McLaughlin leans for Hillary

I was once a fan of The McLaughlin Group, back in the days when the mainstream conservative movement had some life and meaning, back when Patrick Buchanan was in his brilliant prime and the star of the show, and was always treated by the host with a ritualistic, playful deference, and Eleanor Clift had that New York edge and was the perfect liberal foil (especially in the days before she became a fiercely robotic Clinton supporter in 1991 and remained so ever afterward), and even Morton Kondracke and Fred Barnes, the two “regular guys” on the show, were enjoyable to watch (this was before they turned into prematurely aged, broken-down, crackly-voiced geezers trading inanities on the bizarrely named program “The Beltway Boys”), and John McLaughlin, with his pop Jesuitism and commanding, showmanlike presence, held it all together. Over the course of the ’90s the show seemed to slide slowly downhill, losing its focus and its verve (also frequently having less interesting panelists), and I watched it less and less. I completely stopped watching it after September 2001. The reason was that one Israel critic on the show had been enough. But two Israel haters, including the host, who had become such after 9/11,—two guys in a mutual support society gleefully trading cheap shots against besieged Israel—was over the top and sickened me.

This is by way of introducing the following letter which VFR reader Sam B., a World War II veteran, wrote to John McLaughlin concerning his praise for Hillary Clinton on his 11/4/07 show.

Sam B. wrote:

Mr. McLaughlin:

It’s always been folklore that you were once a conservative, a columnist for National Review, a former priest, and even a Nixon Admin. functionary…much like those others—Gary Wills, David Brock—who swung from conservatism to the other end of the political spectrum. Your grade for Madam Hillary’s performance in the last Democratic debate, even topped that of Democratic Party faithful Ms. Clift, who gave her a B. Buchanan gave her a C; I can’t recall Tony Blankley’s grade for her, but I am sure it was not above a C minus—not surprisingly for him, perhaps the most insightful of your panelists (whom you continuously cut off). Mort Zukerman with a C, too. But you, in all of your “metaphysical certitude” [sic] came up with an unbelievable A!! Now this, remember, is for her performance in a debate in which she did not shine, even in the eyes of her most loyal followers. Incredible! As to how much of a person of principle she is, a transcript of her answers to hard ball questions—Gov. Spitzer’s plan to grant illegals (motor voter) drivers licenses—she hardly rose to her earlier performances. The only rational reason I can see for your moment of blind worship and/or support is that you are now a Democrat who would rather win with her than lose with the leftist trial lawyer. So with the panel’s average of a C plus, and not a very high plus, the only reason I can think of for your awarding her an “excellent” is your (ongoing) hatred of Bush, even if he’s lost the (moral) support of those who once supported him.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 08, 2007 02:24 PM | Send