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.
More:
Peace Pipe with Jeffrey Lord
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
Obama to speak in a green, woman-friendly firehouse in Arlington ( Star Telegram ) Jobless rate has fallen because of dropouts ( Washington Times ) White House not backing down on contraception ( National Journal ) Donald Trump said to Newt Gingrich: “You’re fired!” ( LA Times ) Susan G. Komen deals with well-coordinated
The return of Aung San Suu Kyi, the dynamic Burmese political figure and international icon, from long-term house arrest to full activity has energized her entire country. The United States has accepted the Burmese government’s claim that it has released “hundreds” of political prisoners, though there are hundreds more still being held. How this will manifest itself in the near future is open to debate, but full diplomatic recognition is now in the works even though the U.S. never did fully close its embassy when it withdrew its ambassador in 1990. Meanwhile, the crush of celebrity visitors to Yangbon (Rangoon) run the gamut from Hillary Clinton and George Soros to every precious stone dealer and extractive industry executive who can afford the trip. They are all, whether diplomat, politician or businessman, already behind the curve. Burma in all its not inconsiderable economic potential already has been well reconnoitered over the past decade and earlier. Soros, himself, for some years has been running an active behind-the-scenes operation through his multiple charitable foundations. George Soros has never missed a chance to take advantage of political/economic openings afforded by his conveniently targeted eleemosynary activities — and it’s doubtful he has changed his modus operandi when it comes to Burma. With the aid of the global photo opportunity queen, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Burma has become an example of the Obama Administration’s theatrical foreign policy that has discovered an international issue in the last year on which to focus the attention of its left-liberal base. The image of Hillary and Suu Kyi in matching local hair-dos as “bosom buddies” linked in the fight for freedom was of great use to the White House. The Obama Administration is eager to portray itself as the champion of high profile Asian democracy as it seeks to cover its waning involvement in the previously priority areas of the Middle East. Washington officialdom is not the only foreign group seeking to take credit for Burma’s reform. Any changes that exist, however, are due strictly to internal developments, including the ascent of the new government under President (formerly General) Thein Sein and Aung San Suu Kyi’s willingness to work with him. Andrew Seith, highly respected Australian analyst of Burmese affairs, has written , “…there is hardly a single sector of Burma’s government economy and civil society that is not begging for reform and desperate for financial, technical and other kinds of assistance.” Expectations by outside do-gooders have to be adjusted to deal with these many difficult realities. The long-standing issues involving ethnic minorities such as the Karen and Shan have at last grown into full-scale negotiations. Unfortunately the Kachin insurgency has continued, some say quite unabated. Some of the ethnic tribal leaders question Aung San Suu Kyi’s judgment or even interest in these matters. Problems between the military and the various tribal groupings go all the way back to their treatment after World War II. Reform in relations with ethnic minorities in Burma, as elsewhere in Southeast Asia, is more the result of historical complaints than it is the product of perceived contemporary disadvantage. Not talked about openly, but always on the mind of her supporters, is the upcoming parliamentary elections in April as the first step in what many consider Suu Kyi’s rightfully inherited position of the nation’s leader. Too fast a move beyond a parliamentary seat could trigger a serious military backlash, and she is well aware of that. The complexity of the country’s problems will require many years to solve. During that period it must be remembered that Burma holds a strategic position between China and India. External factors easily can become determinant depending on regional events. Pragmatism on the part of Aung San Suu Kyi dictates she work with, and even perhaps for, President Thein Sein to achieve mutually desired goals of national reconciliation and reform. He can supply the discipline necessary to introduce a controlled but workable democracy, while she can continue to act as an inspiration for a future more open to democracy. It will take both leaders to focus the many voices of the nation in such a manner as to construct a consensus of the electorate and a military that would no longer see itself as the sole arbiter of justice and fidelity to national interests. If Aung San Suu Kyi finds she can not work with Thein Sein, contrary to current appearances, this entire national reformation enterprise could still collapse. So far it appears that both principals are well aware of this and are working hard to preserve their initial collaboration. Meanwhile all of Burma holds its breath — and the rest of the world tries to figure out where they should line up. They should keep an eye on George Soros. He seems to make money from every situation.
Go here to see the original:
Burma Awaits Its Tomorrow
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.
See the original post here:
An Answer to Jeffrey Lord’s Absurd, Speculative, Smear Jobs, Plural
