The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Quin Hillyer Denounces Jeffrey Lord as a ‘Purveyor of Smear Jobs … Despicable’

Posted on | February 2, 2012 | 32 Comments

The escalating craziness among Republicans — which I have already mentioned twice today — has now spilled over into a feud between two esteemed contributors to The American Spectator, and now the hot-blooded Southerner Quin Hillyer has called out his antagonist:

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.

As usual in such matters, the gentlemen are disputing over the honor of a lady, in this case Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post. My friend Quin and I have sometimes disagreed quite strongly, and I have myself taken note occasionally of Ms. Rubin’s evident pro-Romney bias, but have not followed the argument and am thus unaware of what my friend Jeffrey Lord could have written that would inspire Quin to such invective. I am reminded of Nathan Bedford Forrest’s famous parting words to Braxton Bragg:

“I have stood your meanness as long as I intend to.  You have played the part of a damned scoundrel, and are a coward, and if you were any part of a man I would slap your jaws and force you to resent it. You may as well not issue any more orders to me, for I will not obey them, and I will hold you personally responsible for any further indignities you endeavor to inflict upon me.  You have threatened to arrest me for not obeying your orders promptly.  I dare you to do it, and I say to you that if you ever again try to interfere with me or cross my path it will be at the peril of your life.”

If Lord and Hillyer cross paths at CPAC next week, the fight is likely to be far more interesting than any speech or seminar at the conference.

Category: American Spectator

Comments

32 Responses to “Quin Hillyer Denounces Jeffrey Lord as a ‘Purveyor of Smear Jobs … Despicable’”

  1. Garym
    February 2nd, 2012 @ 7:18 pm

    Rubin is truly unhinged. Her attacks on anyone who disagrees with her over her political love affair with Romney have given her no credibility. Go to Legal Insurrection and read his excellent take down of her tweets of the Trump endorsement.

  2. Bob Belvedere
    February 2nd, 2012 @ 7:19 pm

    I remember the last time you and Quin went at it.  You both conducted yourselves very well [dare one say, like Gentlemen].  I wrote him at the time saying I would stay out of this argument because both of you were so kind to me when I first starting blogging and his reply was cordial and gentlemanly.

    You’re both class acts [although, will it ruin your reputation to state so in public?].

  3. Doug Hagin
    February 2nd, 2012 @ 7:32 pm

    This must be a racist post, seeing as you quoted Forrest:) I always appreciate a fellow Southerner who has  a grasp of history Stacy.
    The quote you gave is one I always use when giving historical presentations on Forrest, who was just about the lasy man anyone wanted to get in a fight with.
    General Bragg, for all his reputation, and practice of dealing harshly with insubordination, never even thought of crossing swords with Forrest. Smart move for Bragg.

  4. Piney
    February 2nd, 2012 @ 8:14 pm

    Quinn Hillyer’s post is excellent (your link) — with his closing two paragraphs being exceptionally to the right point. I share in his views as specifically aimed in that post of his…

  5. Anonymous
    February 2nd, 2012 @ 8:18 pm

    As I say, I haven’t followed the argument. I was traveling all day yesterday, and am trying to get straightened out here at home today. So I don’t have time or patience to get into a point-by-point dispute over who is right and who is wrong.

    All I meant to remark was how this campaign — and the dramatic all-or-nothing rhetoric being employed by disputants — has driven some people nuts.

  6. Piney
    February 2nd, 2012 @ 8:21 pm

    The current rantings negating Coulter are similar, or, rather, another wing of this current messy argument taking place over who wears the “Conservative” crown and who doesn’t (apparently, in the views of some, there is only one crown available, and, if you’re wearing another one other than that one, you’re some sort of sneaky faker).  The internet, unfortunately, has fostered or at least agitated this refusal to trust our differences while refusing to allow someone else to sit in the same bench, by way of certain higher profile sites that are characterized by a mosh-pit mentality that sets upon some and “bans” them as if they were taking out trash (“disposable people”), and, because none of us can really ever know just hwo it is who is behind a user ID (so some degree of hesitancy to trust others is reasonable, but the mob-tactic of attacking-to-destroy others when variations of views are mentioned is destructive, socially AND politically).

    I don’t know what the answer is other than to try and understand issues with greater intensity than who-fits-into-whose-club-or-social-group — focus on information instead of cliques.

  7. newrouter
    February 2nd, 2012 @ 8:24 pm

    defending jen the rube is defending the indefensable

  8. richard mcenroe
    February 2nd, 2012 @ 8:32 pm

    How about they both work off all that energy cleaning the F***ing Paulies out of the Spectator’s comments?

  9. Sven
    February 2nd, 2012 @ 8:32 pm

    I am reminded of Nathan Bedford Forrest’s famous parting words to Braxton Bragg

    Mention of Forrest always reminds me of this:
    “In the spring of 1867, Forrest and his [KKK] dragons launched a campaign of midnight parades; ‘ghost’ masquerades; and ‘whipping’ and even ‘killing Negro voters and white Republicans, to scare blacks off voting and running for office.’”
    — Forrest biographer Brian Steel Wills

  10. richard mcenroe
    February 2nd, 2012 @ 8:40 pm

    Not the first good soldier to come to a bad end in postwar politics.

  11. Shawn Gillogly
    February 2nd, 2012 @ 8:55 pm

    Well, as others have noted, Rubin has been unhinged for some time. I seem to recall her holding the knife for  Palin backstabbings in 08 as well.

    As far as Coulter goes, let’s put it plainly: She’s in love with East Coast Republicans. Before Mittens, it was Fatty McAwesome, sweeping his global warming and gun-control records right under the rug as “blue state necessities.” Let alone her usual omission of anything So-Con as part of a fully-rounded Conservative. The internet is inconvenient for some people, because it means their records are a whole lot easier to find. I like Coulter on a lot of things. But her record of candidate endorsement is ‘not’ one of them.

  12. Pathfinder's wife
    February 2nd, 2012 @ 8:55 pm

    Points to the very human reality that a person can be superlative in one aspect of their life and be a complete loon in others.

  13. Garym
    February 2nd, 2012 @ 9:01 pm

    I’m hoping we can calm down enough by November, in order to get the REAL problem removed from the Whitehouse.

  14. Anonymous
    February 2nd, 2012 @ 9:25 pm

    For what Wikipedia is worth, he appears to have had a change of heart in his old age and advocated equality between the races.

  15. Edward
    February 2nd, 2012 @ 10:08 pm

    Ok I read Hillyer’s article.

    Does not impress me.

    I’ve read Rubin’s stuff and frankly I don’t waste my time reading her nonsense any longer.  Why?  She’s become David Brook’s in a skirt.  And time is too valuable to waste reading that trash.

  16. Edward
    February 2nd, 2012 @ 10:15 pm

    Well the simple thing is that you can’t be both a pundit and an advocate.  If you want to be a pundit then you have to be neutral with respect to the candidates.  If you want to advocate a candidate then you lose your status as a pundit.

    Maybe it can be re-acquired at some later point.  Maybe it’s permanent.  Personally I don’t know as I’m not a pundit.

    But I do know that I rarely bother reading anything Coulter has to say any longer and Rubin isn’t worth the waste of time.  Perhaps Rubin has something important to say.  I’d say in that case it takes credibility to be heard above the noise.  And I’m not so sure that Rubin has any credibility left.

    As for Hillyer the simple thing is that Lord specifically shows where Rubin should have been quite a bit more forthcoming about her personal relationship with the Abrams family.  For all the massive link barrage that Hillyer attempts nothing he wrote excuses that lack of disclosure.

    Lord for the win.

  17. Edward
    February 2nd, 2012 @ 10:26 pm

    Maybe it’s a little bit of winter stir-crazy.  But IMO what it really seems to be is that an essential unspoken rule amongst conservatives has been broken and in a very public and big way.

    Extolling the virtues of your candidate and condemning the excesses of the opposing candidates is after all a national blood sport for conservatives.  But the serious all out effort to take down Gingrich has raised the stakes immeasurably because it has been shown that no longer can you simply sit back and yell insults at one another in great fun.

    Now it really is a blood sport and with casualties and that frankly ups the ante for everybody.

    So instead of being a good, or bad, loser and accepting that you have to transfer your loyalties to someone else now people are ready to dig trenches, string the barbed wire and replay the Battle of the Somme.

  18. ThePaganTemple
    February 2nd, 2012 @ 10:47 pm

     He was a figurehead leader of the original Klan. He gave them legitimacy, but he wasn’t their “founder” as has been stated. When they were outlawed as a terrorist organization, that was said to be with his tacit approval. However, I think it might be going to far to say he ever, at any age, advocated equality between the races.

  19. Paul Zummo
    February 2nd, 2012 @ 11:13 pm

    I once blogged with Quin at Southern Appeal – my very first gig.  Always liked Quin, but he’s been a bit . . . unhinged this campaign season, going off half-cocked more often than not. I’m not necessarily saying Lord is completely in the right here, but I think you’re right about how this primary season has turned us all a little nuts.  

  20. Adjoran
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 1:24 am

    It’s been evident from very early on that Jen Rubin was in the tank for Romney.  I usually only read her stuff when it’s linked from somewhere else so I’m not sure if she tries to deny it or not, but she clearly is.  So what?  It’s good to know that going in – everybody is biased in some way, and there are more conservative bloggers who are biased toward one candidate than remain undecided.

    The lady works for WaPo, whose previous “conservative” blogger was Dave Wiegel.  He may be a friend to Stacy, but not to conservatives generally.  So who was expecting a lot from the next one? 

    As to Hillyer and Lord,  I don’t find either particularly compelling.  But it is typical of this year where we’ve been at each other’s throats from the start.  At least they are fighting over a chick – and one who wouldn’t have anything to do with either of them.  There’s something vaguely noble about it.

    Very, very vaguely.

  21. Denverwindowwashing
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 4:46 am

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sA1c1WErUk

    Very good, 30 second video:  “Bighorn Sheep – Rams Butting Heads” in google.

    The reason for the resonance is the effect of the head butting on both participants, which is the price apparently to be paid for “taking a stand.”

    And for the record, I like J. Lord and only wish he would quote William F. Buckley more, then raise $2.4 million for Ace, Iowahawk, and RSM to write More Buckley, the greatest film that might well ever be made.  

  22. ThePaganTemple
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 7:05 am

    I’m not in the tank for anybody, and never have been. Even back when I was for Bachmann, I criticized her over certain things. You all act like a bunch of little kids defending your daddies and mommies from insults by the neighbor kids. Me, I’m a fucking political orphan, and I’m fine with that. Loyalty isn’t one of my strong suits when it comes to politicians, of whom I have what I consider a healthy mistrust in general, regardless of party or ideological affiliation. I used to defend Christine O’Donnell, and Nikki Haley, from what I felt were unfair attacks from the left, and from RINOs. What did that get me? A couple of backstabbing bitches who sold out their alleged principles, no different than any two cheap whores. Never again.

  23. Quartermaster
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 8:12 am

    The battle between them has taken place in the “Spectacle Blog,” and it has been a spectacle. Lord seems to have taken over the “Phil Klein Chair of Conservative Smears,” and is doing himself great credit in his occupation of said chair.

    Lord trades on his Regan admin cred all the while making himself look small. Lord is nuts and Hillyer is tired of seeing someone smeared. He’s been quite patient with Lord, sending him the facts, but Lord is simply not pursuaded by the facts. he’s made up his mind, and that settles it.

    Frankly, like Phil Klein before him, he has made himself a blot on the AmSpec.

  24. ThePaganTemple
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 8:15 am

     This was supposed to be a reply to Adjoran, don’t know how it got down here. Disqus must be acting up again, as usual.

  25. ThePaganTemple
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 8:16 am

     I’m not in the tank for anybody, and never have been. Even back when I
    was for Bachmann, I criticized her over certain things. You all act like
    a bunch of little kids defending your daddies and mommies from insults
    by  the neighbor kids. Me, I’m a fucking political orphan, and I’m fine
    with that. Loyalty isn’t one of my strong suits when it comes to
    politicians, of whom I have what I consider a healthy mistrust in
    general, regardless of party or ideological affiliation. I used to
    defend Christine O’Donnell, and Nikki Haley, from what I felt were
    unfair attacks from the left, and from RINOs. What did that get me? A
    couple of backstabbing bitches who sold out their alleged principles, no
    different than any two cheap whores. Never again.

  26. Quartermaster
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 8:17 am

    Jack and Clint are both problems, but the rest are fairly reasonable. The AmSpec comments are fever swamp beyond those two. I’m not sure why AmSpec refuses to deal with teh problem. I makes them come across as unhinged.

    At the same time, Antis are just as bad as Clint and Jack. We have a few that use intemperate language on the Paulbots here, and that may end up being destructive this fall if it is not tamed.

  27. Quartermaster
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 8:21 am

    It is not known that Forrest was ever associated with the Klan. At the same time, the Klan, started as a joke, became an underground movement as the Yankee occupation became more corrupt, actually arming freed slaves and setting them on whites.

    The character of the original Klan was far different from the revved Klan. The original Klan died quietly after the occupation was ended (and the Klan was not the only insurgent organization). The new Klan which was established about 1915 was far more widespread than the old Klan ever was. When I moved north to Ohio in ’92, I moved to teh state where the new Klan had been strongest in the country for many years. The new Klan was far stronger in the north than it was in the south.

  28. Bob Belvedere
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 8:52 am

    Stacy: Every time something like this happens, in my mind I picture the black cook in the old Three Stooges shorts who would say ‘This house sure is crazy!’

  29. ‘This House Has Sho’ Gone Crazy!’ « The Camp Of The Saints
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 9:51 am

    […] Please do take the time to click here and read the full post, if anything for the great quote from Nathan Bedford Forrest. […]

  30. ThePaganTemple
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 11:21 am

     Its not like we woke up one morning in the mood for mischief and held a secret meeting where we decided to pick on the Paultards just for the shits and giggles. They’ve brought it on themselves, and when you get right down to it they started dishing it out first, and have done so to a far greater extent than they’ve had it dished to them. If that ends up being “destructive this fall” that’s not my fucking problem. Take it up with the booger-eaters.

  31. Sven
    February 4th, 2012 @ 7:50 am

    So…the “superlative” fact that he didn’t follow through on his threat to murder his commanding officer balances out the multiple murders he *did* follow through on?

  32. Pathfinder's wife
    February 4th, 2012 @ 3:58 pm

    No, of course not.  But, he was a superlative soldier — very good, worth studying.
    Unfortunately this was also couched in the same brain along with batshit insane racist….aka. not something you want to emulate.
    This sometimes happens.