Rubin, Jennifer

---

Washington Post columnist.

conversion experience? neo-con?

---

AN 6 25

Wall Street investors have found a new way to mock President Donald Trump: the term TACO, which stands for "Trump always chickens out." The term was created in response to his pattern of announcing steep new tariffs on the United States' trading partners but delaying them later.

During a, The Contrarian's Jennifer Rubin — an outspoken Never Trumper and former Washington Post columnist — cited the TACO meme as an example of the damage that Trump is inflicting on the United States' reputation.

In terms of the economy and foreign policy, Rubin warned, many U.S. allies are seriously worried about the country's wellbeing.

The 62-year old Rubin told MSNBC's Ali Velshi and former CNN host Jim Acosta (who was also featured as a guest), "Part of the problem with TACO is that if you're an investor, if you're an entrepreneur, why would you invest in the United States? Why would you build a new plant? Why would you plan a future down the road more than a day or two? You can't plan and grow an economy with such uncertainty."

IFrame Content

Rubin continued, "One of the problems, one of the reasons why (JPMorgan Chase CEO) Jamie Dimon was so freaked out is America has always been a financial refuge, because it's been stable. People want to park their money here, and if they don't — if they want to sell out on bonds on the market — suddenly, we're going to have a real debt crisis. Debt is going to become more expensive. Growth is going to slow. There's a whole cascade of issues that happen because Trump is making us into a lesser economic power."

Longtime U.S. allies around the world, Rubin warned, are worried about "all kinds of nuttery" coming from the Trump Administration, including tariffs, erratic foreign policy, and attacks on major universities.

"So in every way," Rubin told Velshi and Acosta, "he is weakening and undercutting the United States. And we're beginning to see the ramifications. These students who are being thrown out, foreign professors — they're going to go elsewhere. Research dollars will go overseas. Investors will find other places to put their money. Investors will find other bonds, other financial ways to expand. …. We have never had a president who has so damaged the American economy, the American international status…. The rest of the world looks at us and thinks we're nuts, and to some extent, we are….. The rest of the world says: Thanks but no thanks — we're going to park our money elsewhere."

*Watch the full video below or at this link.

---

1 25 an

Early Monday morning, January 13, a bombshell announcement came from longtime Washington Post columnist Jennfier Rubin: She is leaving the Post and is starting a new publication with attorney Norm L. Eisen, known for his legal analysis for CNN and his years as ambassador to the Czech Republic under the Obama Administration.

Rubin isn't holding back in on her reasons for leaving the Post. The Never Trumper is highly critical of Post/Amazon owner Jeff Bezos for, she says, trying to curry favor with President-elect Donald Trump — who, Rubin believes, did the Post a huge disservice when he killed an endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris during the 2024 election.

During a January 13 interview with CNN, Rubin said of The Contrarian — her new media venture with Eisen — "Our goal is to combat, with every fiber of our being, the authoritarian threat that we face."

Rubin told CNN that Bezos and other media figures have "bent the knee" to Trump, lamenting, "the Post, along with most mainstream news outlets, has failed spectacularly at a moment that we most need a robust, aggressive free press."

Rubin was equally biting in an interview with CNBC, arguing that Bezos and others have "scrambled to enlist Trump-friendly voices."

The former Post columnist told CNBC, "Corporate and billionaire owners of major media outlets have betrayed their audiences' loyalty and sabotaged journalism's sacred mission — defending, protecting and advancing democracy."

In an official statement, Rubin complained, "The Washington Post’s billionaire owner and enlisted management are among the offenders. They have undercut the values central to The Post’s mission and that of all journalism: integrity, courage, and independence. I cannot justify remaining at The Post."

Rubin continued, "Jeff Bezos and his cronies accommodate and enable the most acute threat to American democracy — Donald Trump — at a time when a vibrant free press is more essential than ever to democracy’s survival and capacity to survive."

For many years, Rubin, now 62, was known as a conservative and voted GOP in presidential elections. But she has been a blistering critic of Trump, voting Democratic in the presidential elections of 2016, 2020 and 2024. And she has said that she no longer identifies as "conservative" because Trump and the MAGA movement have badly tarnished that word.

---

an 1 24

Trump's efforts to arouse hate and undermine elections make him the worst president in U.S. history, according to a Washington Post columnist.

Jennifer Rubin, a self-described ex-conservative, writes that the 45th president and his MAGA mantra pines to return to a golden age back in time.

"Wielding nostalgia for a bygone era — one that is invariably mischaracterized — is a favorite weapon for fascist movements (Make America Great Again), harking back to a time before their nation was “polluted” by malign forces," she writes.

But Rubin contends too may are experiencing selective amnesia, propping up the good and erasing the bad of the 1950s, an era to which conservatives would like to see the nation return.

"The past was simply not 'better' by any objective standard," Rubin writes.

"Poverty, child mortality, deaths from virtually any major disease, workplace injuries, high school dropout rates, etc., were all much worse in the 1950s," writes Rubin. "Also, kids got polio, Jim Crow was in full swing, gays had to be in the closet and no one had cellphones, home computers or microwave ovens. Very few people had air conditioning or could afford to fly."

The main driver of her piece is that those that may believe the sun rises and sets in Trump don't realize that no other president has come close to testing democracy's resiliency more than Trump.

"What we have nothad before is a president who rejected democracy, attempted to retain power by force and wound up indicted on 91 criminal counts," according to Rubin. "So yes, four-times-indicted Donald Trump was worse than every president who preceded him.

"The resulting venom, violence and loss of faith in elections have taken a heavy toll on our democracy."

---

an 23 23

Republican Donald Trump is the first former president in United States history to run for office again despite having been impeached twice and despite facing a variety of criminal and civil investigations when he officially announced his campaign. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis are simultaneously investigating Trump's actions after the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

In a March 1 column, Never Trumper and Washington Post opinion writer Jennifer Rubin stresses that Trump isn't the only Republican who deserves accountability for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Trump's "enablers," she writes, must also face consequences for the former president's "assault on our democracy."

"There's never would have gotten far, or even off the ground, without the participation of right-wing media executives, lawyers and pliant state officials," Rubin argues. "Without holding these enablers accountable, democracy and the rule of law will remain at risk."

Rubin goes on to cite some specific examples of Trump allies facing consequences but writes that there needs to be a lot more of them.

"Progress has already been made," Rubin observes. "John Eastman, the architect of the coup plot, faces disciplinary charges from the California state bar. The D.C. bar has similarly filed ethics charges against Jeffrey Clark, the former Justice Department official whom Trump attempted to appoint as acting attorney general. And Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani has been suspended from the New York bar."

Rubin calls for "discipline" for any pro-Trump attorneys "who played a part in the coup attempt" of late 2020 and early 2021.

"(Pro-Trump lawyers) filed more than 60 bogus challenges to the 2020 election on behalf of the Trump campaign; devised the phony elector scheme; and assisted Trump in attempting to strong-arm state election officials," Rubin notes. "For the sake of accountability and to deter other lawyers from similar efforts in the future, those involved must be disciplined. If they committed crimes, they must be prosecuted."

Read Jennifer Rubin's full Washington Post column at this link (subscription required).

an 2 23

in an Instagram post on July 22, 2022, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) declared, "I’m a proud Christian nationalist." Al Mohler, president of theSouthern Baptist Theological Seminary, is embracing the term "Christian nationalist" as well, and Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado) has complained that she is "tired of this separation of church and state junk" — inspiring The Lincoln Project’s Rick Wilson, a Never Trump conservative, to say that Boebert "can go to Iran" if she feels that way.

Another Never Trumper, Washington Post opinion columnist Jennifer Rubin, is also troubled by the popularity of Christian nationalism within the MAGA movement. In her February 9 column, Rubin cites a Public Religion Research Institute/Brookings Institution poll released a day earlier as evidence that "Christian nationalists, in fact, harbor a set of extreme beliefs at odds with pluralistic democracy."

Survey respondents were asked how much they agreed or disagreed with statements like: (1) "U.S. laws should be based on Christian values," (2) "Being Christian is an important part of being truly American," (3) "The U.S. government should declare America a Christian nation," (4) "If the U.S. moves away from our Christian foundations, we will not have a country anymore" and (5) "God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society."

Rubin explains, "PRRI found that 10 percent('adherents') of American adults believe in these ideas overwhelmingly or completely; 19 percent agree but not completely ('sympathizers'); 39 percent disagree ('skeptics') but not completely; and 29 percent disagree completely ('rejecters'). Who are these people? 'Nearly two-thirds of white evangelical Protestants qualify as either Christian nationalism sympathizers (35 percent) or adherents (29 percent).'"

The columnist adds, "Thirty-five percent of all Whites are adherents. Put differently, Christian nationalist adherents are a minority, but when combined with sympathizers, still comprise a stunning 29 percent of Americans — many tens of millions."

The poll, according to Rubin, shows that "Christian nationalists also make up the base of the Republican Party."

"If you thing this sounds like MAGA tripe," Rubin warns, "you’re right. This is the hardcore MAGA base…. To counteract Christian nationalism, we will need a positive, optimistic message that celebrates an inclusive, diverse democracy in which no American is more 'real' than another. What makes us unique — or 'exceptional' as the right likes to say — is that America isn’t defined by race or religion. Believers in American values have their work cut out for them."

Read Jennifer Rubin’s full Washington Post column at this link (subscription required).

===

a 1 23

On January 12, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) released a report on antisemitism in the United States. It isn’t hard to see why many American Jews found ADL’s findings disheartening; according to ADL, “Over three-quarters of Americans, 85 percent, believe at least one anti-Jewish trope, as opposed to 61 percent found in 2019.”

Washington Post opinion columnist Jennifer Rubin, an outspoken Never Trumper, doesn’t mince words in her scathing January 18 column. Analyzing ADL’s findings, Rubin blames far-right MAGA Republicans and their “kooky conspiracy theories” for the increase in antisemitism in the U.S.

“Right-wing Republicans have their fingerprints all over the rise of antisemitism in the United States,” Rubin explains. “The latest data make this clear.”

Rubin goes on to note some specific examples of “antisemitic tropes” that the ADL cited in its report, including the claims that American Jews are “clannish” and are “more loyal to Israel than the United States.”

“Much of this sounds like the rhetoric coming from the MAGA movement, and specifically its leader, defeated former President Donald Trump,” Rubin observes. “How many times have you heard Republicans, including House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, prattle on about George Soros, a Jewish Hungarian immigrant, as if he is the chief string-puller controlling the Democratic Party? Trump, meanwhile, routinely demonizes Jewish Democrats for not supporting him and the Israeli government.”

Rubin continues, “The far left is not blameless for the rise of antisemitism, of course. But the entire project of white Christian nationalism is to marginalize those who are not White and/or not Christian as something less than real Americans. More than one-third of those who responded to the ADL survey said, ‘Jews do not share my values.’ The chant ‘Jews will not replace us’ in Charlottesville in August 2017 was a visible reminder that the right wing considers Jews as much a threat to their vision of democracy as immigrants from Central America. Hatred of ‘elites’ and suspicion about urban dwellers often is a thinly disguised swipe at Jews. ‘New York values’ is often the buzz phrase.”

MAGA Republicans, in response to criticism of antisemitism in the MAGA movement, will often respond with “whataboutism” and say something like, “What about Louis Farrakhan?” Rubin calls out antisemitism on “the far left” in her column, but she stresses that it doesn’t let MAGA Republicans off the hook.

“That antisemitism has roared back with a vengeance is thanks mainly to a party that embraces white Christian nationalism and kooky conspiracy theories,” Rubin laments. “Republicans need to clean house to rid their party of purveyors of rabid anti-Jewish hatred. Meanwhile, Democrats must continue to make it clear that statements against Israel that veer into antisemitic tropes have no place in our political conversation.”

===

an 1 23

Do you sometimes feel like the punditariat is watching a different Congress from the one you’re watching? It’s like the opiniontalkers can’t let go of their sacred cows long enough to see the reality that’s goring them. We could cheer on their faith in America, I guess. Honestly, though, there’s hope, then there’s abject confabulation.

Yet some in the punditariat can’t help themselves. They have to weigh their observations of what’s happening in Washington against their idea of what should be happening, and what should be happening is rooted deeply in what they believe America is.

They won’t assess America on its own terms. They won’t see the idea of America through the lens of its reality. When Alexander Vindman said during testimony that, “Here, right matters,” that warmed the cockles of pundits’ hearts. He validated their civic-religious dreams. Unsaid, however, is this – right usually has nothing to do with it.

If you’re like me, and read a lot of opiniontalkers, you know this cast of mind is everywhere. ThePost’s Jennifer Rubinis hardly alone. But her recent column – “The GOP can’t slam Biden on classified documents without condemning Trump” – illustrates my point.

It’s a heartbreaking work of staggering naivete.

LMAOOO!

The documents in question are the ones found recently in Joe Biden’s office in Washington’s Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement. He used it sometimes when he was the vice president. His attorneys were there recently. They found about 10 documents, some classified, in a secured space. They turned them over to the National Archives and notified officials at the Department of Justice.

The Republicans quickly compared the news to Donald Trump’s fantasia of corruption at Mar-a-Lago, where the criminal former president hid state secrets after leaving Washington. He withheld dozens of classified documents. None were secure. “When a grand jury issued a subpoena demanding that they be returned,” Rubin wrote. “Trump’s lawyers handed over 38 documents, stating that no other documents were in Trump’s possession.” There were 100 more.

According to Rubin, this isn’t bad news for Biden so much as bad news for the Republicans for two reasons. One, “if they decide to investigate the documents at Biden’s office, it’s entirely possible they will find no wrongdoing. Two, if they insist Biden’s case is super serious, they wind up conceding that Trump’s actions — willful, egregious and aggravated by his own obstruction — are, too.”

Finally, this howler (italics mine):

If they return to the standard they once used for Hillary Clinton — that no one who mishandles classified information should be president — then Republicans would have to demand that Trump not run for president and agree that he should be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

LMAOOO!

Standard denial

Again, I don’t know which Congress Rubin is watching but it’s not the Congress I’m watching. “They wind up conceding” – stop right there. Conceding? Remember, we just watched Kevin McCarthy enbrown his nose to become House speaker. He is, at best, a puppet poobah. At what point are we to recognize a level of integrity among the Republicans compelling them to recognize the authority of a fact?

I haven’t seen it yet.

“If they return to the standard they once used for Hillary Clinton” – no, yeah, no. They might make up a new one if it’s convenient. But otherwise, the past never happened. Again, virtuous people with integrity would try to be consistent when applying standards. The Republican anarchists don’t try to be consistent. They don’t try to be fair. They don’t try at all. They deny standards applied equally.

They won’t tolerate any limit on their appetite for power.

“Demand that Trump not run for president”?

Come (TF) on.

Projecting intellectual honesty

As the Post was posting Rubin’s piece, Roll Call reported that the House GOP decided the past never happened and “are escalating their calls for swift federal action” on the Biden documents. They want an “immediate review and damage assessment,” the paper said.

“This discovery of classified information would put President Biden in potential violation of laws protecting national security, including the Espionage Act and Presidential Records Act,” said Ohio Congressman Michael Turner of the House Intelligence Committee.

So much for “they wind up conceding.” They concede nothing. They will use “the standard they once used for Hillary Clinton,” because it was intended for the GOP. Standards apply to the Democrats only. The Republicans are intellectually dishonest. They keep telling us as much. We shouldn’t project intellectual honesty where there’s none.

To the extent that the past did happen, the House Republicans want the Justice Department to give the current president the same treatment it’s giving to the criminal former president – though the facts at hand are so different as to be virtually unrelated cases. The Biden case appears to be one of basic human error. The Trump case appears to be one of greed, contempt, espionage and betrayal.

The goal here is to make the Biden case seem really bad while making the Trump case seem almost good by comparison. Kevin McCarthy, the ensniveler, revealed that goal when he said that the Democrats “overplayed their hands” in their handling of the Mar-a-Lago case.

They can and they will

John Dewey, the philosopher, once said western philosophy would make more sense if philosophers stopped paying so much attention to “the problems of philosophy” and more to the “problems of men.”

His point, as I see it, was about the difference between abstractions and things. Or rather, that you can’t have one without the other. Poet William Carlos Williams probably said it best: “No ideas but in things.”

Pundits can be so in love with the idea of America that they can’t see what America is. Instead of loving the idea in the thing, they love the idea only. For Rubin, it’s as if she can’t envision an America in which fairness is arbitrary. “The GOP can’t slam Biden on classified documents without condemning Trump”? They can. They will.

===

an 12 22

For decades, the U.S. Supreme Court was synonymous with social progress, and Republicans were part of that progress. Chief Justice Earl Warren was a Republican appointee of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower. In 1973, the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade was written by Justice Harry Blackmun, a Richard Nixon appointee. And Justice Anthony Kennedy, known for his unapologetically pro-gay rulings in Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges, was a right-wing libertarian appointed by President Ronald Reagan.

But in 2022, the High Court has moved to the far right and has the low approval ratings to show for it. Democrats successfully used the overturning of Roe v. Wade with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to tar and feather GOP candidates in the 2022 midterms. Critics of the High Court’s radical-right supermajority fear that protections for gay rights and access to contraception will be rolled back if Justice Clarence Thomas has his way.

Washington Post opinion columnist Jennifer Rubin has been a scathing critic of that radical-right supermajority and its ruling in the *Dobbs decision. But in her December 12 column, the Never Trumper offers some reasons why the High Court may not be a lost cause.*

“The Supreme Court’s right-wing majority has been on a tear lately,” Rubin explains. “In the last week alone, Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. made inappropriate wisecracks during oral arguments about whether a web designer can object to working with gay couples. And several right-wing justices seriously considered adopting a once-fringe legal theory that could upend how state courts oversee elections. Allegations also recently emerged that in 2014, Alito leaked the outcome in the Court’s Hobby Lobby case to a group of right-wing donors, which Alito denied.”

Rubin continues, “Fortunately, there is no shortage of ideas to return sanity to the Court. And there has never been a better time to advance them to the public.”

The columnist quotes Maya Wiley, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and a frequent guest on MSNBC. According to Wiley, “The Supreme Court is now far out of step with the American mainstream and has, as a result, become the best organizer of its own Court reform campaign…. More Americans believe term limits, transparency and ethics reform are good ideas.”

Rubin goes on to lay out three possible ways to bring about Supreme Court “reform”: (1) “Eliminate lifetime tenure for justices,” (2) “Expand the Court,” and (3) “Implement ethics rules for justices.”

In the U.S., Supreme Court appointments are lifetime appointments. All three of the socially conservative justices that former President Donald Trump appointed are Generation Xers, which means that if Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch live as long as the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who was 87 when she died in 2020), they could be on the Court 30 or more years from now. Kavanaugh is 57, Gorsuch is 55, and Barrett is 50. If Barrett lives to be 90, she could be on the Court in 2062.

Some other countries have term limits for their supreme courts. In Uruguay, justices are appointed to ten-year terms. And Rubin describes “18-year terms” as an idea that is “gaining broader support among the public.”

“Democracy is not well served when the same pack of out-of-touch Ivy League law school alumni can dominate the bench for decades simply because of Senate gamesmanship and politically timed retirements,” Rubin argues. “Establishing terms limits could ameliorate those practices. It could also help detoxify confirmation hearings and end the unseemly practice of justices purportedly misrepresenting their views simply to be confirmed.”

Rubin points out that Congress has the power to increase the Supreme Court’s number of seats. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed expanding the Court during the 1930s, although he encountered opposition from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

“The number of seats on the High Court is not set in stone,” Rubin observes. “It was set at nine when the nation had nine circuits; there are now 13 (circuits). And Republicans effectively reduced the number to eight when they refused to consider President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Court in March 2016…. For those who say expansion would politicize the Court, remember that the Court has already been politicized.”

Rubin concludes her column by stressing that the United States is in a bad place when the public has such a low opinion of the Supreme Court.

“The goal should be to rebuild the public’s confidence in the rule of law,” Rubin writes. “There is arguably no more important task. It’s time to start preparing the public to save the Supreme Court from itself.”

===

https://www.alternet.org/2022/06/doug-mastriano/

liberal and progressive critics of GOP-sponsored voter suppression bills have been slamming them for the many ways in which they make voting more difficult and inconvenient, such as reducing early voting or limiting absentee ballots and voting by mail. And it is no coincidence that Republicans in state governments are trying to make voting harder in areas that lean Democrat; Texas Republicans, for example, have been singling out Harris County (which includes Houston) and Travis County, two of the most Democrat-friendly counties in the Lone Star State.

But as bad as those things are, something much more sinister and nakedly authoritarian is coming from the voter suppression movement: an effort by “Stop the Steal” MAGA Republicans to take over the administration of elections and put themselves in a position to simply throw out any election results they don’t like. Some promoters of the Big Lie — the false claim that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump — have been winning GOP primaries in their states, from far-right Pennsylvania gubernatorial nominee Doug Mastriano to Jim Marchant, the QAnon ally who is Nevada’s GOP nominee for secretary of state. Far-right conspiracy theorist Kari Lake, the frontrunner in Arizona’s Republican gubernatorial primary, is campaigning on the Big Lie.

Nevada Trump conservative and Washington Post opinion writer Jennifer Rubin, in her June 19 column, lays outs some ways in which Big Lie promoters and “Stop the Steal” candidates can be defeated in the 2022 midterms.

“More than 100 Republican election deniers, according to a Post analysis, will be on the ballot in November,” Rubin explains. “The question now is what we as a country must do about that.”

Rubin continues, “As a preliminary matter, no one should doubt that election deniers must be kept from public office. Republicans who continue to fan the ‘Big Lie’ of a stolen election are either nincompoops or liars, and are therefore a threat to two essential elements of democracy: the sanctity of elections and the peaceful transfer of power. They are incapable of abiding by the oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and should be disqualified from office.”

Rubin warns that a “full-court press” to “defeat election deniers running at the state level for secretary of state, attorney general and governor” is “essential to prevent a rerun of Trump’s attempted coup in 2024 and beyond.”

“‘No election deniers running elections’ seems a simple enough message,” Rubin writes. “As of yet, there seems to be no coherent plan to achieve that basic goal. Hoping the nuttiest contenders in these contests for election-related posts will lose is not a viable plan; it’s a recipe for disaster.”

Rubin goes on to lay out some ways in which “the media, Democrats, independents, sane Republicans, donors and retired officials” can help “defend the sanctity of elections”: (1) “The media has an obligation to identify the election deniers running for these critical roles, confront their lies and refuse to treat them like ordinary politicians”.… (2) “Democrats from President Biden on down must focus their fire on election deniers and persuade voters that no policy issue justifies putting these people in office”…. and (3) “Responsible Republican politicians” such as Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah and “sober Republican donors” should “use their influence to defeat the deniers.”

“In an ideal world, this sort of unified campaign would be marshaled against election deniers running for all offices, including for the House and Senate,” Rubin explains. “But given the sheer number of candidates who pose a threat to the country, democracy defenders would do well to focus on those running for posts with the power to certify elections.”

Rubin continues, “The most immediate concern should be to safeguard the country from future coups. Is it too much to hope that a broad coalition across party lines could commit to defeating candidates who have made clear they don’t respect truth or elections? If so, our democracy is on life support.”

===

https://www.alternet.org/2021/09/trumps-misogyny-and-authoritarian-impulses-mobilized-women-voters-again-him-including-this-conservative-author/

Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin voted Republican in nine presidential elections in a row, starting with Ronald Reagan in 1980 and ending with Mitt Romney in 2012. But the conservative columnist was so repulsed by Donald Trump's misogyny that she voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020, and the fact that Trump turned off so many female voters is the focus of Rubin's new book, "Resistance: How Women Saved Democracy from Donald Trump," due out this Tuesday, September 21.

Rubin, in fact, believes that Trumpism has been so toxic for the Republican Party that she no longer describes herself as "conservative" — a word she believes Trumpistas have tainted and sullied. The Post columnist, born in the early 1960s, was never a far-right culture warrior, but she was a Republican along the lines of former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, former New Jersey Gov. Christie Todd Whitman and the late Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

In an except from her book published by the Washington Post, Rubin explains, "Donald Trump's victory in 2016 came as a shock to Republican-leaning women like me who had crossed party lines to vote for Hillary Clinton. I had always voted Republican for president — from my first vote, for Ronald Reagan, to my last, for Mitt Romney. I admired mainstream Republicans who were dedicated to victory in the Cold War. I looked to free markets for expanded economic opportunity and embraced free trade and robust legal immigration."

Rubin adds, "If I differed with 'movement conservatives' on some issues, I appreciated their preference for incrementalism and resistance to allowing centralized power to bigfoot the 'laboratories of democracy.' I shared their wariness that the executive branch had aggrandized power at the expense of Congress."

The fact that Rubin voted for Clinton in 2016 after voting GOP in nine presidential elections in a row showed how low an opinion she had of Trump. Although Rubin had her disagreements with Clinton, she reasoned that a Clinton presidency would be much better than four years of Trump.

"I watched in horror in 2016 as Republicans embraced a racist bully bent on undermining our democracy and promoting White Christians' quest for political dominance," Rubin recalls. "I witnessed one conservative 'intellectual' and 'respectable' publication after another deny, then rationalize, then defend and then laud a detestable figure who repudiated principles and positions that once animated them. I saw social conservatives who demonized Bill Clinton swoon at the feet of a serial liar, adulterer and racist whose cruelty became a central feature of his presidency."

Rubin, in the book except, goes on to say that female voters have played a crucial role in the anti-Trump movement — and that includes former Republicans like herself.

"Trump's election had awakened women who imagined that our democracy was secure from a homegrown authoritarian and that their progress toward full equality was irreversible," Rubin explains. "In following women I otherwise might never have known or agreed with, I joined a broad alliance between Democrats and former Republicans bound together in a common effort to prevent devastating corruption of public institutions and contain Trump's authoritarian impulses."

In 2020, Rubin was glad to see Democrats nominate Biden, as she saw him as the most electable Democratic candidate and believed that four more years of Trump would be disastrous for the United States.

"Roughly nine months into Biden's term," Rubin writes, "we have not erased the scourge of Trumpism. Nor has Biden's performance been flawless…. If anything, I now worry that Democrats lack the instinct for the jugular needed to expose the GOP's seditious conduct, habitual lying and radical obstructionism. The Democrats' naive belief that policies alone can win the day is misplaced when opponents will stop at nothing — not voter suppression, not remorseless disinformation and not race-baiting — to secure power."

----

tenn free press

https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/opinion/times/story/2018/jul/30/sohn-nras-russilink-hties-blackburn/475893/

Tennesseans know the old truism: If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

The universal meaning is simple: Be careful of the company you keep.

Ask Republican U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn.

Since March, she has been reading more and more headlines and stories that link her longtime friend and former campaign president, attorney G. Kline Preston IV, to the NRA/Maria Butina Russian money and election meddling questions.

The Tennessean has reported that in addition to representing Blackburn on campaign finance questions, Preston has claimed Alexander Torshin as a Russian client and longtime friend. Torshin is the prominent Russian politician with close ties to President Vladimir Putin who is now under scrutiny for illegally channeling Russian funds through the National Rifle Association in an effort to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. According to the Tennessean, Preston first introduced Torshin to then-president of the NRA David Keene in 2011, and the pair attended the NRA's annual convention in Nashville in 2015.

Blackburn, a U.S. House of Representatives member since 2002 and now a Tennessee Senate candidate seeking Bob Corker's open seat, is a longtime NRA supporter and recipient of at least $34,700 in NRA donations, according to opensecrets.com, which tracks campaign donations. According to the Washington Post, Blackburn received the most NRA money since 2002 of any Tennessee Congress member. As in most campaign finance snapshots, that total listed for her includes only donations, not any possible expenditures by the NRA to oppose her challengers.

But by widening the lens, the NRA money picture gets a bit darker. The NRA spent $30 million on Trump's campaign in 2016 and another $40 million in various efforts to lobby and help elect Republicans, according to a recent New Republic report.

Now the arrest of Maria Butina, an alleged Russia spy who is said to have infiltrated the National Rifle Association, has turned up the heat on the NRA, Preston and Blackburn. Butina's indictment charging her with conspiring to influence American politics means further scrutiny into the NRA and its money trail. Although that investigation seems now primarily to be focused on the 2016 presidential election, the probe's fallout already is complicating the campaigns of Trump-clinging Republicans such as Blackburn, who also took NRA money and continues to court the NRA's support.

A spokeswoman for Blackburn in March declined to answer specific Tennessean questions about Preston's work for the campaign or his relationship with Blackburn or her family members. The Tennessean, however, quoted a very general statement from the campaign: "Congressman Blackburn believes Russia is not our friend — and thinks we need to treat Russia like any bully: we need to be strong enough to prevent them from pushing the United States and our allies around, and we need to draw firm lines and show them that America is not to be trifled with."[vote 3x ~ cyber security for elections?!]

After Vice President Mike Pence appeared at a Chattanooga fundraiser for Blackburn last weekend, the Tennessee Democratic Party raised new questions, as reported by WRCB:

"Going back to her 2007 meeting with Russian diplomat Igor Matveev, Marsha Blackburn has a more than decade-long history of meeting with Russian nationals on Tennessee soil. In 2012, she met with accused spy master Alexander Torshin when he visited Williamson County — her home county — as an election observer, squired by her former campaign president, attorney, and friend G. Kline Preston IV. Blackburn's actions speak much louder than her words," said Democratic Party spokesman Mark Brown.

Blackburn spokeswoman Abbi Sigler responded to WRCB: "Marsha never had a meeting with the second individual," according to WRCB.

On Monday, Washington Post conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin, who avidly opposes Donald Trump, quoted from the Tennessean story and wrote that "Republicans who were chummy with Russia-connected figures" are about to become an issue in Tennessee's U.S. Senate race.

"Blackburn spent last week furiously trying to distance herself from Trump's Helsinki comments," Rubin wrote. "But if the issue comes down to who will hold Trump accountable on Russia and take oversight of Russia's far-flung influence racket seriously, Blackburn will find herself playing defense."

Rubin noted that recurrent mass shootings and NRA rants have reminded Americans that the organization "has become a refuge for conspiracy theories and far-right extremism. Now the Russia story and the Butina indictment raise the question of why the GOP is in bed with a group the Russians allegedly used to meddle with our elections — and whether money Republicans took is tainted by the NRA's Russia connection."

Blackburn's campaign did not respond Friday to a Times editorial page editor's request for a more timely and specific comment. However, on Sunday, the campaign sent us the same statement we noted here earlier — the one she gave to the Tennessean last March.

NEXT ARTICLE

Sohn: Trump broke it with tariffs; now he's making us fix it

PREVIOUS ARTICLE

Sohn: Will 3D-printed guns shoot the NRA in the foot?

===

https://www.alternet.org/2020/02/conservative-drops-mic-on-complicit-press-trying-to-maintain-access-to-raving-lunatic-trump-tell-it-like-it-is/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Rubin_(journalist)

Jennifer Rubin is an American neoconservative^[2] journalist^[3] who writes the "Right Turn" blog for *The Washington Post. Previously she worked at Commentary, PJ Media, Human Events, and The Weekly Standard. Her work has been published in media outlets including Politico, New York Post, New York Daily News, National Review, and The Jerusalem Post.*

Early life and education

Rubin was born to a Jewish family^[4] in the New Jersey suburbs of Philadelphia, and moved with her family as a child to California in 1968.^[5]

She received her B.A. andJ.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, finishing first in her class in law school, according to Rubin.^[6]

Career

Labor and employment law

Before moving into opinion writing, Rubin was a labor and employment lawyer in Los Angeles, working for Hollywood studios, for 20 years. She now describes herself as a "recovering lawyer".^[7] Commenting on working with her from 2000–05, Hollywood animator and trade union leader Steve Hulett described her to Media Matters as "always funny, with sharp observations. I never got the impression she was anything but a Democrat ... she was mildly critical of some of Kerry's campaign moves during the '04 campaign, but she wasn't in the Bush camp ... it's somewhat startling to me that she is now hard right."^[8]

Editorialist

In 2005, she moved to Northern Virginia with her husband and two children. She offered a column to *The Weekly Standard about Mitt Romney, and continued doing freelance work for two years before joining Commentary.^[9]*

Rubin's move to *The Washington Post in November 2010 became a national news story and was discussed by the media on all sides of the political spectrum, ranging from The American Conservative and The Weekly Standard, to Salon.com and Slate. In welcoming remarks, The Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt wrote, "her provocative writing has become 'must read' material for news and policy makers and avid political watchers."^[10] *

In 2011, she was included on the list of "50 Most Influential American Jews" by The Jewish Daily Forward.^[11] Slate blogger David Weigel called Rubin "one of the right's most prolific online political writers".^[12] The Commentary editor John Podhoretz writes of Rubin, "She is a phenomenon, especially considering that for the first two decades of her working life, she was not a writer or a journalist but a lawyer specializing in labor issues."^[13]

In August 2013, former *Washington Post ombudsman Patrick Pexton criticized Rubin in an open letter from his new desk at the Washington City Paper, saying that he received more complaint emails about Rubin than any other Post employee. Writing that her columns were "at best ... political pornography", he said "Have Fred Hiatt, your editorial page editor—who I like, admire, and respect—fire opinion blogger Jennifer Rubin. Not because she's conservative, but because she's just plain bad."^[14][15] Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor for the Post, responded in a statement to Politico, "I appreciate Patrick's perspective but I think he is quite wrong about Jennifer Rubin. Regular readers of her blog know that she is an indefatigable reporter who is as hard on politicians on the right when she thinks they get things wrong as on the other side."^[14]*

Political views and commentaries

A proponent of American exceptionalism,^[16] Rubin believes that the United States is the "leader of the free world" and is accordingly compelled to act to prevent "unacceptable" conduct against the US or its allies, such as the alleged program by Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. According to Rubin, "the Carter era and the Reagan presidency sealed the deal" with respect to her views "on the role of the U.S. in the world as a force for freedom."^[16]

Rubin has supported the Likud government in Israel, and has been a critic of Hamas and of the Palestine Liberation Organization leadership.^[17]

In November 2011, Rubin retweeted an anti-Hamas blog post that Post ombudsman Patrick Pexton called "reprehensible". Rubin later told Pexton that she endorsed and shared the views in the Post that "expressed an understandable desire for righteous vengeance against the kidnappers and human rights abusers of Gilad Shalit". Pexton said, "in agreeing with the sentiment, and in spreading it to her 7,000 Twitter followers who know her as a Washington Post blogger, Rubin did damage to the Post and the credibility that keeps it afloat."^[18] Andrew Sullivan wrote, "we have a blogger at the WaPo endorsing throwing Arab prisoners into the sea to meet righteous divine punishment."^[19] Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt defended Rubin, saying, "As a general matter I think it isn't wise for me to comment on the work of the ombudsman, who is entitled to his views, and over whom I do not have editorial control. However, I will say this: I think Jennifer is an excellent journalist and a relentless reporter. I think because she has strong views, and because she is as willing to take on her home team, as it were, as the visitors, she comes under more scrutiny than many and is often the target of unjustified criticism. I think she brings enormous value to the Post."^[20]

In 2011, Rubin wrote a blog post suggesting that the 2011 Norway attacks were carried out by Islamic jihadists. Columnist James Fallows of The Atlantic criticized the piece as "rushed" and noted the subsequent discovery that the attack was carried out by Anders Behring Breivik, a native Norwegian who was not a Muslim.^[21] Another Atlantic columnist, former Israeli soldier Jeffrey Goldberg, responded that the criticism was unwarranted, noting that other publications such as Wired and even The Atlantic itself had printed similar speculation; Goldberg concluded: "It is not perverse or absurd for normal people to think of al Qaeda when they hear of acts of mass terrorism. It is logical, in fact, to suspect al Qaeda."^[22] In a follow-up column, Rubin acknowledged that early suspicions of a jihadist attack had proven to be mistaken.^[23]

Criticism of Donald Trump

Rubin has been one of the most vocal conservative-leaning writers to frequently criticize Donald Trump, as well as the overall behavior of the Republican Party during Trump's term in office. Writing in the *Huffington Post, Dr. Munr Kazmir criticized Rubin for being "completely against policies she herself had championed for seemingly no other reason than Trump being in favor of them".^[24]*

Rubin was criticized by Warren Henry of The Federalist for changing her view on John R. Bolton after he was named National Security Advisorof the Trump administration.^[25] In a tweet referenced by CNN Media, Mike Huckabee questioned Rubin, writing "Jen Rubin is WAPO's excuse for conservative," and adding that Rubin's "contempt for all things Trump exposes her and WAPO as Fake News."^[26]

Domestic policy views

Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic argued that after the 2012 presidential election, Rubin criticized aspects of the Mitt Romney campaign that she had previously praised, with Friedersdorf insisting that she had acted as "a disingenuous mouthpiece for her favored candidate".^[27]

In a November 21, 2013, column, Rubin called on the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) to end its campaign against same-sex marriage.^[28]

Personal life

Rubin and her husband Jonathan have two sons.^[1] She and her husband moved to Oakton, Virginia from Los Angeles in 2005.

References

^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a ^b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Rubin_%28journalist%29#cite_ref-WPNightmare_1-1) Smith, Ben (October 25, 2011). "Perry's nightmare: WaPo's Rubin". Politico.
^ Daniel W. Drezner, Who belongs in the anti-Trump coalition?, *Washington Post (December 12, 2017): "[Kristol] is hardly the only neoconservative to fall into this category; see, for example, Peter Wehner or Jennifer Rubin."*
^ Friersdorf, Conor (November 8, 2012). "The Right's Jennifer Rubin Problem: A Case Study in Info Disadvantage". *The Atlantic. Retrieved October 29, 2015.*
^ Jewish Journal: "Five heroes of 2016" by Rob Eshman October 19, 2016
^ Rubin, Jennifer (October 2010). "California, There It Went". *Commentary. Retrieved December 15, 2014.*
^ Weingarten, Gene. "Gene Weingarten: When Trump plays the Trump card". *The Washington Post. Retrieved February 13, 2016.*
^ Gharib, Ali. "Jennifer Rubin Joins the Mainstream Media". *Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved February 13, 2016.*
^ Zaitchik, Alexander. "The Wash. Post's Jennifer Rubin Divide And The Iraq War". *Media Matters. Retrieved January 13, 2014.*
^ Jaffe, Harry. "Jennifer Rubin Is Whacking the Lefties", *Washingtonian (April 2011)*
^ Don Irvine (November 24, 2010). "WaPo Tilts Right, Hires Conservative Blogger". Accuracy in Media. Retrieved December 15,2014.
^ "Forward's 50 Most Influential American Jews". *Jewish Virtual Library. November 11, 2011. Retrieved December 26,2011.^[failed ^{verification]}*
^ David Weigel, Punditin' Ain't Easy, *The Washington Independent, January 13, 2009.*
^ John Podhoretz, "To Jennifer Rubin, The Fondest of Farewells", *Commentary, November 23, 2010.*
^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a ^b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Rubin_%28journalist%29#cite_ref-PoliticoOmb_14-1) Dylan Byers (August 15, 2013). "Ex-Washington Post ombudsman: 'Fire Jennifer Rubin:{':(style="padding-right:0.2em"):}:". *Politico. Retrieved December 15, 2014.*
^ Pexton, Patrick. "Ombo Sauce: Advice for Jeff Bezos From the Post's Former In-House Critic". *Washington City Paper. Retrieved August 15, 2013.*
^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a ^b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Rubin_%28journalist%29#cite_ref-callerInterview_16-1) Weinstein Jamie (December 5, 2010). "10 Questions with New Washington Post Conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin". *Daily Caller. Retrieved February 13, 2016.^[deprecated ^source]*
^ Ben Smith (October 26, 2011). "Erickson: Post blogger is 'Likud', not GOP". *Politico. Retrieved December 15, 2014.*
^ Patrick B. Pexton (November 7, 2011). "Post Roast: Jennifer Rubin's retweet". *The Washington Post. Retrieved January 17, 2019.*
^ "The WaPo's Israel Problem", Andrew Sullivan, November 14, 2011
^ "Hiatt defends Rubin after ombud blast", Dylan Byers, *Politico, November 8, 2011*
^ James Fallows (July 23, 2011). "The Washington Post Owes the World an Apology for this Item". *The Atlantic. Retrieved December 15,2014.*
^ Jeffrey Goldberg, "On Suspecting al Qaeda in the Norway Attacks", *The Atlantic, July 23, 2011.*
^ Rubin, Jennifer (July 23, 2011). "Right Turn: Evil in Norway". *The Washington Post. Retrieved December 26, 2011.*
^ Kazmir, Munr (December 20, 2017). "Consistency is King.....Or At Least It Should Be". *Huffington Post. Retrieved February 26, 2018.*
^ Henry, Warren (March 23, 2018). "Jennifer Rubin's Flip-Flop On John Bolton Is Worthy Of Monty Python". *The Federalist. Retrieved March 26, 2018.*
^ Kludt, Tom. "How Jennifer Rubin went from Romney 'shill' to Trump scourge". *CNNMoney. Retrieved July 10, 2018.*
^ Friedersdorf, Conor. "The Right's Jennifer Rubin Problem: An Information Disadvantage Case Study". *The Atlantic. Retrieved November 8, 2012. [F]or all the months she was acting as America's most reliable Romney sycophant, she actually thought his campaign was bumbling ... she deliberately misled her readers ... [and] is [now] widely perceived as a disingenuous mouthpiece for her favored candidate.*
^ Jennifer Rubin (November 21, 2013). "The Marriage Mission". *The Washington Post.*

External links

Jennifer Rubin: Right Turn (The Washington Post)

show

Neoconservatism

Categories:

https://www.alternet.org/2019/08/why-are-establishment-dems-afraid-of-the-hard-left/

no lnx

Why are establishment Dems afraid of the ‘hard left’?

Written by Paul Rosenberg August 25, 2019

In my interview last week with political scientist Rachel Bitecofer, who predicted a 42-seat “blue wave” four months in advance, she also discussed the groundbreaking campaigns of Stacey Abrams and Beto O’Rourke, even though neither was elected. Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress, offered a curious response on Twitter: “Stacey Abrams and Beto ran liberal campaigns, not hard left campaigns.”

As Bitecofer replied, “I don’t advocate hard left campaigns, that’s not what my research argues.” She later added that “my thesis IS the Beto/Abrams turnout model, not something else.” Ideology wasn’t the issue she focused on — mobilizing base voters was.

Tanden’s response is both curious and troubling because literally no one argues for “hard left” campaigns. As retired intelligence analyst James Scaminaci tweeted in the ensuing conversation:

“Hard Left” is Marxists, Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyists, Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, Spartacus League, Guevaras. Bernie, AOC, DSA, Warren, FDR ain’t “hard left.” If you use “HL,” you are grossly misinformed about left-wing politics. You might have missed the Cold War.

In short, “hard left” is a bogeyman term so far as American politics is concerned — one meant to put Democrats constantly on the defensive, either cowering or fighting with each other. It recalls the worst days of McCarthyism. Which is why I responded:

Whenever someone says, “hard left,” I hear “brainwashed.”

Sorry.

Repeating right-wing frames is a no-no. It’s as simple as that. Tanden’s hardly the only one to do this, but she’s the president of the Center for American Progress, and closely associated with the leadership of the Democratic Party. CAP’s Think Progress blog has caught right-wingers using this attack phrase for years — like this entry, noting Newt Gingrich using it to smear legendary PBS journalist Bill Moyers. Tanden should know better. Not in spite of being a close ally and longtime supporter of Hillary Clinton, but because of it.

After all, the right-wing media has used the “hard left” label to attack Clinton since August 1992, when the American Spectator ran a tone-setting attack story: “The Lady Macbeth of Little Rock: Hillary Clinton’s hard-left past and present.” The term had no discernible content — there was nothing that it meaningfully pointed to — and that lack of content continues to this day. Yet it connoted something sinister and unyielding, something foreign, close-minded, intolerant and hidden. [AGENDA] Those connotations continue to this day, even while simply denoting something conservatives strongly dislike. Its meaninglessness is a feature, not a bug: It can tar anyone, for any reason — or no reason at all.

Conservative media critic Brent Bozell (William F. Buckley’s cousin), called NPR “hard left” as part of “the MSNBC-NPR Alliance,” typified by Terry Gross interviewing Rachel Maddow.Conservative Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin used it to describe MSNBC’s evening opinion show lineup, three years before joining the network as a contributor after her movement’s bankruptcy gave us Donald Trump. (Maddow, targeted on both occasions, has repeatedly encouraged moderates Claire McCaskill and Amy Klobuchar to run for president, so they’re probably fair game, too.)

*===

apparently effective in propagating anti-BO BS:

http://mediamatters.org/tags/jennifer-rubin

guns, abortion,

Right-wing media have quickly seized upon this data to dismiss the need for stronger gun laws. According to the National Review Online's Charles C. W. Cooke, the BJS and Pew reports make "embarrassing reading for those who spend their time trying to make it appear as if America is in the middle of a gun-crime wave." John Nolte of Brietbart.com wrote, "This report not only proves the media wrong, it proves the NRA right." Conservative Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin wrote that the reports represent "rotten data for anti-gun advocates trying to revive the Newtown, Conn., anti-gun legislative package." Townhall's Katie Pavlich, who is also a contributor at Fox News, added, "Once again more guns do in fact equal less crime."

...

Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin incorrectly wrote that Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) is proposing to "ban explosive powder" as a response to the Boston Marathon bombings when in fact Reid has proposed requiring a criminal background check for individuals who buy explosive powder.*

The Senate proposal, originally sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), but being shepherded by Reid in his absence, would require a background check to "purchase black powder, black powder substitute, or smokeless powder, in any quantity." Furthermore the legislation would allow the Attorney General to stop explosives sales to suspected terrorists. Under current law inclusion on the terrorist watch list alone does not prohibit individuals from buying explosives or firearms.

While Rubin's apparent aim was to make Reid's response to the Boston bombings seem ridiculous -- explosive powder has many legitimate uses -- explosive powder is a common component in domestic bombings. Furthermore, because of lobbying by the National Rifle Association, it is currently legal to purchase up to 50 pounds of black or smokeless powder without undergoing a background check.

bush is back: Why the shift? Aside from the "memories fade" point, many of his supposed failures are mild compared to the current president (e.g. spending, debt). Unlike Obama's tenure, there was no successful attack on the homeland after 9/11. People do remember the big stuff -- rallying the country after the Twin Towers attack, 7 1/2 years of job growth and prosperity, millions of people saved from AIDS in Africa, a good faith try for immigration reform, education reform and a clear moral compass.

GOP Opposition Researcher Names Drudge As A Propaganda Dumping Ground

BLOG ››› March 25, 2013 11:12 AM EDT ››› BRIAN POWELL

The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin interviewed Tim Miller, executive director of a new conservative political action committee centered on opposition research, who reminisced about how conservative operatives successfully used blogger Matt Drudge to push debunked or thinly-researched smears against Democrats in 2004, describing it as a "great model" that needs to be updated.

In a March 24 post at Rubin's "Right Turn" blog, Miller described his organization, America Rising, as being dedicated to the "collection, dissemination and deployment of opposition research against Democrats," and uses Drudge's DrudgeReport.com circa 2004 as a model to return to (emphasis added):

Last week former Mitt Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades and two young Republican sharpshooters, Tim Miller and Joe Pounder, announced they would set up a new organization, America Rising, devoted to the collection, dissemination and deployment of opposition research against Democrats and a counterpart to the hugely successful American Bridge on the left. On Friday I sat down with Miller and Pounder at a Capitol Hill Starbucks to talk about their new venture.

They plan on instigating nothing less than a revolution in the way the right does and uses oppo research. They are keen on connecting research to communication and every other aspect of campaigns. Pounder tells me, "It must be responsive to the news cycle and polling." Miller jokes that "research has been people sitting in a dungeon or going through trash cans" and then funneling the information up to a press person to send out in a mass e-mail. Miller says, "Now you have to drive the news cycle."

The Romney campaign was certainly hobbled by the Democrats' opposition machine, which cranked out information on everything from Bain to Cayman bank accounts, funneled it to friendly press outlets and the Obama super PAC, and kept the Romney team on perpetual defense. But the problem is not specific to the Romney campaign. Miller recalls, "We had a great model in 2004 -- research guys who fed to Drudge. Drudge drove the mainstream media." But, he says, "in a lot of ways we haven't done a good job of updating [that model]. Over time we rested on our laurels."

In 2006, ABC News highlighted Drudge's influence on media, particularly in the 2004 election cycle, saying, "Republican operatives keep an open line to Drudge, often using him to attack their opponents...And then the mainstream media often picks it up."

Drudge did help drive stories to Fox News, right-wing radio and other outlets during the 2004 presidential election, but much of the blogger's content -- which included discredited attacks on John Kerry's military service -- was thinly-researched, deceptively edited, or flat-out wrong.

*===

Washington Post* media writer Erik Wemple has been working doggedly to correct one of Sean Hannity's favorite false claims about the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi: that State Department officials watched "real-time" video of the assault from an office in Washington, DC. Wemple's efforts got an assist from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who testified before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on January 23: "There was no monitor, there was no real time." As Wemple's debunking of the falsehood makes clear, Hannity has been the primary driver of this claim by repeating on a near-daily basis. But the "real-time" video falsehood did not start with the Fox News host. In fact, one of the first mentions -- perhaps the first -- of the spurious Benghazi video was on Jennifer Rubin's Washington Post blog.

The whole story starts with an October 10, 2012, hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. At that hearing, Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary of state for international programs, had this exchange with Rep. James Lankford (R-OK), describing how she followed via telephone the developments in the Benghazi attack as they were happening:...http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/24/who-started-the-benghazi-real-time-video-falseh/192380

LANKFORD: Mrs. Lamb, can you clarify for me, where -- where were you working September 11? Were you in the Washington area -- were -- in the main facility there?

LAMB: Yes sir. I was in the D.S. Command center on the evening of the event.

LANKFORD: You -- you -- you note that in your testimony that you were in the Diplomatic Security Command Center and then you make this statement, "I could follow what was happening almost in real time."

LAMB: That's correct.

LANKFORD: So once they hit the button in Benghazi, you're alerted, it says you could have. Did you follow what was happening in real time at that point?

LAMB: Sir, what was happening is they were making multiple phone calls and it was very important that they communicate with the annex in Tripoli because this is where additional resources were coming from. So they would hang up on us and then call back.

LANKFORD: But you're -- but you're tracking it back and forth what's going on.

LAMB: Yes absolutely. [Transcript via Nexis, emphasis added]

That night on Fox News' Hannity, Liz Cheney seized on Lamb's testimony, but characterized it correctly:

CHENEY: Today, we learned from Charlene Lamb under oath that she followed, you know, the diplomatic security official, that she followed what was going on, minute by minute. She was following it in real time. So the administration knew in real time, there wasn't a mob, they knew in real time that this was a well-coordinated attack. They knew in real time that it involved heavy weaponry, this was clearly a terrorist attack and the American people have clearly, as you've said, been lied to.

The following morning, October 11, Jennifer Rubin posted a video of Cheney's Hannityappearance in a post headlined "Real-time Libya: Who knew what, when?" In that post, Rubin claimed (citing no other sources) that Lamb had watched a "real-time video" of the attack -- something neither Lamb nor Cheney had said:

Seriously, something doesn't make sense. Do we think no one else ever got the benefit of that information that mid-level bureaucrat Charlene Lamb had? This was the most urgent issue of the moment in which everyone (the White House, the public, the media) wanted to know what happened in Benghazi. So why not look at the real-time video? Why not ask Lamb what she saw and heard?

That next day, October 12, CNBC host Lawrence Kudlow wrote in his syndicated column that "State Department officials saw the Benghazi attack in real time." [emphasis in original] Later that night on Fox News, Hannity made his first reference to "real time video" of the attack: "The president knew within 24 hours what the truth was, and what I am told, they actually saw this in real-time. There is a video, real-time, of everything that went down in Benghazi."

From that point forward, Hannity flogged away at the State Department for "watching" the attack unfold "real time," repeating it almost every day as it spread to other corners of the conservative media. Wemple debunked the allegation in November, citing a State Department official's denial that anyone at State "had the ability to watch either of the attacks in real time." According to an administration official quoted in Wemple's report, the Benghazi compound had closed-circuit video surveillance that could not be monitored from outside the facility.

From the October 15 edition of Hannity (via Nexis):

HANNITY: Also, this is the problem they have with their story. It's falling apart because they said that this was spontaneous, a mob uprising, but we had somebody at the State Department watching in real time.

October 16 (via Nexis):

FORMER NEW HAMPSHIRE GOV. JOHN SUNUNU: The White House has to hear their embassy had a breech in security. I don't know this it was a separate report to the president or just in his president's daily brief. But I cannot imagine that that was not sent to the president.

HANNITY: Governor, they were watching this from the State Department in real time.

SUNUNU: Yes.

HANNITY: Yes. They knew that night. Libyan president told us the next day.

October 18 (via Nexis):

FOX NEWS HOST DANA PERINO: Not only that, but an American citizen for a probation violation about a video. They blamed him for deaths of four Americans. They blamed a video-maker that turns out not to be true, and turns out they knew it wasn't true.

HANNITY: Wait a minute. There's a 50-minute tape of this -- what happened this night. It's available. The State Department watched it in real time. I've confirmed tonight, I can say 100 percent that tape exists and a transcript of them is available.

As Wemple documented, Hannity is still repeating this false claim despite receiving "definitive, on-the-record refutation" from Secretary Clinton.

Rubin, Jennifer

Early life and education

Career

Labor and employment law

Editorialist

Political views and commentaries

Criticism of Donald Trump

Domestic policy views

Personal life

See also

References

External links

GOP Opposition Researcher Names Drudge As A Propaganda Dumping Ground

BLOG ››› March 25, 2013 11:12 AM EDT ››› BRIAN POWELL