, plural.” (The fact that Erick Erickson of Red State notices Rubin’s enthusiasm for Santorum seems at times strangely paired with Santorum’s jabs at Romney competitors is surely interesting — precisely since some of the examples of Santorum support cited by Quin fit Erickson’s observation to a tee.)
I confess I’m somewhat taken aback at the notion that noting the obvious — a clear attachment to Romney on the part of Rubin — is somehow a “smear.” Be that as it may, in spite of my shamefully displaying the “intellectual integrity about equivalent to Bill Clinton’s” and being a “purveyor of smear jobs utterly divorced from facts, logic, and decency”…I will see what we can do to get this matter clarified. Pronto.
Here’s a fact.
Of note yesterday was this news release from the Santorum campaign announcing the endorsement of Santorum by Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey. It follows similar endorsements by the great David Limbaugh and the ever-shy Michelle Malkin.
These three Santorum supporters said what they said simply, clearly and well, as is their individual and collective norm. There is no one out there saying…”Ha! David Limbaugh is a shill for Romney.” Nobody is saying: “There goes Morrissey, the Romney cheerleader,” or “Malkin writes like Romney’s in-house PR.” Not a prayer. For that matter, no one anywhere thinks Ann Coulter is for anybody but Romney.
But mysteriously, this is exactly the problem Jennifer Rubin seems to have. For someone who is supposed to be in the business of communicating, she is isn’t getting it done if she is the huge Santorum supporter Quin claims her to be. All manner of people (see those cites above) see her as a solid Romney supporter — except Quin Hillyer.
So let me come to Quin’s aid.
Jennifer Rubin, as Quin furiously insists in his own e-mails to me, is for Santorum. Period. Not Romney.
OK.
This is easily resolvable.
Here’s the headline I will write on a blog post when she expresses exactly what Quin says to me that Rubin believes. I will treat Jennifer Rubin precisely as the Santorum campaign has treated support from David Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin and Ed Morrissey.
“Jennifer Rubin endorses Santorum, Rejects Romney.”
There it is. Crisp, clean, simple. I have removed the question mark. No mistake, No hedging, no nonsense about “writing nice things” and all of that baloney. And I will happily report all the details she provides of her endorsement, as well as linking to it.
Now.
One of two things will happen as a result of this offer.
Rubin will write her own piece and say: “I Endorse Rick Santorum.” In which case the Santorum campaign will write up its own press release as they did for Malkin, Limbaugh, and Morrissey. I will be wrong and everybody out there who believed to the contrary will be proved definitively wrong, exactly as Quin fervently insists us all to be. And I will write a heartfelt apology. (“Dearest Jen, what was I thinking? What was US News, Red State, Forbes and all the rest thinking???? I have the sack cloth and ashes… wearing them now. So uncomfortable at the Giant frozen food section, but people are kind…)
Or…she won’t. She will simply ignore the whole unpleasantness of being called out and won’t deign to acknowledge, much less respond. Or…she will hem, haw, hedge and fudge. She may say she wrote something nice here, or she believes Santorum right over there. Yada yada yada. But at the end of the day she will not endorse Rick Santorum. Period. There will be no press release from the Santorum campaign as there was for Malkin, Limbaugh, and Morrissey. And hell will freeze over before she abandons the Good Ship Mitt.
And all of the latter, if it comes to pass as her answer, will have you, Quin, hemming and hawing and fudging along the lines that an endorsement isn’t necessary yada yada yada. To which the only proper and printable response, now that you personally have put her on the spot, will be….baloney.
So. We shall see, Quin.
In fact, I will make a point of looking for the Santorum press release that announces Jennifer Rubin’s Santorum endorsement just as the Santorum campaign announced those of Malkin, Limbaugh, and Morrissey. (Here, for example, is the way it was done with David Limbaugh.)
As with many of us, I hear all the time from the press offices of this or that candidate, including Santorum’s. I will, if need be, contact the Santorum press office every single day to ask if Jennifer Rubin has endorsed Rick Santorum yet.
I will check the Santorum site daily. Hourly. (Where, as this is written, the Malkin, Limbaugh and Morrissey endorsements are prominently displayed — although, curiously, none from Jennifer Rubin. An oversight, no doubt?) But trusting in your good calm political judgment, Quin, I know I will see that endorsement. I’m sure our readers will be looking, and certainly, good conservatives that they are they will be checking out the Santorum site as well.
Tick…tock. Tick….Tock. She loves Rick…she loves Mitt more. Tick…tock.
Will she or won’t she?
At your own insistence, Quin, nothing less than “I endorse Rick Santorum” will do.
Oh…and by the way. The notion that I have smeared Elliott Abrams by noting what is confirmed by Ed Rollins, Mrs. Reagan, Michael Reagan and Mark Levin — Reaganites all (do I need to actually point this out about Ronald Reagan’s own wife and son?) is interesting indeed. Fact: I read the entire Congressional Record entry in question. So did others. It was decidedly inaccurately presented. Fact: You, my friend Quin, were not there in the day. The people mentioned above were there. I was there. You, respectfully, are clueless on this as well as factless. But if you think Newt Gingrich snookered Nancy Reagan about his loyalty to her husband than…well…God bless ya, buddy.
Conservatism is not a “club” (but nice try). It is a “shared philosophy,” as Reagan said, not a “fraternal order.” Something Ms. Rubin seems to disagree with as exemplified in castigating those terrible conservatives with “a disdain for productive governance,” political speak for the moderate mantra of “can’t we all get along.” As our publisher and friend Al Regnery notes in this month’s magazine, conservatism is essentially four things: liberty, the rule of law, tradition and order, a belief in God or a power greater than ourselves. I try repeatedly to write to those four principles as they are interpreted in everyday life. Period. Erupting in visceral, thin-skinned emotionalism over this or that personality simply because of a political disagreement is not my thing. At the end of the day…politicians (and scribblers) come and go, conservative principle is forever.
And a second “by the way”….did you, Quin, read the piece from the Jerusalem Post by Caroline Glick last December? This one on the Palestinian-Israeli issue and Newt Gingrich? Deep in the article, in which Glick, the deputy managing editor of the paper and a columnist as well, discusses Romney supporters in Washington, she specifically describes Jennifer Rubin as having a “mentor” in… Elliott Abrams. Another fiendish smear, no doubt. All I did was say that Jennifer Rubin should have told her readers that the anonymous “Gingrich critic” she was defending — Elliott Abrams — was in fact the husband of someone — Rachel Abrams — with whom Rubin herself had admitted to (in the Washington Post!) having a relationship of some kind. Hardly offensive, much less a smear. And — yes — a hard fact, pesky as those things are for some.
Now that we know, thanks to Ms. Glick, that Elliott Abrams is a “mentor” to Rubin, meaning at minimum a friend (like his wife?), the fact that Rubin did not mention Abrams’ name — and the allegation that he is her “mentor” — when discussing me is even more startling. If you think Nancy Reagan was snookered by Newt Gingrich, perhaps you might consider whether you are being snookered by Ms. Rubin. But I digress. Just another day at The Washington Post where hidden anti-conservative agendas are a dime a dozen.
Ahhh, the Washington Post…where the liberal chosen “conservative” columnist writes a scorching column titled Egomaniacs R Us — because Donald Trump endorsed, so she thought, Newt Gingrich. Then, red faced when it’s Romney, is all oh-never-mind.
But at your instigation, Quin, we will pursue the question of Jennifer Rubin and whether she is willing to put herself on the line for the man you insist she supports, Rick Santorum.
Hmmm. Just checked. No Jennifer Rubin endorsement listed by the Santorum people yet.
Tick.
Tock.
Will she? Or won’t she? Rick — or Mitt?
View all comments (50) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/07/jennifer-rubin-to-endorse-sant
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Casey Abell| 2.7.12 @ 2:41PM
"Quin, you ignorant slut."
Well, that's interesting. Lord knows (pun intended) that I've said some harsh things about Quin's delusional tendencies, espcially when it comes to Santorum's mythical electability.
But I never questioned Quin's sex life (wink). Rick Santorum, our national scold, won't like hearing that one of his die-hardiest supporters is a...trollop? (I'm using a Victorian word, which fits Santorum's worldview.)
WL| 2.7.12 @ 2:45PM
"national scold"
I am still laughing! That's about right too!
WL| 2.7.12 @ 2:44PM
Well Mr. Lord...
It looks like you have him figured out...
My favorite part was your observation (of Ericksons observation) about the Rubin lady and how she seems to conveniently pair nice things about "other" candidates...just about the time that they attack gingrich...
Mr. Hillyer does it a little differently... He supports Santorum during the down times....then when Newt gets close to Romney...he devotes every single column to tearing up the Newtster until the threat to Mitt is gone.
If Santorum does make a push (which appears to be beginning today) and gets close...it's going to be interesting to see what QuinHiRubin does....
Great Post Mr. Lord.
Casey Abell| 2.7.12 @ 2:49PM
Halfway seriously, why should anybody give a flying flip about Jennifer Rubin's endorsement of anybody? I know she used to work here, but come on, nobody except the hardest-core political junkies has even heard of her.
Jeffrey Lord| 2.7.12 @ 3:08PM
Casey....
In spite of the fact that I felt I needed to respond to Quin...you are right. In the scheme of life...nobody cares about her endorsement...or for that matter one from me were I to make one, which I haven't beyond saying I favor a conservative. (And yes, in the current field, that means, to me at least, either Newt or Rick.)
Also, Washington and the larger media world is always caught up in this kind of thing....soooooo.
Not to worry....while others may disagree....I think I have my priorities in life straight. Pundit endorsements do not rank with either Creation or the Super Bowl and other major life-changing events on my scale!
Casey Abell| 2.7.12 @ 3:31PM
"I favor a conservative. (And yes, in the current field, that means, to me at least, either Newt or Rick.)"
Would that be capitalist-baiting Newt, way to the left? Or media-baiting Newt, way to the right? Or moon-base Newt, way outa here?
To be honest, I kind of like Newt because you never know what that crazy ol' sonofagun is gonna do or say. But a consistent conservative? A consistent anything? Puhleeeeeze.
As for the national scold, he is to the right of the Ayatollah on birth control and other social issues. On economic issues (heard of them, Rick?) he's a pretty bland big-government guy.
But I agree on Jennifer!
Occam's Tool| 2.7.12 @ 3:50PM
Well, Jeff, I like both of you guys---you and Quin. You, for being always superb, and Quin, for being generally superb and having the good sense to choose Alabama over Washington, D.C. as a place to live.
My view on this whole matter is that Paul and Obama are joint anti-Christs (I know, an amusing metaphor from a Jewish guy, but hey, I went to TCU), and I am voting for Rick tonight at the Minnesota Caucus (I can't stand 'Bama summers any more).
All that being said, of the three that remain from the GOP who are NOT Satanspawn, I'll be voting for whichever one wins. No sore losing sitting on my ass against Obama.
I've corresponded with Jennifer before and she's a very nice lady (politeness helps, as does praise), so I think I will actually ask her.
Guys, our lives are too short, and our enemies too grim, for us to engage in this stuff (yeah, I know I go after Jack and Clint like a comic book character, but I really don't like those guys as human beings, and I do think of them as my enemy, since they both admire Bradley Manning). I think both you guys are neat. I also think Conrad Black is a sweet guy, too, personally. Just a wonderful guy.
aware| 2.7.12 @ 4:04PM
Spoken like the nice little statist you are.
Occam's Tool| 2.8.12 @ 2:00AM
I guess I am, compared to you. But anarchy is not a viable governmental form.
Santorum won in Minnesota tonight, and we will make sure only a minimal number of Paulbot vermin serve as delegates. Correct number---none.
Tonight's paulbot at our caucus discussed how driving while under the influence of Marijuana was quite safe. Really impressive, like Clint.
You don't step on anyone's face, Clint. Your candidate lost, again and again and again. Mine got a trifecta. Hmmmm....
aware| 2.8.12 @ 5:59AM
Add liberty to the long list of things you know nothing about. It's not "viable" cause it doesn't give the criminal class a ruling position.
I'm sure you will love this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....095821.htm
Clint| 2.7.12 @ 4:54PM
That's A Lie.
You're A Serial Liar, Tool Job.
You're The RINO -CINO Phoney, Who Already Admitted That You Are Going To Vote For The RINO -CINO Frontman, Mittens Romney In The General Election And You're Fronting Ricky Spector-Santorum For The Non-Binding Minnesota Caucus.
Now, Listen To Your RINO-CINO Mittens Romney On War Crimes And " Not Going After Those Who Report Crimes".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EtmGted3D0
The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Little Short, Fat, Agin' Jew, Who Uses A Catholic Heretic Moniker.
Occam's Tool| 2.8.12 @ 1:50AM
He is not a heretic, Clint. Learn your church history.
I voted for Santorum tonight, Clint. If Mitt is nominated, I will vote for him. I will never vote for Loserpaul.
I am a short, fat, aging Jewish guy. But I don't fellate Jihadists for my living.
Occam's Tool| 2.8.12 @ 1:51AM
And I like you, too, Teflon.
Occam's Tool| 2.8.12 @ 1:56AM
He was originally a heretic, but that decision was reversed.
Besides, it's about logic, like the logical assertion that Egypt was going to go Islamist and start kidnapping Americans...
Occam's Tool| 2.8.12 @ 1:55AM
No. I'm gonna go to the County GOP Convention in late February, and I'm going to make sure the Paulbots DON'T get elected to the State Convention and the Santorum guys do.If Santorum wins the GOP nomination, I'm voting for Santorum. But it is still likely that Mitt will win the overall GOP nomination.
However, when (and if) faced with a choice between Mittens and Obama, I'm voting for Mittens. Are you going to vote for Obama or throw your vote away on a 3rd party?
OLDRAY| 2.7.12 @ 3:14PM
Mr Lord please stop picking on Mr Hillyer. He is important to the nation. He encourages the long term unemployed. What better proof is there that even a complete idiot can find a job.
nibblesyble| 2.7.12 @ 8:17PM
hee hee
rmws1982 | 2.7.12 @ 3:28PM
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
teflon93| 2.7.12 @ 3:37PM
You mean the steel tariff that George W. Bush slapped on us post 9/11?
Santorum's deviations from conservative orthodoxy come out of party loyalty. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich's come from the gut and the desire to pander. Now, Santorum should know better---but there's a difference between a solid conservative (lifetime ACU 88) who occasionally goes off the reservation to suit the GOP and being a liberal like Romney or a gadfly like Newt. We need a solid conservative in the White House. There's only one candidate in the field who fits that bill.
Garfield| 2.7.12 @ 4:17PM
All the talk about Gingrich and what he did as a private citizen and comparing it to what Santorum did while he was supposed to maintain the public's trust is laughable.
teflon93| 2.7.12 @ 4:58PM
Except Gingrich was smitten by Clinton, mismanaged the House, pitched a temper tantrum over seating on AF 1, was having an affair himself while attacking Clinton for the same, endorsed Dede Scozzafava and insulted conservatives for not supporting the liberal in NY-23, and endorsed the global warming hoax on that park bench with Nancy Pelosi.
I'm not supporting Gingrich in 2012 because he is no longer the Newt Gingrich of 1994. His issues run a lot deeper than Santorum's in that Newt cannot be trusted to consistently pursue the advancement of the conservative cause.
He is still far superior to Mitt Romney because Romney is a liberal who has never done anything to advance the cause of conservatism.
Drek| 2.7.12 @ 5:08PM
What I find a hoot is when Romney is asked "what's he done that's conservative."
And he immediately starts going on about his family!
As if Romney getting his wife repeatedly preggers by repeatedly assuming the missionary position is in some way advancing the overall conservative agenda!
It's just a flat-out hoot!
teflon93| 2.7.12 @ 6:02PM
It's just the oddest thing for a job interview:
Interviewer: So, can you give me an example of something you've done exceptionally well?
Candidate: Sure, here are my kids...
teflon93| 2.7.12 @ 3:33PM
If you're getting paid to write your opinions and people don't understand your position from what you've written, you're overpaid.
Quin Hillyer is about the only person who thinks Rubin is pro-Santorum. Mark Levin and a whole bunch of conservative opinion columnists---in other words, people in Jennifer Rubin's business--believe she's a Romney shill. Every time Quin posts "smoking gun" evidence of Rubin's Santorumphilia, it requires a boatload of interpretation to support his contention.
I support Rick Santorum. Four words. Simple. Clear. Unequivocal.
If I can do it---and I've supported Bachmann, Cain, and even Perry this cycle---why can't she?
Vern Crisler| 2.7.12 @ 4:08PM
She's pro-Santorum up to a point, but mainly she uses him as a tool to criticize Newt or Perry, while saying nice things about Romney along the way.
teflon93| 2.7.12 @ 4:58PM
In other words, the National Review Strategy.
Drek| 2.7.12 @ 5:04PM
For the purposes of arranging a straw candidate against her precious Romney, she's all for propping up a candidate without any national stature or appeal.
Only a Hillyer could fail to see through the threadbare cloak she covered herself with.
Sparky| 2.7.12 @ 3:35PM
Mr. Lord, you continue to discredit yourself with these truly bizarre, long-winded rants. This is not the behavior of a rational man.
teflon93| 2.7.12 @ 3:39PM
Yeesh---you ever read Hillyer on Gingrich? I keep waiting for Nurse Ratched to call for the orderlies with the Houdini jackets....
Sparky| 2.7.12 @ 3:42PM
Speaking of weirdly obsessive conduct, three posts already on this vapid subject, Mr. teflon93?
teflon93| 2.7.12 @ 4:59PM
Oh, I'm always up for a good Hillyer rumble. It's Ultimate Fighting without the homoerotica.
Drek| 2.7.12 @ 5:02PM
I knew there was something I didn't like about the whole ultimate fighting thing.........
Occam's Tool| 2.7.12 @ 3:54PM
Teflon: we don't do Strait-Jackets anymore. Too high a risk of severe Myoglobinuria (muscle breakdown products in the urine) followed by renal failure. We use restraint chairs, if necessary, followed by fast acting injections, followed by release from restraint.
teflon93| 2.7.12 @ 5:00PM
I'd take my meds.
JimH| 2.7.12 @ 3:44PM
To prolong the SNL analogy, How about Santorum as the Church Lady, Romney as Irwin Mainway and Newt as Samurai politician.
TB| 2.7.12 @ 3:46PM
Santorum is being used by Romney shills as a blocking car for the frontrunner. Period. I would LOVE to see this bite them as Santorum unexpectedly roars past Romney in the home stretch, but I suspect that Hillyer, Rubin, et al judged correctly that Santorum could not assemble the resources to actually win, but would do a fine job of blocking out Gingrich and Perry for Romney.
Depressing.
Garfield| 2.7.12 @ 4:19PM
If Romney is the nominee, then we will likely have 4 more years of Obama.
I will not support Romney whom I view as no different than Obama.
Drek| 2.7.12 @ 5:01PM
Yup.
Santorum, who is fixated on abortion, because he's deluded himself he's doing the Lord's work, is going to saddle all of us with the most pro-choice Republican candidate in our lifetime.
He's out of it..........
teflon93| 2.7.12 @ 7:55PM
You might recall the GOP was founded thru a fixation on slavery, Drek.
Occam's Tool| 2.8.12 @ 2:01AM
And what's wrong with a Republican pro-choice candidate? Nobody who has abortion "rights" as their #1 issue would ever vote GOP anyway. It's one of Ron Paul's few majority positions.
JeffC| 2.7.12 @ 4:58PM
that was like watching Mike Tyson in the ring with a ballet dancer ... Quin, descendent of Conn, you have been measure and you have come up short ...
Drek| 2.7.12 @ 4:58PM
It doesn't really matter whether we show up to vote for Romney or not. Down the stretch the creep in chief, Obama, is going to enjoy a rather healthy margin in the polls, -------- which is going to strongly tend to dissuade voters opposed to obama, and all things obama, from even bothering to go to the polls.
If Romney is the nominee, by the time October rolls around, EVEN HIS OWN SONS will have difficulty finding the enthusiasm to go vote for their old man.
Watching the media and the Dems unload all over Romney is going to be a sick joke by Fall.
Simon Templar| 2.7.12 @ 5:40PM
Great article as usual, Mr.Lord.
One of the things I like about you, that puts you in a different league from that of your 'collegues," is your desire to tell the truth and do the homework needed to find it. You are willing to look at each person's strengths and weaknesses, be honest about what is really going on, and willing to say it.
One's articles do not get picked by Rush to be read aloud for nothing or for being just a nice guy.
As I read the reactions to your article in this thread, it struck me just how much those that call themselves conservatives are really not at all but are rather self destructive, confused, people who are willing to play the same political games, spout the same rhetoric, and create the same deceptions as our ideological opponents. Santorum is now a crazy national scold, Newt a moon walker, and CERTAINLY NOT a conservative! Such amazing stupidity and an incredible drive to destroy ourselves. Circular firing squads all night long! I could preach this all day and night and perhaps I might get one person to reply in agreement.
What's the response? We are inocculating our candidates, toughening them up, finding the best person! It is just politics. Really? I do not think so.
What it is, is sheer stupidity. The hell with facts, reality, political history, voting records, the actions and behaviors of people, their ideas, platforms, and anything even resembling the whole story, not just the sound bite or latest smear or half truth. We act as if our party politics were happening in a vacuum.
You even have good ole Ann Coulter warning Romney you better live up to what I am saying about you. Does that have any meaning to anyone? It a clue as to the state of where we are as an electorate and as supposed conservatives.
We are really not capable of choosing our leadership nor acting like conservatives, smart as vipers but innocent as doves.
The other issue we are not willing to look at is, in our effort to build that big tent, we have allowed free access to every progressive of every stripe from NE Liberal Republicans to Neo-Liberal Libertarians to get in and raise hell and chaos.
It has come to the point that no one knows what conservativism is anymore nor what are the basic principles of our founding fathers and a Republic. We represent the majority of Americans but act, think, and lead like a minority.
We are plagued with an incredible number of dishonest people who will say and do anything to win, particularly willing to stomp on anyone who gets in their way, freind or foe.
Others are also willing to play games and decieve. You rarely see conservatives rally around someone, circle the wagons, and defend the ramparts like the Left does.
Well, we better wake up and knock this nonsense off. We are at that hour we have all dreaded and were warned about by those that started this experiment in government.
Clint| 2.7.12 @ 6:28PM
You Wouldn't Know Real Conservatism If It Jumped Up And Bit Ya Israel Firster Crybaby, Pimpler.
Read George Washington's Farewell Address, Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, The Old Right And Get Back To Us.
" George Will, "Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush Doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?"
William F. Buckley, " It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative. It’s not conservative at all, inasmuch as conservatism doesn’t invite unnecessary challenges. It insists on coming to terms with the world as it is …”
The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Israel Firster Crybaby, Pimpler.
Occam's Tool| 2.8.12 @ 2:02AM
Clint: your boy got punched in the nads thrice tonight. Nice stepping.
Bill| 2.7.12 @ 7:09PM
Santorum's problems:
Voted for
1. NCLB
2. Medicare Part D
3. raising debt ceiling 8 times
Voted against
1. Right-to-Work law
2. Free-trade
Santorum's advantage:
1. He will carry PA if he gets the nod in 2012, too bad for Obama, despite of his senate loss in 2006.
Simon Templar| 2.7.12 @ 8:11PM
The deranged Paulbot, Clint, above thinks he is a conservative but is nothing but a sad and pathetic example of exactly what I was commenting about.
Thanks, Clint for being the perfect example of the devisiveness, extremism, twisted concept of conversvativism, jew hatred, and progressive thinking that has infected the conservative movement and the Republican party in general.
You know nothing of my views about anything particularly my views on foreign policy or anything for that matter. You do not listen, you name call, rant, misqoute everyone from George Washington to Ronald Reagan. You are an annoying, repulsive little shit who sits in his mothers basement and spouts explicatives and nothing else. Just once, it would be nice to see an adult like response from you other than your typical childish and repulsive replys.
As much as I detest the liberal trolls here, I find you more detestable. That is because you are a lost cause and absolutely nothing can be done to have a conversation with you about anything. Clint, you are the product of our times.
You are that anonymous self absorbed half man that at twenty or thirty years of age thinks he got it all figured out, learns nothing from anyone, and shoots his mouth off like a rabid dog's bark.
I have told you numerous times I could care less what you think or your lame quotes and name calling. You are a punk and nothing else and everyone here including the liberal trolls think you are an idiot. This is one thing we share in common. Actually that is not true. Jackboot from Wisconsin thinks otherwise.
Clint, you are an embarassment. Ron Paul needs you like a hole in the head.
The fact of the matter and the reality is you even suck as a libertarian. You are not even good at that but actually do a disservice to this particular political philosophy.
Occam's Tool| 2.8.12 @ 2:03AM
Simon, you are a saint, my friend. G-d Bless, and good night.
Nick099| 2.8.12 @ 7:58AM
Does not matter to me who Jennifer Rubin supports or what her opinion is on any particular subject. The woman is an imbecile.
Nick099| 2.8.12 @ 7:58AM
Does not matter to me who Jennifer Rubin supports or what her opinion is on any particular subject. The woman is an imbecile.