I dealt several times with Matt Latimer when he was working for Senator Kyl and had only friendly relations with him. And my general attitude toward people who want to criticize the Bush White House from the Right is: Go ahead, it’s a target-rich environment. I wasn’t a fan of most of Bush’s domestic policy.

Still, I find Latimer’s recent comments perplexing. In his letter on Monday, he asked NRO to host a debate between him and his critics. Um, isn’t that what we’re doing? We ran an article criticizing Latimer, and then we ran Latimer’s response. That’s a debate. Or it would be if Latimer actually responded to the points his critics make instead of making irrelevant attacks on them and calling redundantly for the debate he could already be in.

Thus Ed Gillespie disputes factual claims that Latimer makes about (for example) the Bush White House’s treatment of the late Ted Kennedy and of J. K. Rowling, and Latimer responds not by defending his book but by making the incredible charge that Gillespie is responsible for the Republican defeats of 2006 and 2008. Did Gillespie invade Iraq and then refuse to send enough troops there? I think you could make a strong argument that Latimer’s old boss Don Rumsfeld had more to do with those defeats than Gillespie did.

Speaking of Rumsfeld, I don’t understand why Latimer won’t just answer the question about the nature of his professional relationship with him. I understand that he thinks that the question is being raised only to discredit him—but if it’s really so irrelevant, why not just answer and be done with it? Instead Latimer has responded to Rich Lowry’s questions by trashing Rich—or, rather, having his spokesman trash him. Politico reports that Latimer’s still stonewalling and attacking instead of answering the questions.

And here’s another thing I don’t understand: Latimer presents himself as a conservative who was disillusioned by the Bush White House’s lack of conservatism. That would make perfect sense, except that he went to the White House in 2007. That’s after McCain-Feingold, after Harriet Miers, after the prescription-drug bill, after No Child Left Behind, after the first-term spending explosion. (It was even after the firing of Latimer’s hero Rumsfeld.) But it’s before the surge, before the farm-bill veto, before the battle over S-Chip. Latimer worked for the Bush White House during some of its most conservative months. The timing seems strange.

Latimer suggests that his critics—he names Gillespie, Dana Perino, Bill McGurn, and now Rich Lowry and NR—have sold out by trashing Sarah Palin and trying to silence Dick Cheney. (I suspect I’m about to be added to the list.) What’s his evidence for any of this?

Latimer has written a gossipy, score-settling book; launched implausible attacks on his critics; and refused to answer reasonable questions. At the same time he says that the debate about the future of the Republican party should be “civil, quiet, and in the open.” It looks as though that debate will have to be conducted without his participation.