WaPo’s Conservative Jennifer Rubin: Liberal Kerry Democrat And Berkeley Grad

April 11, 2011

Well, this explains the light Wiki entry for the Washington Post's conservative voice of choice, Jennifer Rubin. I assumed there was a reason for the lack of detail.

A commenter on my blog about Jennifer Rubin tells me that he knew her in Hollywood, where she was known to be conventionally liberal as late as 2004:

"I knew Jennifer fairly well for a number of years.  She worked at DreamWorks and DreamWorks Animation.  She worked with Jeffrey Katzenberg on issues and I had lunch with her lots of times.  (I’m the labor rep for the Animation Guild, Local 839 IATSE and she was on the company side.  You tend to get to know your opposite number.)

We talked about the 2004 campaign endlessly.  She was always funny, with sharp observations.  I never got the impression she was anything but a Democrat (as am I.)  Maybe she was taking on that coloration because Jeffrey K. is a Big Time Dem, or she genuinely felt that way, or she had a religious conversion.  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, but stranger things have happened.  Whether she sees this as where the money and fame is, or what she honestly believes, or something in-between, I know not."

Not one to take a blog comment at face value, I sought to check it out. It is referenced in her Commentary bio, though, frankly, few grassroots conservatives read Commentary and it says nothing of her politics, or some conversion.  As far as I can tell, this would be her via the California State Bar Association, given the DreamWorks connection.

jrubin@dreamworks.com - Undergraduate School: Univ of California Berkeley; Berkeley CA – Law School: UC Berkeley SOL Boalt Hall; Berkeley CA

Wow! From Berkeley undergrad and Berkeley Law, to Kerry supporting liberal Democrat as recently as 2004 - to conservative thought leader, now telling the Tea Party, conservative base and Reagan conservatives what to think, or to shut up and sit down because they're irrelevant via her new platform at the Washington Post? And all based upon what must be a relatively recent, if still somewhat mysterious, conversion. Imagine that!

It's probably safe to assume we can rely upon her to vote Republican, at least as long as Obama is around. And political conversions can be wonderful things. But virtual newcomer to whatever the hell her politics actually are today, Jennifer Rubin, has absolutely no business, nor authority, to be lecturing life-long, long-term and genuine Reaganite conservatives about anything – as she tried to do yesterday. Come to think of it  – and now knowing her background - she even sounds a lot like a Kerry-supporting Berkeley liberal Democrat below from that piece, don't you think?

The budget deal as a Rorschach test

… there is silliness on the Republican side …. These are the voices of the perpetually aggrieved on the right who will oppose any deal because their aim is not conservative governance but confrontation and incitement of an anti-Washington base. …the cranky voices are a very small minority …. Moreover, Tea Partyers … were overwhelmingly positive about the deal. (FALSE) Perhaps the anti-dealmaking right is largely a creation of liberal media and of a few sour conservative pundits. … those on the right who whine about any deal should not be taken seriously. After all, the CR shows how little credibility they have.

If I were you, I'd be extremely careful about throwing the word credibility as a conservative around, Jennifer. From a traditional conservative perspective, you really have none, so far as I can tell. Why some folks can't simply call themselves Neo-Republicans, which more accurately describes what they actually are, is sad, frankly. Co-opting the word conservative for self-marketing purposes is misleading and little more than a media-based scam.

AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
  1. Ragspierre says:

    Talk about Thought Police.
    This was a shame, Dan.

  2. Dan Riehl says:

    Rags, if you don’t recognize what Rubin is doing at the wapo in terms of playing thought policeman, her words – “those on the right who whine about any deal should not be taken seriously. After all, the CR shows how little credibility they have.”
    and now want to accuse me of it for simply pointing out her background, I would prefer it if you commented somewhere else in the future. I’d prefer you move on before I simply block you. Thanks.

    • zev goldman says:

      Don’t resort to blocking Rags. That is what I expect from the Democrat Underground. If he posts something you think is out of line, simply remove it.

  3. Ragspierre says:

    Your do-jo, Dan.
    If I didn’t think you were better than this, I would not bother.
    You can block me any time, as you wish.

  4. rick geiger says:

    Who do you define as a “grassroots conservative” and how do you know that they do not read Commentary anymore than they do not read NR or your writing or Levin et al?

  5. Al says:

    I’ve called Dan on what I see as his excesses before, but fact is, this clearly isn’t one of them. His observations and comments in this piece seem spot on.
    The Tea Party “overwhelmingly” supported this? Yeah, right! Rubin hasn’t got a clue.

  6. susan says:

    More accurately described as Liberal Hawk rather than Neo-Republican; they support Reagan’s strong national defense policies yet they want Reaganite Conservatives to embrace their big spending social liberal policies.
    My question to the lawyer in living in buig spending saocial liberal Jennifer Rubin, why am I legally forced to financially support other women’s sex lives?
    Why won’t Jennifier Rubin fight for my individual right to keep other women’s va-jay-jays out of my wallet?

  7. bishop says:

    Thiessen is certainly more conservative on foreign and social policy, you see from the linked piece, how far left is the acceptible range of opinion. I know she is a Daniels backer, and act accordingly

  8. ThomasD says:

    The sad thing about Rag’s is he thinks his passive-aggressive schtick isn’t painfully obvious.

  9. Ragspierre says:

    The DSM-IV Appendix B definition is as follows:
    A pervasive pattern of negativistic attitudes and passive resistance to demands for adequate performance, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicted by four (or more) of the following:
    passively resists fulfilling routine social and occupational tasks
    complains of being misunderstood and unappreciated by others
    is sullen and argumentative
    unreasonably criticizes and scorns authority
    expresses envy and resentment toward those apparently more fortunate
    voices exaggerated and persistent complaints of personal misfortune
    alternates between hostile defiance and contrition
    Does not occur exclusively during major depressive episodes and is not better accounted for by dysthymic disorder.
    “I do not think that [term] means what you think it means”—Inigo Montoya

  10. gary gulrud says:

    As Levin on Cavuto has it, the GOP had three tenaces this year before all work stops for the campaign year: this CR, the debt ceiling, the 2012 half-biennium deal–all with shutdown off the table.
    Caught Lynn Jimenez filling in on Brinker’s show yesterday. Paraphrasing “We are in for significant inflation, 8, 9%, by years end because when the economy improves we get inflation.”
    But, in the event, we have stagflation, inflation without improvement. The official, ministry of truth rate is 2.4% where reality has something nearer 10%.
    Boehner has two more chances to bend the curve, but by year’s end events will be in total control. Will the GOP being in position to maintain their brand?
    Not bloody likely.

  11. Pasadena Phil says:

    Complaining about people like Dan who are willing to throw elbows and storm the beaches for the rest of us in the cause of saving our constitutional freedoms under a corrupt one-party system is the trademark of a squish sailing under false colors. Aren’t there ANY conservative bloggers you support Raggie? You are not a conservative!
    Everywhere I see you commenting, your MO is to plant yourself in the comment section as the self-appointed moderator while trying to steer the thread into an attack on the host blogger by attacking commenters who support him/her. Even to the point of stalking them to other blogs.
    As I’ve said before, you belong at Townhall.com cheering on Michael Medved who shares your squishy ideas. He too is a “Republican Uber Alles” nose-holder. A movement squish. An intellectual poseur.

  12. Ragspierre says:

    You are lying again, Filly.
    But I expect nothing less from you.
    See if you can support any of that BS, because…if it were the least true…it would be easy.
    BTW, I’m not the elitist who posted that all comments here were by stupid people.
    And I’m not the statist that thinks BIG GOVERNMENT has to control markets.
    Or the guy who wanted to just appoint a POTUS candidate by acclamation.
    It would appear that YOU think you are the moderator here, would it not?

  13. Ragspierre says:

    BTW, I didn’t complain ABOUT Dan.
    I addressed a comment TO Dan.
    IMNHO, people who respect each other will tell each other when they think they are wrong.
    But I have no delusions about being Dan’s Mini-Me.

  14. memomachine says:

    1. I don’t read Rubin because I generally find her opinions and her writing irrelevant.
    2. Commentary is not conservative under any definition. At best they are Republican-lite. At worst they are neo-cons, e.g. social liberals but hawks with regards to Israel.
    3. @ Ragspierre
    Your comment makes absolutely zero sense. This isn’t “thought police”. This is yet another example of people dressing themselves up as “conservative”, often with wildly varying definitions thereof, in order to either guide, mold or alter the conservative conversation that is ongoing. How many people have tried this? How many have been exposed for the wankers they are?
    How is Dan Riehl “thought police” for stating what are nothing more than facts?
    4. Seriously folks. The Washington Post. Would they ever actually hire a real conservative? Anybody remember the jackhole was hired to replace? Remember his “conservative” bona fides? Remember how that melted down under the spotlight?
    Fact is that liberals are desperate to find some handle, some way, to control conservatives. They can’t do it through books because it becomes painfully obvious who is or is not a conservative. They can’t do it through lectures or written papers. Blogs might work but people tend to reveal themselves over time and you can’t keep up the facade forever. So the liberals go from one supposed or purported “conservative” after another in the vain hope of finding the one that will stand the test and offer them a way to compete with Rush Limbaugh et al and finally give liberals a means of controlling conservative thought.
    And yet Ragspierre you’re attacking the process of uncovering this facade?
    If you, or anyone else, needs to be tested on your conservative credentials then that is because we all must both test and be tested. We must do this and be open to this because liberals have forced us into this nonsense.

  15. Xiaoding says:

    Hey Rags, you could, you know, just tell us about this Rubin chick, and how way crazy conservative she is. But, there is a curious lack of direction in your comments. You don’t date her, do you?

  16. Dan Riehl says:

    Rags looks to be playing out some agenda of his own. I deleted his last two comments. If I want to link various writers at Commentary here, I’ll do it in a post. He isn’t discussing things, he looks to be trying to co-opt discussion. It’s getting very old. This is a conservative blog but Rags doesn’t want us to think somewhat alike? Go read kos, Rags. Perhaps you’ll feel more at home.
    Speak mostly for yourself and stay on point, or get going.

  17. gary gulrud says:

    I get that Boehner got some pivot points for the upcoming battle in the trenches-and audit of Obamacare and a vote on repeal in the Senate-with this CR that may be worth a good deal more than $38.5 Billion come October 2011.
    But the idea we should just sit on our hands and be happy is foaming.at.the.mouth insane.
    Ryan’s highwater tsunami wall erases the debt by 2050, with inflation at current levels. Please lecture the pigs or the beg bugs, what have you.

  18. rrpjr says:

    Great work exposing the squishes and colluders and elitists. I count on you, Dan.

  19. SacTownMan says:

    You know Dan your recent outing of various RINO’s in the media is refreshing.
    Unfortunately there is never a shortage of One N’s and their kind.
    It is up to the individual to see through the facade and choose to read and follow those that consistantly “practice what they preach”.
    I have always found you to be one of the latter.
    I have always respected you for admitting to being an old Carter supporter and seeing the light!!! (I, for the life of me don’t understand it, but I respect it!!)
    Keep up the good work!!

  20. Jamie says:

    While I side with Dan on this, pointing out someones background is not “thought policing” I will point out two things:
    1) Deleting comments or banning people IS thought policing (although as a private entrepreneur Dan can do as he wishes.)
    2) One would think ConservativesTM would wish to debate others and to engender spirited discussion – not quell it.
    My problem with all of this policing of who is and isn’t conservative, is that all it does is stifle debate. The reason the Reagan Revolution had such strong intellectual bonifides is that its chief architects Buckley, Goldwater and yes Ronald Reagan – were forced to espouse and defend their ideas in an arena that constantly attacked them. Their ideas were all the stronger for it.
    By all means create an echo-chamber if you wish – but it will only serve to make you intellectually lazy and your ideas weaker.

  21. Jamie says:

    I will delve further:
    One of the things that angers me most when debating the left is that they always resort to attacking the backgrounds of the people making the arguments instead of the arguments themselves. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve been debating a point on economics or government spending or taxation using statistics or data provided by the Mercatus Center or Heritage or Reason and the only response I get is “THOSE ARE FUNDED BY THE KOCH BROTHERS. YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID” (yes, Liberals always type in caps whenever the dreaded Koch Bros. are mentioned) I always asked them, plead even, to address the actual argument. The rejoinder is always: well provide me with impartial (read sourced from liberals) evidence and I will debate you.
    This line of argument is complete bullshit – its bullshit when liberals do it, and its bullshit when conservatives do it. I would much rather have see Dan put his considerable talents towards attacking the ideas presented then simply attacking the person.
    If we all tried to do that a little more we would get better ideas instead of bitter politics.

  22. memomachine says:

    @ Jamie
    Your argument would be more valid if Ragspierre had debated the points presented by Riehl and had not instead attacked Dan directly. Let me point out in as specific a fashion as I am able:
    Ragspierre did not address any issues, facts or points outlined by Riehl in the original post. Not once in this entire thread. Not once.
    So while in theory I applaud your thinking, in the application to this specific discussion; not so much.

  23. Jamie says:

    The first few posts by Rags dealt with the purpose of such a post – therefore I’ll assume you are dealing the the latter posts. Unfortunately I missed those as they were expunged before I got a chance to read them.

  24. Ragspierre says:

    Attack Palin on her education = bad
    Attack Rubin on her education = doubleplus good
    Just FYI, Clarance Thomas went to Yale Law.

  25. Xiaoidng says:

    Rags has not said one thing, that would elucidate Rubins bona fides. The world is full of posers, and double agents. No reply from Rubin, I see.
    I think Dan was correct, to delete posts that have no relevance to the discussion. It’s like deleting spam.
    It’s not like Dan deletes all the time, quite the reverse.
    Rags has told us all he knows about Rubin…nothing.

  26. Ragspierre says:

    Smear Palin with apocryphal BS of dubious origin = evil
    Smear Rubin with apocryphal BS of dubious origin = gutsy expose’

  27. newrouter says:

    “This line of argument is complete bullshit – its bullshit when liberals do it, and its bullshit when conservatives do it.”
    jen rubin is an exdem who now thinks that she can provide conservatives with guidance. i say jen stuck it up your neo-clown arse.

  28. Jamie says:

    Yeah being an Ex-Dem automatically disqualifies you from being a conservative later on:
    David Horowitz
    Dan Riehl
    Ummm…Ronald Reagan.
    Seriously – this entire line of inquiry is just dumb.

  29. newrouter says:

    “Yeah being an Ex-Dem automatically disqualifies you from being a conservative later on:”
    looking at jen rubin’s opinions in toto she’s a neo clown not a conservtive.
    here’s jen brilliant thoughts about the 9th az ruling:
    “His opinion, I would suggest, is compelling and should cause conservatives to rethink their fondness for state solutions to a federal problem.”
    why would i listen to a shmuck.

  30. Ragspierre says:

    “We TEA Party people want and need every American to join is in fighting for our nation”
    “Rubin is a Kerry Democrat (according to a commenter on a blog) and Berkeley Grad who’s committing a media scam (because she said something I disagree with). Neo-cons have absolutely no business, nor authority, to be lecturing life-long, long-term and genuine Reaganite conservatives about anything”–Dan Riehl

  31. Xiaoidng says:

    “Yeah being an Ex-Dem automatically disqualifies you from being a conservative later on:”
    You miss the point. Is she REALLY an ex-dem?

  32. Jamie says:

    “You miss the point. Is she REALLY an ex-dem?”
    Maybe not, but you think taking on her ideas instead of her background would be the way to handle the situation.
    Look – I have no dog in this fight other than to point out that there might be a better way to handle this. A way that would convince her readers to listen to Dan instead of alienating them. A way that would grow Dan’s audience beyond the already loyal base of conservatives that think he walks on water. Despite what Dan say, and tries to accomplish on a daily basis, conservative ideas will not be put into practice if we chase away everyone who might agree with us on issues. If we want the liberal agenda to win, by all means define yourselves into irrelevancy.
    I will take a different tack.

  33. Dan Riehl says:

    I think you’re missing the most important point, Jamie. It doesn’t matter what I, or others say. The problem is, here is a woman with a very limited track record as a conservative. And on many issues, she is in direct opposition to positions held by a majority of serious grassroots conservatives. Yet, the Washington Post has elevated her to a station where she can pretend to be speaking for large numbers of conservatives, despite their not agreeing with her.
    No one is saying she isn’t entitled to her opinions. But to suggest Rubin has the authority to speak for conservatism, which the Post is doing, is a blatant deception. It would also be a deception if they hired a moderate Democrat to speak for today’s progressives. They didn’t do that. They hired two or more mainstream progressives. They are using their hiring practices to define the political discussion coming out of Washington with a significant skew to the Left. And a majority of Rubin’s readers at the post will likely never read any conservative blog. They will accept what she says at face value due to the misleading manner in which she is being presented to them.

  34. memomachine says:

    @ Jamie
    “The first few posts by Rags dealt with the purpose of such a post – therefore I’ll assume you are dealing the the latter posts. Unfortunately I missed those as they were expunged before I got a chance to read them.”
    I was referring to Ragspierre’s initial (“thought police”) and following posts. If he had a comment posted prior to “thought police” then I’m frankly not all that curious about the contents. They may have been epic, they may have been meh. But posting a “thought police” comment with nothing to support it leads me to conclude that boredom is the only result.

  35. Ragspierre says:

    memo, look up “thought police” and “groupthink”.
    You’ll see that Dan’s post and later stuff with me fit very nicely.
    Note the serious walk-back above. He didn’t write that initially.

  36. memomachine says:

    @ Jamie
    Ok I have now read some more of Ragspierre … meh. Boredom.
    If you don’t have a dog in this fight, then why are you fighting? Do you routinely jump into discussions and add little more than a nasally “harrumph!”? And if you do actually have a dog in this fight then it would behoove you to state so and approach it from that POV.
    And where exactly does Ragspierre, or Rubin for that matter, agree with us conservatives on these issues? Frankly I don’t see Dan operating a thought police or a purity police or any such thing. What I do see is a relentless campaign by liberals to dilute conservative thought and will whenever possible. And they’ve been openly doing this for years now. What would you have us do Jamie? What would you do?
    None of this utter bullshit about how it’s not your fight. It is your fight. You joined in and now you’re in it whether you like it or not. Would you spend your entire day reiterating the same arguments over and over again to the same set of people who will never take one thing you say seriously enough to understand it? Would you spend your entire life trying to correct, person by person by person, the misconceptions and misunderstanding promulgated by people like Rubin?
    Rubin is demonstrably -not- a conservative but she tries to pass herself off as one.
    Are you suggesting we should be a party to that lie? Do nothing? Be specific in how you personally would combat something like that on -your- blog. Be painfully specific. And we will judge you as you have judged Dan.
    Don’t come up wanting.

  37. Ragspierre says:

    If we do what we deplore, how are we better, memo?
    Note that now Dan’s focus is the Post.
    Before it was smearing Rubin, rather than what she wrote.
    If you want to suspend critical thought, kuhl.
    Smearing is not a conservative value.

  38. Smoke says:

    What is Soros paying these days, Ragspierre?

  39. newrouter says:

    “Note that now Dan’s focus is the Post.”
    rags is a troll: my blog ban stick. big time for being an idiot.

  40. newrouter says:

    “Smearing is not a conservative value.”
    being a douchenozzle is a progg value arsehole.

  41. newrouter says:

    “Before it was smearing Rubin”
    wapo gives soros money to rubin?

  42. memomachine says:

    @ Ragspierre
    1. “If we do what we deplore, how are we better, memo?”
    This isn’t a morality play. What I find amusing is that there are so many people who believe that conservatives have to uphold some sort of ideal. Where that came from I have no idea.
    Politics is inherently dirty. If you don’t want to get dirty, don’t engage in politics.
    2. “Note that now Dan’s focus is the Post.”
    And? Is that illegal?
    3. “Before it was smearing Rubin, rather than what she wrote.”
    How is outlining a persons background and history “smearing”? I grew up in New Hampshire. If you post a comment about how I grew up in New Hampshire, are you smearing me? How is stating a fact “smearing”?
    4. “If you want to suspend critical thought, kuhl.”
    My critical thoughts tend to be expressed in more than one-liners.
    5. “Smearing is not a conservative value.”
    A. None of this is “smearing”.
    B. You’re very confused if you think smearing, or not smearing, has anything to do with conservatism.

  43. Margaret says:

    I have been reading her for a while and I think she does excellent analysis. Why worry about purity of origens? We should welcome all sorts of conservatives without litmus test. The overriding issues should be what we concentrate on.

  44. Ragspierre says:

    Margaret, that is simply healthy and right. Sadly, it will get you castigated here.

  45. Xiaoding says:

    When someone says, that the majority of Tea Partiers are in agreement with the latest budet deal, that person is a liar. Or a fool.
    Dan has pointed out a false flag, that is a good service.

  46. Jamie says:

    I understand your position on this, you have taken it numerous times with a mutual acquaintance (:D). My point still stands though – I think we would all be better served by attacking the ideas presented and not the person. Show the world what true conservative ideas are and how they differ from what someone like Rubin presents. Do it without the histrionics and the snark and maybe we will start to convince the people who think she is their kind of Conservative that, maybe, there is a better way. Pointing out that she has a liberal background does nothing to further the conversation other than to get people here, who already agree with you, to shout “SEE! DARN LIBRUL MEDIA!”.
    This is a dead horse, we should stop beating it.

  47. memomachine says:

    @ Jamie
    Does Jennifer Rubin speak for you? … actually your answer is utterly irrelevant. Because whether you agree with her or not, it doesn’t matter. To anyone who reads the WaPo or the website or arrives there by a search engine, to that person Jennifer Rubin does in fact speak for you. Your own opinion is irrelevant. Immaterial, dross, without value. If you disagreed with her opinion and wrote an outstanding piece on why you disagree, it would still be utterly irrelevant because Jennifer Rubin has a larger audience than you and is far more likely to get found through an online search.
    So you agree? Irrelevant.
    Disagree? Irrelevant.
    See how that works? Because you can address your concerns to a limited audience while Rubin portrays herself falsely as a mainstream conservative voice to millions.

  48. Jamie says:

    No she does not. But someone like Dan, who has a large media profile, would be better served presenting his ideas as counter to those of Rubin, showing why Rubins are wrong, and expanding his audience to better serve Conservatives hungry for a voice. Simply attacking her only serves to alienate a potential audience.
    Let me repeat – we will not win by only catering to the base. If you want liberal ideas and big government to rule this country forever the surest way to do so is to piss off every single person who might agree with parts of your agenda.
    Do you agree? Irrelevant
    Disagree? Irrelevant
    Eat pork chops for dinner last night? Irrelevant!

  49. Ragspierre says:

    Dan Riehl does not speak for me…no more than does Jen Rubin or any one else
    I speak for me, and I am accountable to me for how I treat others. That is the moral aspect, which you repudiate. I spit on that repudiation. I won’t lie to win. I won’t sell my integrity to win. But you appear already to have gone there.
    The pragmatic aspect is addressed nicely by Jamie. I hope none of our enemies are copying these posts of yours.

  50. Judith says:

    Dan’s original post and the post he quoted did two things:
    1) passed on gossip that said the person never got the impression she was other than a Democrat with the ante upped to say “known” to be conventionally liberal – this is this one commenter’s view. It occurs to me there’s a possibility that this commenter got it wrong – assumed agreement where there was none or more agreement than there was. Maybe not, but what is reprehensible to me is, the post didn’t even allow for this or any other possibility.
    2) assumed that Berkeley schooling was evidence, ipso facto, of…what? Leftism? We all know that that’s what Berkeley is, but nearly any educated conservative has been in very liberal environments – and survived to tell the tale and attend a Tea Party (I attended the first one here in Colorado and have contributed to Tea Party organizations and candidates). I thought it was pathetic when the Left didn’t think Palin had any brains because she didn’t go to an Ivy League college. It’s just as pathetic to think screaming, “Berkeley!” is enough to disqualify someone.
    The post was all innuendo, no argument. The AmCon blog post that prompted it, when I went back to it, was even more singularly personal in its scope and unpleasantly reliant on speculation about the motivations of individuals of Jewish ethnicity, as opposed to making an argument about foreign policy. The only point here is to smear: Neocons bad; bad hearts, bad, suspicious, ulterior motives. No argument, just “bad.”
    I’m pretty sure I’m as grassroots as the next guy. I didn’t go to Harvard or Berkeley. And I read Commentary. And Weekly Standard. And Jennifer Rubin. And, I’m not Jewish. I know that really cramps your style…I don’t mind you being isolationist, but I wish you and the Buchaninites could do it without bigotry and personal slurs.

  51. Ragspierre says:

    “To be sure, one can only assume that even as a solid Kerry supporter she was in the Chuck Schumer/Brad Sherman camp on foreign policy. Yet she has certainly gone the extra mile in changing many of the views one associates with a good Jewish Democrat in her adoring embrace of Sarah Palin. And this is what forces me and others to conclude that there are much deeper, darker pathologies with this woman than simply being mugged by reality on Israel. As Daniel Luban points out in the above link, a pathological hatred of Obama is at the heart of it all, so frankly, simple racism can hardly be ruled out.
    Even so, the revelation of my correspondent that our museum-quality specimen of the fundamental Jewish self-hate of the neocons was but five years ago a perfectly contented quintessential Hollywood Jew is a shocking one.”
    Some of what you refer to, Judith, from the source of the slime on Rubin quoted by Dan.
    Amazing assumptions, and all of them evil.
    Hence, my earlier observation that Dan’s source as highly dubious.

  52. John says:

    Rubin is a Neocon agitator so hardly a surprise she’s a former leftist like many of that ilk. When will conservatives STOP listening to these former Trotskyites and leftists who now call themselves -or attach themselves – to conservatism? It is time to re-examine the Old Right in the tradition of Goldwater and yes, Ron Paul. That means massive cuts in government spending, a return to a restrained foreign policy and above all telling these imposters to GET LOST !

  53. CavalierX says:

    “Co-opting the word conservative for self-marketing purposes is misleading and little more than a media-based scam.”

    Well, if Karl Rove can do it, I suppose anyone can.