Here's the background: As part of the on-going right-wing civil war, AM nut Mark Levin recently lit into The Weekly Standard's John McCormack, in a very personal and creepy way, after he reported negatively on Tea Party candidate Christine O'Donnell and her political past.

In defense of his colleague, here's the statement TWS's Hayes emailed to Politico [emphasis added]:

Mark Levin's attack on John McCormack is a disgrace. And I say that as someone who has considered Mark a friend for 15 years. John McCormack is a reporter and a very good one. He was doing his job. The material for his two articles on Christine O'Donnell came primarily from an interview he conducted with her and a lawsuit she filed.

Is Levin suggesting that conservatives shouldn't also be reporters? Or that we leave newsgathering to the mainstream media? I understand that Mark supports O'Donnell, and good conservatives can differ on the better candidate in this race. But it's bizarre and more than a little disappointing that a reporter doing his job would provoke such an over-the-top, ad-hominem attack on a reporter.

Oh my. A conservative writer thinks it's “bizarre” and “disappointing” that a reporter simply “doing his job” would become the target of “ad-hominem” attacks.

Question: Has Stephen Hayes ever read Newsbusters? Has Stephen Hayes ever looked at Andrew Breitbart's press-hating websites? Has Stephen Hayes ever listened to Rush Limbaugh's radio show. Has Stephen Hayes been conscious for the last decade when conservatives have made nasty, over-the-top, ad-hominem attacks on reporters a foundation of the movement?

Just curious.