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.
