Posted on 10/04/2018 7:41:37 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The Washington Post’s continued labeling of blogger Jennifer Rubin as a “conservative” in the years since she has repeatedly rejected conservative ideas and principles is an example of why the American people are unable to trust the media, more than three dozen top conservative leaders say.
“In truth, it is nearly impossible to discern any conservatism in Rubin’s contemporary writing,” the leaders said in an October 3 letter to the Washington Post editorial board. Citing the rejection of her previous positions on climate change, gun control, Middle East foreign policy, tax cuts, immigration, and abortion, the group said the notion that Rubin is conservative is “laughable.”
More recently she has mocked virginity as “juvenile, emotionally stunted” behavior, argued in favor of impeaching Judge Brett Kavanaugh, mocked those who defend due process and the rule of law, campaigned for Democrats and against Republicans, and generally engaged in obsessive behavior against conservatives on social media.
“We, of course, respect the right of The Washington Post to employ whatever writers it pleases — even Jennifer Rubin. However, we ask for the sake of intellectual honesty that the Post cease to identify her as in any way ‘conservative,'” the group implored the Post. They also asked that the paper, which employs almost no columnists that represent the views of the vast majority of Republicans, consider dealing with that major problem more than two years after Donald Trump’s election as president shocked the media class.
“[W]e also respectfully request that you consider hiring a voice who can eloquently and effectively defend the positions held by our President, his party, and the millions of voters who elected him. We would be happy to provide recommendations.”
Among the three dozen signers are the American Principles Project’s Francis P. Cannon and Terry Schilling, Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser, Conservative Partnership Institute’s Jim DeMint, Media Research Center’s L. Brent Bozell, and Foley and Lardner partner Cleta Mitchell.
They are only the most recent group to express concern about Rubin being identified by the Post as a conservative. National Review’s Charles Cooke wrote the definitive analysis of Rubin’s changing of positions simply because of her opposition to Trump:
If Trump is indeed a tyrant, he is a tyrant of the mind. And how potent is the control he exerts over Rubin’s. So sharp and so sudden are her reversals as to make effective parody impossible. When President Obama agreed to the Paris Climate Accord, Rubin left her readers under no illusions as to the scale of her disapproval. The deal, she proposed, was ‘ephemeral,’ ‘a piece of paper,’ ‘a group wish,’ a ‘nonsense’ that would achieve ‘nothing.’ That the U.S. had been made a party to a covenant so ‘devoid of substance,’ she added, illustrated the ‘fantasy world’ in which the Obama administration lived, and was reflective of Obama’s preference for ‘phony accomplishments,’ his tendency to distract, and his base’s craven willingness to eat up any ‘bill of goods’ they were served. At least it did until President Trump took America out of it, at which point adhering to the position she had theretofore held became a ‘senseless act,’ a ‘political act,’ ‘a dog whistle to the far right,’ and ‘a snub to ‘elites’’ that had been calibrated to please the ‘climate-change denial, right-wing base that revels in scientific illiteracy’ (a base that presumably enjoyed Rubin’s blog until January 20th, 2017). To abandon the ‘ephemeral’ ‘piece of paper,’ Rubin submitted, would ‘materially damage our credibility and our persuasiveness’ and represent conduct unbecoming of ‘the leader of the free world.’ One is left wondering how, exactly, any president is supposed to please her.
The Post has thus far declined repeated calls to rectify its deficit of actual conservative writers or deal with its false labeling of Rubin.
Fake news. She wasn’t a conservative even before Trump.
Patently wrong. Many Trump zealots here on FR delight in pasting that name on anyone who doesn't fawn over our President, using empty ad hominem attack as gleefully as any brain-dead Liberal. Trump just stabbed us in the back twice this week... with little reaction here... because far too many so-called "Conservatives" actually are more devoted to the man than actual Limited Government principles.
Principles are forever. The amazing and unexpected job that Trump has done is certainly glorious, and I pray it continues even beyond his administration... but he is not perfect, and he should not displace the foundation of our core philosophy... otherwise, we end in 2024, if not before.
(Trump is pushing to ban bump stocks, and he signed another spending bill despite his promise a few months ago to never sign another.)
> If you don’t think attacking terrorists on their soil is better than letting them attack on our own
I don’t think a false dichotomy is a reasonable basis for discussion. As you seem to have nothing else but these kind of frivolous arguments, a good day to you sir.
This is intentional, of course. Now they can smear any other view as "far right" and extreme, since it never appears before the public in their rags.
Brooks at least wrote one decent book, “BOBOs in Paradise.”
Since then, he’s been on a downward spiral.
But I have to give him grudging respect for a fairly astute dissection of how people who have prospered mightily from free enterprise turn in to middle-aged Leftists just because it’s the trendy thing in their social circles.
Jennifer Rubin: Progressive
Washington, D.C.
Education: University of California at Berkeley, BA in history; University of California at Berkeley, JD Jennifer Rubin writes reported opinion from a center-right perspective [sic] for The Washington Post. She covers a range of domestic and foreign...
Latest from Jennifer Rubin
Republicans’ misogyny will come back to haunt them
Kavanaugh will eventually pay the price over the attack on women.
Oct 4, 2018
Time for undecided GOP senators to put up or hush up
Enough of your lovely words, words, words.
Oct 4, 2018
Kavanaugh or not, Republicans’ House majority is slipping away
The House majority is going, going. . .
Oct 4, 2018
Morning Bits: Will voters punish Republicans for Trump’s awfulness?
Must
Poor old Jennifer is a conservative legend in her own mind. She is an elitist snob living off her past as a Republican Party shill. Like the other “conservative legends in their own minds” Will, Kristol, French, K Williams and the entire NRO stable of elitists snobs, save Hanson and McCarthy, Trump has exposed their long running con game.
They write articles or go on tv and preen and preach conservative policies and dogma and yet when the first president since Reagan who actually starts enacting these policies they lose their collective minds. Now the question becomes are they so stuck up and snotty that they can’t support these policies because Trump is not one of them but one of the untouchables in their world or did they really ever believe any of the conservative philosophy they made their living off of for thirty years? Increasingly it looks like the later rather than the former. Hucksters and worse snobbish hucksters all.
The Rubin sandwich contains rotten meat.
Maryland “Freak State” PING!
The Rats are everywhere.
Sorry you can’t deal with the reality of it.
When we are engaged overseas, we uncover networks, names, people who are prone to participate.
Much of what we know about networks are derived from being on location, taking prisoners, and interrogation.
Those people and their networks don’t remain in the region. They travel overseas. They cause trouble.
That is the reality of it.
You can choose to stick your head in the sand because it doesn’t comport with your hair-brained isolationist mindwet.
I could care less.
If we don’t engage, China or Russia will. And when they do we’ll return to the 1960s when Russia colluded with terrorists in the region against the United States.
Not buying that eventuality even if you think I should.
> Sorry you can’t deal with the reality of it.
The reality is that you are operating on the kind of self-justifying circular logic I have previously seen primarily on the sales and lobbying teams of military contractors.
Nonsense
You’re having a pretty hard time with this.
We’re in Afghanistan 17 years and nobody in authority can articulate either a strategic goal nor specify who exactly the enemy we are fighting is.
There are only so many American bodies I’m willing to throw into the wood chipper in order to pursue no stated objective. That number isn’t very high. It’s like zero.
And yet our young men and women join the armed services voluntarily.
Do you take note of the terrorist leaders and groups we destroy from time to time? How do you think that happens?
When we killed Osama Ben Ladden, we raided in from Afghanistan.
Here’s a link for you. We lost six U. S. Troops in Afghanistan in 2017. Also mentioned is that we lost nine in 2016.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/11/world/asia/afghanistan-military-american-soldiers-deaths.html
> When we killed Osama Ben Ladden
I don’t buy it for a second. You are very very gullible.
There will always be some new terrorist in Afghanistan. If we are not there, it is not our problem. Osama was no Afghan, anyway, and he was empowered to do the damage he did by the US government which funded and trained him in order to fight the Soviets.
The proper policy is not to let them get near us, not to attempt the outrageously expensive and literally impossible feat of rooting every “terrorist” on the planet out of the rocks and caves in which they live.
LOL, so you just dismiss anything that doesn’t support your view.
Nice.
I’ll bet you think you win all your discussions.
What do you mean, it's not our problem?
We're continually having acts of terrorism conducted here after people went to areas for training and came back.
Do you think that stops once we pull out?
That hasn't worked in the past.
It’s beyond stupid to go to the other side of the planet to kill people who wouldn’t give us a second thought if we weren’t over there in the first place.
Terrorist HQ is Saudi/Qatar/UAE. If that’s not where we’re fighting, anti-terrorist action is a farce and a waste of lives and the public treasury.
Security at home starts with securing our borders. Until that is done, the entire war effort is a sick joke being played on us.
> and came back
Who is letting people back in after receiving terrorist training?
This is the obvious solution to the problem. It’s avoided because too many people make too much money over this farce of a WoT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.