There is something unusual about pro-Perry RedState blogger Erick Erickson's attack today on pro-Romney Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin.

Erickson writes that Rubin "has nothing in common with conservatives other than hating terrorists. A conservative friend says she’s best understood as ‘Likud’ rather than Republican or conservative. There’s nothing wrong with being Likud, but one ought to be honest about it."

Erickson's claim that Rubin has "nothing in common with conservatives other than hating terrorists" is objectively false. Take a look at Rubin's writing on any number of topics--entitlement reform, unions, affirmative action, the Department of Justice--and you'll see she has a lot in common with conservatives. Rubin's positions on gay marriage (pro) and abortion (anti-Roe but legal) are not conservative, but there are plenty of libertarians who take the same positions, and they're welcome in the conservative movement.

So why does Erickson pretend that Rubin only cares about "hating terrorists"? To make the leap that Rubin is "Likud" rather than conservative.

The "Likud" label maliciously insinuates that Rubin cares more about Israel's interests than America's. Did Erickson not realize that his "conservative friend's" attack smacked of Buchananism? If a liberal called Eric Cantor "Likud," wouldn't conservatives easily recognize the attack as being inappropriate?

Update: Erickson apologizes:

after a friend explained to me the implication — that it suggested a loyalty to Israel above a loyalty to the United States among other things — that’s absolutely not what I meant and certainly do apologize for leaving anyone, including Jenn, with that impression.

We can fight on other matters, including whether she’s a conservative, but I don’t question her love of this country.

Next Page