Five Things To Expect From The Washington Post’s New Conservative Jennifer Rubin
Perhaps you have heard the news about Fred Hiatt's newest big editorial hire Jennifer Rubin. According to a Tweet posted by Dave Weigel, the Washington Post's last big foray into hiring a blogger who truly understood the "right", Rubin has long been an "undervalued asset" over at Commentary, which judging from his previous reportage on her punditry, may mean that her specific brand of liberally self-contradicting lunacy has yet to be fully appreciated by the progressive mockosphere, because no one else we knew seemed deeply familiar with her work, and when we took a browse ourselves, we were predictably shocked/awed/mostly bored…On the "bright" side, she's a true believer!
1. On the economy, her "views" are a few notches to the "oligarch-friendlier" than Larry Kudlow's, and she was one of the earliest critics to label Obama a socialist.
Like many total hacks, approximately five minutes following the Obama inauguration Rubin threw her lot in with the inarticulate, logic-resistant rage of the stupid wealthy crowd who just could not beliiiieve this well-dressed moderate seeming man for whom they had just voted—well not actually, no one they knew actually voted for him, but occasionally they had pretended to on the basis of this thing they read in the Journal about how supporting Obama made you look richer—turned out to be such a socialist redistributionist wealth-grabbing black radical! She wrote bitterly of the Democrats' efforts to extort AIG executives in an "unseemly" saga in which "Congress, egged on by the president, decided that employment contracts don’t matter if the mob howls loudly enough." And far from an aberration, Rubin promised, the AIG fiasco was just the tip of an iceberg of Leninist policies soon to be "encroaching further and further on the day-to-day management of what used to be private firms." In a somewhat awe-inspiring bit of evidence suppression, she did not follow the word "firms" with anything along the lines of "before their astonishing accumulated malfeasances resulted in a global economic meltdown that required them to extract a few trillion dollars in free money from the government."
2. But although she can be trusted to rally to the defense of the idiot CNBC angry white banker crowd, she is not really "one" of them.
As evidenced by this February 2009 post referring to "CNBC correspondent Nick Santelli.
3. Obviously though, she only really seems to care about Israel, and keeping it safe for other Jews who are not too elitist to admit they love Sarah Palin.
Sometimes I come across a commentator like this and think, "wow, are they even doing Israel any favors, at this point?" Which I know is naive, because the whole thing is probably just part of a larger scheme to destroy George Soros, but her Israel commentary seems to be the only reason anyone else I know seems to know who she is. And even the usual band of Middle East squishes aren't that familiar with her work; as this guy says: "I never heard of Rubin until she wrote an insane piece calling Jews horrible snobs and elitists for not adoring Sarah Palin." Because her "commentary" is basically just warmed-over Pamela Geller—indeed, the hire prompted Daniel Loban to wonder, "Will Pam Geller be next?"—but no, why would Fred Hiatt hire an actually entertaining crazy Zionist who regularly delivers her insane Zionist commentary while wearing a bikini when they could just hire the boring Northern Virginia version of her instead?
4. Much of the rest of her work has been devoted to making the case that white males are actually the most disadvantaged, systemically discriminated-against group in the history of civilization.
And not just because we tried to take away the bonuses of those hardworking men who disappeared that $183 billion at AIG, but because of Sonia Sotomayor, and because of some horrifying ERA-on-steroids Pelos-egislation that would have—had it actually existed—allowed the government to break into the headquarters of every last small business in the land and force unsuspecting CEOs to award every last undeserving woman, transsexual, and Native American drunk on the payroll massive raises, at gunpoint, in accordance with some capricious formula devised by Henry Louis Gates. These threats to white men's rights however, absolutely paled in comparison to that posed by the New Black Panthers, whom Rubin wrote about obsessively, despite the fact of the New Black Panthers being pretty much not a real thing.
5. But on the brighter side, she is one of those entertainingly rabid partisans who purposely mocks blasphemous "moderate" right wingers, so she can later write about how "even the neo-Leninist flower child Chuck Krauthammer is finally coming
around to [insert latest right wing talking point]!"
Rubin's most totally genius display of this little trick was when she used a remark made by the "worshipful David Brooks, Obama's political soul mate" as the conclusive smoking gun evidence w/r/t Obama's nefarious plan to build a network of death panels. Almost as fun are her gratuitous swipes at Obama for stuff like giving a boring eulogy at the funeral of that great conservative cause celebre Ted Kennedy, and "resorting" to "hyper-partisan attacks that would have put Lee Atwater to shame" this one time he said the words "Rush Limbaugh."