-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 3 comments
-
DeMint Supports Defense
May 14, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Update on Tom Perez
May 14, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Tiger Woods Sinks Lower
May 12, 2013 | 20 comments
-
I Ask Anurima Bhargava for a Date
May 10, 2013 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
First, I owe Jeffrey Lord a bit of an apology. But it will come in roundabout fashion, because I must digress to say that his opening line in his post below is absolutely classic, hysterically funny, and well aimed. Injecting some levity into the situation was very much needed, and is appreciated. Nobody has called me an “ignorant slut” before, but it does sound sort of fun! And I certainly could do worse than to have my own spot on Saturday Night Live.
Now, as to the apology: Jeffrey Lord is a gentleman and a good guy. In retrospect, my opening line in the post in which I castigated him was overkill. I was trying for a clean, hard takedown, but it ended up being too hard and appearing not fully clean. I was writing fast, as I often do with blog posts rather than formal columns, and I already was trying to catch up from losing two solid hours that morning to computer problems, so I didn’t do the final read-through I usually do in order to catch anything that didn’t come out quite right. I had started to write that Jeff had not shown intellectual consistency, but that wasn’t quite right. So I changed it to a lack of “intellectual integrity,” in the sense of “integrity” meaning “wholeness” and “coherence” — as in structural integrity of a building. (I.e., to distinguish it from personal or professional integrity, which is a measure of character rather than just the fullness and fully realized fairness of thought processes.) But, having then — and all of this was very quick, mind you, far quicker than it takes to explain it — having then come up with the term “intellectual integrity,” I then looked for the metaphor and came up with what I thought was a good strong comparison: Bill Clinton. Big mistake. Clinton’s character is so low that any use of the word “integrity” in conjunction with Clinton automatically calls to mind a character issue, not just an issue of coherence, etc. In short, by quickly trying to make a good, strong, hard statement, I went too far — and didn’t realize it until several professional friends and colleagues emailed me to say as much, one of whom understood my point but said the overall effect was “shi***y.”
The criticism was right, and I apologize to my once and future friend Jeff.
NOW, that said….. I do NOT withdraw the substance of my post, but instead wish to soberly elaborate on it — not to belabor the dispute with Jeff, but to make the bigger point I tried to make in my original post, which is that there is far too much questioning of motives and far too much use of perjorative labels (RINO, etcetera) on the right these days — far too much of the assumption that somebody opposing one’s own candidate is therefore deliberately trying to help another one, even if they don’t say so or indeed say just the opposite, and far too much assumption that a difference of opinion on a particular candidate’s bona fides, or of a particular tactical consideration, is evidence of some deep-seated lack of true conservatism. Criticizing or praising candidates, ideas, policies, etcetera, is what we opinion journalists do; but attacking or carelessly and perjoratively labeling their supporters en masse, or individual supporters without relying on actual evidence, is what I object to. I hope even Jeff notes that these are things I never do — that I can write very strongly in defense of conservatives I think have been unustly attacked, but that I never do the original attacking (except, of course, in criticizing candidates or policies, etcetera, which of course is part of my job).
To dispose of his most recent complaints: I don’t give two figs what others have said about Jennifer Rubin being a shill for Romney. I just care what she has actually written, and I was angry because Jeff wouldn’t even acknowledge the simple facts — again, FACTS — that she has consistently written favorably about Rick Santorum. Much of her reputation for being pro-Romney comes not from her praising Romney, which in truth she has done only a little of, but because she has so strongly criticized other conservatives challenging Romney — which really has nothing to do with Romney unless one buys into the absurd notion that this contest is a two-person race, which it never has been. If I can very quickly produce 21 examples of what I am talking about, and Jeff won’t even look at them, then I would say the facts are on my side. If I played Jeff’s game of citing OTHERS who have adjudged Rubin’s leanings, I could just as easily produce examples of those (such as the Village Voice) who just as strongly have accused her of an unseemly bias in favor of Santorum.
Meanwhile, I never objected (although I strongly disagree with his tendentious analysis of the Gingrich speech in question) to Jeff defending Newt Gingrich from Elliott Abrams’ column against Gingrich. Instead, I thoroughly object to JEff alleging, without a shred of evidence, that Abrams was somehow trying to prostitute himself out to Romney for a job. THAT, yes THAT, is a scurrilous attack. Wrote Jeff Lord:
In fact, I’m sorry to say, what appears to be going on here is that Elliott Abrams, a considerably admirable public servant and a very smart guy, has been swept up in the GOP Establishment’s Romney frothings over the rise of Newt Gingrich in the Republican primaries. He is even being accused of trolling for a job in a Romney administration. No way!!!! Really???? What else can possibly explain a piece like the one Abrams penned on a day when Gingrich was being of a mysterious sudden targeted in one hit piece after another for his ties to Reagan?
Jeff repeated the accusation in a subsequent post. That is why I was already so angry when he further took up the cudgel in much the same way against Jennifer Rubin.
I could go on, but I’ll stop. The point is not to rehash every bit of the dispute. THe point is to ask that conservatives stop accusing each other of bad motives, especially without proof, and that we keep it as civil as possible. My first sentence the other day about Jeff came out, unintentionally, as not just a strong dispute, but positively uncivil. I was wrong. That’s why, again, I apologize.
View all comments (23) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/07/peace-pipe-with-jeffrey-lord
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
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
Bill| 2.7.12 @ 6:28PM
Enemy is out there. Barack Obama!
Vern Crisler | 2.7.12 @ 9:46PM
Quin is still refusing to see who stared all of this ad hominem. It started in Iowa by guess who? Newt fans are understandibly furious by all of the Newt bashing coming from the Romney camp and from other conservatives who should have known better. Maybe that's why their tolerance level for Rubin is so low right now.
Nancy in NC| 2.8.12 @ 8:12AM
Well, they better get over it. Just wait till Obama and the Chicago thugs get hold of them. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if concrete boots become involved.
Clint| 2.7.12 @ 6:42PM
The Stupid Party Heads Over The Cliff, Again.
" President Barack Obama has a 52 to 43 percent lead over Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney among all Americans, and a 51 to 45 percent lead among registered voters. The results in the new Washington Post-ABC News poll represent the first time the president has broken the 50 percent mark among registered voters."
Read more on Newsmax.com: Wash Post-ABC News Poll: Obama Leads Romney Among All Americans
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.
These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.
Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail....
Dai Alanye | 2.7.12 @ 8:20PM
Santorum was the only Repub candidate to lead Obama, according to one recent poll. A small sample, but quite pleasant to see the true conservative moving up.
Occam's Tool| 2.7.12 @ 11:17PM
In my little township, the vote was 18 for Ron Paul, 2 for Gingrich, 8 for Romney...and 56 for the Rickster.
I think Newt needs to leave. He hasn't won anything, and he's just wasting space.
Mike 3/505| 2.8.12 @ 8:57AM
he is number two in delegate count.
aware| 2.7.12 @ 6:48PM
Quin, just go ahead and scratch his eyes out. Nothing like a neocon(you and Lord) cat fight caused by another neocon(Abrams) saying something bad about a neocon(Gingrich).
It has the potential of a real neocon dog pile. I'm confident, in spite of your apology, that soon you will find yourself wanting to scratch his eyes out.
I could almost understand the fierce partisanship if there was any real, measurable difference between the stars of the Newt and Mitt Show.
Quin| 2.7.12 @ 8:00PM
Since I don't favor either, I guess that excludes me.
aware| 2.8.12 @ 5:26AM
The lack of difference includes Santorum, though in a minor supporting role.
Occam's Tool| 2.7.12 @ 11:17PM
Sorry, but all your going to be "Aware" of is RuPaul getting kicked in the nads over and over.
aware| 2.8.12 @ 5:37AM
You have some kind of problem with understanding I'm not a Paul supporter. Maybe I would except elections are rigged and pointless in preventing the coming reckoning.
I still feel sorry for the weak minded fools forced to receive your "treatments", Dr. Statist.
Your Inner Voice| 2.7.12 @ 8:02PM
Is "conservatism", in fact, definable in words? If the answer to that question "yes, there are clearly definable distinguishing characteristics of a 'conservative'", then those who are not should be identified, both who and how so, and cut out of the herd and branded as such so they are not running around giving the rest of us and our cause (the preservation of the Republic from impending doom) a bad name. Frum is not a conservative, Brooks is not a conservative, the Bushes were not conservative, and etc... There was a time when David Brock was called a conservative, or Charles Johnson, or Ann Coulter, but people DO change, sometimes overnight. Romney does not have a conservative bone in his body, because of what he says and does, not because I said so, and he is leading others who were once identified as conservative to a place of permanent re-characterization in the eyes of observers who have good working definitions of what conservatism actually, definably IS.
teflon93| 2.7.12 @ 9:27PM
Conservativism is that philosophy which stresses strong national defense, Judeo-Christian moral virtues, free market economics, and limited, Consitutional government. Conservatism prefers the time-honored, tried and true as a general rule, although this is often mistaken for a defense of the status quo which conservatives often find intolerable. We are averse to folly, not to change.
Implementing socialism in any of its varieties is incompatible with conservatism, as is the embrace of libertinism, as liberty is possible only with sufficient order to prevent anarchy.
The most fundamental statement of conservatism uttered to date is a very old common law notion: "Every man's home is his castle." A society wherein this is true as a matter of law and custom is a free---and conservative---land. Where this principle is inapplicable if not outrageous you will find only the crumbling hovels of slaves.
Mimi| 2.7.12 @ 9:06PM
Thanks Quin....
Quartermaster| 2.7.12 @ 9:24PM
Lord is a very small man. Calling Santorum unconservative for opposing a 1 trillion plus effort to establish a moon colony tells the world just how small he is. Teh country is a nearly bankrupt, and he want to engage in stuff like that. What an idiot.
It is unlikely we will ever be able to afford to go back to the moon. Both parties have seen to that. And that includes some of Lord's conservatives.
teflon93| 2.7.12 @ 9:28PM
At least if we go to the moon we get a moon base.
What have we gotten for 50 years of entitlement spending of the sort Mitt Romney wants to double and triple down upon?
PCP Smoker| 2.7.12 @ 9:39PM
What's in the moon that we need to colonize? The dark side is just as empty and pock-marked as the side that is lit. Let's corral liberalism, get a hold of social security and medicare expenditures, get rid of the welfare system, and put Obama in jail, then we'll worry about creating a shuttle, without the Ruskies, to takes us to the moon.
Occam's Tool| 2.7.12 @ 11:20PM
Take a rock on the moon. Shoot it out (1/6th earth gravity) with enough force to enter earth orbit. Now, imagine you can aim the rocjk to hit what you want with a reasonable degree of accuracy (say, 3 miles). Imagine you wanted to destroy a place with no radiation. Imagine you're Chinese and going for moon exploration.
Now, imagine why. Thanks, guys. I rest my case. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, written by the guy who first contempleted waldos.
aware| 2.8.12 @ 5:46AM
Would Moonchinks shooting moonchunks be more dangerous than terrachinks selling off our T bills?
Maybe we should nuke the moon before they finish their moonchunk gun.
Oldefarte| 2.7.12 @ 10:58PM
Quin, glad to hear that you two have kissed and made up [just kidding!]. Pi*sing contests rarely solve anything anyway. Conflicting rational arguments may not always result in compromises, but the rationality of same maintains the intellectual nature of both sides. Kick the bus over Grover Klemmer, not over Jeff Lord. Conservatism need for you two to keep editorializing, so we readers won't have to suffer the consequences of the sole propagandizing from the MSM typical outputs!!!!!!
FeFe| 2.8.12 @ 2:51PM
Far be it from me to interject into your vociferous debate with Mr. Lord, but you are aware that Sir Walter Raleigh never stepped forth from a crowd, gallantly doff his cloak, and lay it across a mud puddle before the feet of Queen Elizabeth so Her Majesty could walk across cleanly? I don't mean to be critical of your prose or poetry, though my friends say I have an eye, but fables are entertaining associations not fact. Ms. Rubin is a handsome maid of honor no doubt, but I would be remiss not to point out "a suit, and that of the newest cut" will play in Kenilworth better than CPAC.
kf451| 2.8.12 @ 5:30PM
"Much of her reputation for being pro-Romney comes not from her praising Romney, which in truth she has done only a little of, but because she has so strongly criticized other conservatives challenging Romney -- which really has nothing to do with Romney unless one buys into the absurd notion that this contest is a two-person race, which it never has been. "
More weak sauce, Quinn. She's a Romney shill, and it's exactly because she criticizes all his opponents while leaving him alone.
People thought Bachmann was a stalking horse for Romney for doing the same thing in debates. Lo and behold, it turns out she was not criticizing him because she was hoping to be his VP!