It wasn't a surprise. I saw the fight breaking out on Twitter the other day. Robert Spencer won CPAC's People's Choice Award this year, and apparently a condition for accepting the award was that, at the conference, Robert was prohibited from publicly criticizing Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan. Robert and John Hawkins dispute what was said in their discussion on accepting the award. Pamela has statements from both Robert and John at her post. It's heated. John ends his comments as follows:
I’m the one who talked to Robert Spencer and I’m the one who’s saying that I think demanding the right to throw a tantrum as a condition of accepting an award is unacceptable. All I can say beyond that is that I hope lying to get his 5 minutes of PR was worth burning people who’ve been supportive of him, because he is dead to me.Those are fighting words. Strong words. iOWNTHEWORLD has more about them, "Stop Digging."
I'm friends with all the particpants to this conflict. And in particular, I am very close personal friends with Pamela Geller. I can't say I'm happy to take sides, because I think John Hawkins has been a great leader of the conservative blogosphere. And while I don't have enough information to determine whose version of the awards acceptance dispute is correct, I'll simply say that that's the minor detail here. The major detail is that John's on the wrong side altogether. CPAC is completely corrupted as a leadership organization. I can't understand how anyone would want to be affiliated with the group in an official capacity, because to do so would be to call into question one's conservative bona fides. That's the situation in which John Hawkins now finds himself. And believe me, I know, the attraction of CPAC is enormous. All the bright lights and big names. All the spectacle and pageantry of the big conference center. All the parties and beautiful women. And of course, all the opportunities for posing, brown nosing and money grubbing. That's enough to make you sick right there. But if that was all it's about I could still handle it. Everyone has their immediate material interests. But that's not what it's all about. It's about a battle over existential values. This is a battle over fundamental freedoms of which there can be no compromise. And this is a battle for the soul of CPAC that's been been raging for quite sometime now. It was raging when I was in attendance in 2011. Some folks might recall David Horowitz's keynote address sounding the tocsin against the Muslim Brotherhood's infiltration of the conservative movement. It's all well-documented. There's no conspiracy here. Either people decide to face facts or not. Listen beginning at 5:00 minutes, or at just before 7:00 when David calls out Suhail Khan by name, denouncing him as a traitor of the United States:
There's more background, with all the evidence, from Frank Gaffney, at FrontPage Magazine, "A Jihadist in the Heart of the Conservative Movement."
And see Pamela at FrontPage Magazine, "CPAC Shills for Islamic Terrorists."
Plus, Robert has this, "CPAC blog award update: John Hawkins of Right Wing News does damage control for Norquist and CPAC, throws Spencer under the bus."
Again, it's not fun to write this, because I've long respected John Hawkins. But people need to speak up. Sorry, but John, take it from me, you're not coming up roses on this. Not just because of the dispute over the award, as bad as that is, but because you're on the wrong side if it's true that you're shilling for Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan. It's time to rethink your goals as a conservative activist. You may still generate lots of money and traffic, but you'll have lost your soul.
Added: Blazing Cat Fur links. Thanks!
No comments:
Post a Comment