Jeffrey Lord – Another Paul Hater

Conservative Heritage Times
VERBATIM POST
============================
RedPhillips

I had held off on commenting on this dust-up in conservative webdom because I commented in the replies to the article, and after fighting the same battle over and over again I just get emotionally exhausted. Some people are just not educable, and it is a waste of time and bandwidth to continue to argue with them.

But since it has blown up even more and become a story of its own, I guess I should cover it for thoroughness sake.

Yesterday Jeffrey Lord wrote this sloppy hatchet piece that appeared on American Spectator. As of this morning it had nearly 600 comments. Now the comments appear to have been taken down. I don’t know if they became too overwhelming in number or just too rancorous. Hopefully AmSpec will explain.

Then today AmSpec posted a reply from Jack Hunter and a reply to the reply by Jeffrey Lord. (189 comments at the time of this posting.)

This morning Kevin Gutzman and Tom Woods appeared on the Mike Church show to discuss the Lord article. (Gutzman also corrected some of Lord’s faulty history in the comments section of the original article before comments were taken down.)

Today Mark Levin posted this attack on Hunter and all things Paul on his Facebook page.

There is simply too much here to cover so I will just allow our readers to click on the links and see for themselves. I will note that Mark Levin is an unusually nasty piece of work. He says that Lord makes “mincemeat” of Hunter. This is delusional. Hunter destroys Lord. I know I’m biased, but I think any unbiased observer would easily recognize that Hunter gets the better of the argument. Hunter is calm and rational. Lord’s reply is emotional and quickly resorts to spurious attempts to smear. Levin as well does not argue the substance of the debate at all, whether non-interventionism is a conservative policy. He goes immediately to frothing smear mode. He even calls Woods a lightweight. This too is delusional. Levin clearly does not like to have “conservative” interventionist groupthink criticized and his defense of choice appears to be attack instead of rational intellectual discourse.

Here is Jack’s Facebook reply to Levin:

Mark Levin, you can write Facebook posts, trash me on the air, trash Tom Woods, call me a sissy, use surrogates to attack me or Congressman Paul in different forums–but the one thing you will not do is debate me. Ever. Sean Hannity deserves credit for allowing different guests on, even when he disagrees them. Levin is still afraid to step foot outside his bunker.

Here is Jack’s comment introducing his AmSpec reply.

Note that in Lord’s response, he simply asserts that Paul’s foreign policy is still “leftist,” ignoring that I note that everyone from Bill Buckley to Jack Kemp disagreed.

I made this same observation in my comment. Lord essentially says Ron Paul’s foreign policy is liberal because it is.

Now have fun with the links.