Is there anything sadder than watching David Frum white knight for Jennifer Ruben?
We haven’t checked Chelsea Handler’s timeline yet today so there could be something sadder there, but this is pretty damn pathetic.
Some thoughts on yesterday's savagely personal attack in NRO upon @JRubinBlogger https://t.co/EdAgzSGTmK
— David Frum (@davidfrum) December 19, 2017
Frum seems to be taking issue with a piece about Jennifer Rubin written by Charles C.W. Cooke and published by National Review Online.
From The Atlantic:
On Monday morning the conservative media world woke up to a savagely personal attack in National Review upon the Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin. The outburst might seem a textbook case of the narcissism of petty differences within the conservative world. Both the author of the denunciation, Charles C.W. Cooke, and its target, Jennifer Rubin, are right-leaning Trump skeptics. What on earth could they be arguing about? And does it matter?
I think it does—a lot.
Savagely personal, that’s cute.
Almost feels like there’s some history with Frum and Cooke …
"Savagely personal?" @charlescwcooke piece wasn't "savagely personal." Know what's "savagely personal?" Telling someone their views are responsible for Sandy Hook, & that they crave "the blood of Newtown schoolchildren."
Which you, David Frum, actually did…to Charles Cooke. https://t.co/XcNYK0KOhn
— Jeff B/DDHQ (@EsotericCD) December 19, 2017
Wow.
(btw, here's the link for proof: https://t.co/Hns3aSFYHg)
— Jeff B/DDHQ (@EsotericCD) December 19, 2017
Hey look, it’s a Twitchy article.
And here’s a tweet:
Just go for the gusto! The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of Newtown schoolchildren!
— David Frum (@davidfrum) June 21, 2017
Wanna talk about savagely personal?
"Savagely personal" lol JFC…
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) December 19, 2017
Doesn’t get more savagely personal than accusing someone’s beliefs of causing the horror in Newtown.
Stay classy, Frum.
"Savagely personal attack" = literally just quoting things she's written.
— neontaster ? (@neontaster) December 19, 2017
the one where @charlescwcooke used "old" rubin's words to refute "new" rubin?
— Ryan (@alwaysonoffense) December 19, 2017
Facts don't care about your feelings.
— Jim Treacher is a dumb pseudonym (@jtLOL) December 19, 2017
"Savagely personal" You are hilarious. To examine a person's words and comment on the unhinged hypocrisy is not a personal attack, much less savage. Take to your fainting couch, David, and give it a rest.
— BossypantsTiger (@Leishac) December 19, 2017
Using Rubin's own published pieces, Cooke illustrated the hypocrisy of her posturing.
— Sandy (@RightGlockMom) December 19, 2017
But Trump?
It wasn't a personal attack.
— just alan (@anythingbutdem) December 19, 2017
Shhh, he’s white knighting.
I see they are cutting too close to the core for your liking Frum. I'm not surprised, Rubin is just you with a thesaurus.
— Kyle Beckley (@Kyle_Beckley) December 19, 2017
Ouch.
This is a very flowery, convoluted essay that boils down to "We (Rubin & Frum) don't like Trump, so we changed positions so that we could believe the opposite from him." Not coincidentally, that's exactly what @charlescwcooke was arguing.
— John McAfee (@Tuff_Jon) December 19, 2017
Yup, Frum basically proved Cooke right.
Oh, the irony.
I use to respect you so. Pointing out that Rubin has abandoned previously deeply held beliefs because Trump is not personal. She like you can’t credit him even when he is on the side of truth as with Israel. Truly sad.
— Mick (@MickGMick) December 19, 2017
Quoting Trump, ‘Sad!’
Related:
DAMN, this thread takes Charles C.W. Cooke’s DECIMATION of Jennifer Rubin to the next LEVEL
