-
U.S. News: Obama-Kelley Meeting
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
The SPLC: Big Bucks, the FRC, and Jimmy Carter
May 7, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Mark Levin Talks to the NRA
May 7, 2013 | 0 comments
-
POLITICO: RUSH LIMBAUGH MAY PART WITH CUMULUS
May 5, 2013 | 13 comments
-
The Problematic Frank Luntz’s Stockholm Syndrome
April 25, 2013 | 11 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The social issue business continues to bring out the non-conservative coloration of some.
Or, as one might say, there she goes again.
First, congratulations to James Taranto for his great piece on Jeffrey Bell in the Wall Street Journal.
As it happens, I shared a panel with Jeff at CPAC moderated by Dr. Matt Spaulding of Heritage and the great Dr. George Nash, whose latest book bringing forth Herbert Hoover’s Freedom Betrayed is but one of several massive contributions to conservative literature.
Jeff Bell spoke that day about his new book, The Case for Polarized Politics: Why America Needs Social Conservatism, in which he details the winning record social conservatism has had for the GOP. Quite to contrary of the “wisdom” of moderate Republicans, whose favored establishment candidates keep being advertised as “electable” only to lose — to considerable degree because they shy away from social conservatism — Jeff notes that of the last 11 presidential elections the GOP has won 7. Due, in no small measure, to candidates who stood up to be counted on social conservatives.
But as always, there is more going on here behind the curtains.
James earlier wrote this great column in his “Best of the Web Today” corner at the WSJ (and yes, he is a colleague here at The American Spectator). In a piece titled Fear and Feminism Taranto deftly picks apart the logic of both the Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf and the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin. The Taranto column speaks for itself, no further explanation needed beyond one.
Mr. Friedersdorf, as he personally verified in an earlier exchange with me a while back, was candid enough to say that he is in fact not a conservative. Thus his angst over Rick Santorum, decidedly comes from whatever philosophical corner Friedersdorf inhabits, but self-admittedly, it isn’t the conservative corner.
Taranto also cites Jennifer Rubin, the Washington Post’s designated conservative whom we not so long ago noted appears not to be either much of a conservative or a Santorum supporter, something our friend Quin Hillyer took issue with. Be that as it may, Taranto accurately and professionally noted Rubin’s (latest) jab at Santorum, asking “What in the world explains Friedersdorf’s and Rubin’s overwrought emotionalism?” Taranto then discusses.
What catches one’s eye, here, well beyond the standard moderate Republican flinching at social issues and, in Rubin’s case, the distortion of Santorum’s views, is her reaction on Twitter to both James Taranto and a columnist who is already out of the gate as a Santorum supporter — David Limbaugh.
In full disclosure mode, while my relationship with David Limbaugh is one of e-mails, I have had the pleasure of being at table at an American Spectator dinner with James. Both James and David, if I may be so bold, are not only smart, talented guys, true blue conservatives both with reams of out front writing to testify for it, they are in my experience gentlemen both.
Thus when Jennifer Rubin tweets (hat tip to Dan Riehl) that Taranto and Limbaugh are “Neanderthal jerks” it says more about Rubin then her targets.
Note that Rubin also says in one tweet that Santorum’s “social views r unacceptable.”
To which one can only say this is yet one more indication of Rubin’s liberal instincts. As Jeff Bell has discussed with James Taranto, discussed at CPAC, and written an entire book detailing, precisely the social views Santorum discusses are what has helped the GOP to a 7-4 winning record in presidential campaigns. Rubin, who appears bereft of women friends or acquaintances in what liberals call “fly over country,” is apparently truly unaware that there are women aplenty in this country who agree with some approximation of Santorum’s social views. And since he has never voted against federal support for contraception (and frankly, he should have — what business is this of the federal government one way or another?), has exactly the same stance on abortion as, Taranto notes, every GOP nominee since Reagan, and opposes gay marriage as does Barack Obama — what is Rubin’s problem?
Respectfully, yet again, I would suggest it’s nothing more complicated than in fact she, like Friedersdorf, isn’t a conservative. This doesn’t make her a bad person. It simply means, to adopt the old line about TV doctors, she isn’t a real conservative, she just plays one for the Washington Post.
And her embarrassing ad hominem attack on David Limbaugh and James Taranto is just more proof in the pudding.
View all comments (19) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/21/james-taranto-david-limbaugh-d
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A President Loses His Power
- Current Wisdom
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
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| 2.21.12 @ 11:11AM
Said it before, say it again. Why should anybody give a flying flip about Jennifer Rubin's comments on anything? Just because she worked here once doesn't mean that anybody - outside the hardest-core political junkies - has ever heard of her.
By the way, Jen once had a flirtation (Platonic, of course) with Rick. That's when she got nice comments on the Spectator (a.k.a. Santorum For President). Now that she's soured on Santorum, the Spectator is rolling out the attacks on the infidel Jennifer.
But I still don't understand why they bother to either defend or attack her. Some kind of weird obsession with former employees, I guess.
Quartermaster| 2.21.12 @ 1:23PM
Yepper. Kinda like the moronic Frum and David Brooks. Two peas in a pod of Pseudo-conservatism.
rightasrain| 2.21.12 @ 1:28PM
As to the 7-4 GOP record, I would say that the world has changed in the last 5 years, not to mention the last 50. On social issues, especially gay marriage, the trend is to more tolerance and acceptance. No one wants to be labelled a bigot for supporting Santorum. if we want any chance of attracting independents and defeating Obama, we better run, not walk, away from Santorum as quickly as possible.
teflon93| 2.21.12 @ 2:23PM
Quin has his Establishment blinders on when it comes to Rubin.
His response will no doubt be a) Rubin's conservatism can only be judged by what she writes, not by what others write in response (sola Feed-eh) and b) what Rubin writes outside of her Post blog is irrelevant (sola Post-ura).
He cannot tolerate the schism which results if we allow any Tom, Dick, or Harry to interpret Rubin for themselves.
Marty Y| 2.21.12 @ 2:43PM
How can someone(Jeff Lord)who supported a serial adulterer and all around dirtbag in Newt act as if he cares about social issues?
Drek| 2.21.12 @ 4:03PM
So only if the record of the politician is spotless can he or his supporters hope to pronounce upon the subject?
Are you for real with that?
Oldefarte| 2.22.12 @ 10:55AM
Better get your thinking cap on. Newt eventually MARRIED the women that he's supposedly had affairs with, whereas the true 'dirtbag' s [too numerous to list] of the Democratic Party did not. If you want 'dirtbag' try reading about the newest book out on JFK's turning our white house into a mini-brothel of sorts. LET HE WHO HAS NOT SINNED, CAST THE FIRST STONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
mjs_pa| 2.21.12 @ 3:19PM
Like Quin, I felt that rubin had been "more" fair to Santorum than most.
However, this only lasted as long as Rick was down in the polls. As soon as he got some momentum and started threatening romeny, rubin became downright vicious and dishonest in her opinion pieces and tweets.
It appears now that she was using Santorum as a mask to cover her true non-conservative ideology.
rubin has revealed that she has no integrity.
Whatever goodwill she had with me was spent many tweets ago.
Drek| 2.21.12 @ 4:47PM
I used to read Rubin frequently over at Commentary/Contentions.
The moment I became aware that she was moving to the Washington Post I knew she was going to go all the way back to her political roots, which were Jewish, Democrat and lefty.
I do have to say I thought it would take longer for it to show, I thought she would take a longer time moving along that path. I couldn't imagine her transformation occurring in years. I was thinking at least a decade easy.
You can never underestimate the pressure to conform, the aching desire some have to have their opinion sought out, to be accepted, to be thought well of, to be understood to be one of the elite.
I now wonder if Rubin even cares how much good will she threw away.
bobmontgomery| 2.21.12 @ 5:32PM
Jen Rubin, Kathleen Parker, Michael Gerson, et al
and moving on over into the blogosphere, so many just want to be....Progressive, dontchaknow? It's just so hip to be Progressive, and forward thinking and modern and Progressive and judgementally non-judgemental. After a while it becomes comical. You could read a piece and not know the author and surmise that it could be any one of them.
C Bowen | 2.21.12 @ 6:32PM
Jeff Lord on a panel with George Nash--and then praise, considering Lord's ridiculous foreign policy polemics, Lord is revealed as a fraud--as if we needed more info.
That is too funny. What a fraud.
Lord was scared of Saddam because Saddam was mean to the Kurds in the '80s as a US ally.
I can only assume Lord was on the panel to bring up the Clinton-Obama-Cheney wing.
Dai Alanye | 2.21.12 @ 6:55PM
Bowen needs to give more background in his/her posts. What has been put up here is so disjointed as to make no sense.
C Bowen | 2.21.12 @ 9:01PM
If you don't know Nash's effort on Hoover and how it conflicts with Lord's ideological efforts, you have not been reading too closely on this site, let alone have read the book that Lord praises as an important part of the conservative lexicon, even though it contradicts Lord--thus revealing how low on the totem pole he is, without even the guts to defend his own points.
Truth to Power| 2.22.12 @ 9:07AM
How childish! The expectation that you will agree with everything that people you respect believe is baby like, cute in a baby but absolutey moronic in an adult. Not suprising from a paulbot. It gives one an idea of what is going on in the collective head of the throng that gathers around "their dear leader". It turns out they are playing the useful idiot for Romney.
ejp| 2.21.12 @ 7:39PM
Jennifer Rubin = David Brooks in drag. Both phony conservatives who gladly knife the conservative movement in the back so they can draw their cushy paychecks in establishment media jobs and give the establishment media cover against the concept of liberal bias (and Brooks in drag was also I note bashing Santorum for going after the media, which goes to show where her pathetic self-interest lies)
PCP Smoker| 2.21.12 @ 9:35PM
Watch out Quinn Hilier, or Queen Hilary as I call him, will be coming at you with a knife. This is the second time you attacked that liberal hag. Remember how excited she...err, he, got when that happened?
martin j smith| 2.22.12 @ 10:26AM
If you work for Wapo what does one expect,Rubin is not worth much for except as yet another RINO who wants same old same old. She is dismissed as far as I am concerned. No credibility.
InOhio| 2.22.12 @ 10:32AM
Easy way to identify a left-wnger: They are unable to complete a sentence without using profanity and/or gratuitous name-calling.
Oldefarte| 2.22.12 @ 10:56AM
Anyone who critsizes David Limbaugh must be THE JERK instead!!!!!!!!!