Shocker: Jennifer Rubin acknowledges that Palin was right

Reflexive criticism of Palin leaves the press, not Palin, with egg on their faces
*
Surprise! A Jennifer Rubin Washington Post column which is positive about Sarah Palin. The Giuliani fan who is WaPo's token Conservative Lite® columnist had been highly critical of Gov. Palin in a series of columns since she went on the Washington Post Company payroll three months ago. Today's Rubin offering is a rare, but welcome, change of pace:

In November 2009, Sarah Palin made news with a comment on Israel in an interview with ABC's Barbara Walters:

"I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don't think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand."

The left-leaning JTA dubbed this "puzzling." J Street had a fit... Reporters and snooty critics who should know better mocked her.

[...]

But today we learn:

The Central Bureau of Statistics said Thursday that aliyah to Israel had grown in 2010. According to CBS statistics, there were 14% more immigrants to Israel in 2010 than in 2009, for a total of 16,633 immigrants. Most of the immigrants came from Russia and the U.S., the CBS said.

There is plenty of room to debate the settlements and the eventual disposition of Judea and Samaria. But the assumption by so many elites that whatever Palin says must be daft and ignorant is a faulty one. Actually, when it comes to foreign policy she's been pretty much on the money...

[More]

It must be galling Dana Milbank that his own Palin moratorium prevents him from writing a snappy retort to his WaPo colleague's column. Perhaps he'll break it again to feed his Sarah Smear Jones. Aw hack... er, heck, it's only a few more days until March, when Milbank Mendacity Madness over all matters Palin hits redline on the tachometer once more and stays there until his head gaskets blow again.

- JP

Jennifer Rubin attacks Sarah Palin... again

Singing that WaPo anti-Palin tune
*
For the second time in less than eight days, Jennifer Rubin, the leftist Washington Post's idea of a conservative (i.e., one who will attack Sarah Palin on demand), has gone after Gov. Palin. In a December 1 post, we noted how Rubin, who had mostly treated the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate fairly on the pages of Commentary Magazine and its Contentions blog, had started slamming Sarah for Rubin's new masters, the WaPo editors.

Rubin continues with her anti-Palin pontificating Wednesday in her "Right Turn" column. Today's attack is even more gratuitous than her first one, hyper-criticizing the governor for her tweets regarding the dealings in DC on the Bush tax cuts:

What is she talking about? It is obvious that an extension of the Bush tax cuts is wrong? Or is it obvious that Obama is adopting ideas that were once Republican positions? If the latter, it should be a good thing, one would think. This is Palin at her worst -- reflexively anti-deal making, grandstanding, imprecise and unreasoned. If she has a specific policy argument -- e.g. the payroll tax "costs" too much for too little job growth -- then you'd think she, who has been accused of being light on policy knowledge, would want to spell . . er . . . tweet that out.

For some time, liberal pundits have been taunting conservatives that they need "adult" or "mature" leadership. Right now, Obama is short on both qualities. His shoddy performance yesterday highlights the opportunity for Republicans to field a candidate in 2012 who appears more presidential than the incumbent. But Palin certainly doesn't give the impression she would be able to step into that role.

Rubin should be ashamed of herself. It's obvious to anyone who can read and looks at Gov. Palin's tweet in the context of her other Twitter messages on the subject what she means and where she stands. She obviously stands with Jim Demint, who tweeted that Republicans can do better than the current compromise they made with Obama on the cuts. Why is it so difficult for Rubin to recognize this? That's a rhetorical question; it's clear what the columnist is up to here.

We cut Rubin some slack, even after her shoddy treatment of Fred Thompson during the 2008 GOP presidential primaries. But Jennifer Rubin has crossed the line and is now spouting the same elitist nonsense that anti-Palin faux conservatives David Frum, Kathleen Parker, Karl Rove and Peggy Noonan have been cranking out, some of them for years. Sadly, Rubin has sold out to the WaPo leftists and is now doing their dirty work for them. The last ounce of respect we had for this writer has evaporated. She's fitting in very well at the Democrats' DC house organ.

- JP

Jennifer Rubin reverts to type

Rubin Version 1.0 returns
*
As a writer for Commentary Magazine and its Contentions blog, Jennifer Rubin consistently defended Sarah Palin against the left's attacks. When the news broke that she had been hired by the left wing Washington Post to write about the right, many conservative bloggers and pundits hailed the hiring as a sea change. Finally, they trumpeted, WaPo had obtained the services of a real conservative to write about real Republicanism and conservatism. And hey, after the Weigel fiasco, any conservative would be an improvement.

We didn't hail that particular bandwagon and ask for a ride, preferring instead to reserve judgment until after we had a chance to read Rubin's Post postings for ourselves. Our skepticism was rooted in recent memory. The 2008 Republican primary race was not so long ago, and we recall that she was a big backer then of Rudy Giuliani, the most socially liberal of all the GOP candidates. We also recall that Rubin was especially critical of Fred Thompson, the only across-the-board Reagan conservative in the Republican presidential primaries.

After reading what she has written in her first five columns for WaPo, we see that Jennifer Rubin has downgraded to version One-Point-Oh. She's conservative on three legs of the four-legged conservative stool, but hold the social conservatism from her order, please. It didn't take Rubin long to start running down Sarah Palin now that the commentator is of the Post. In just her fifth WaPo column, she starts to pick on Palin.

According to Rubin, or at least the WaPo version of Rubin, the notion that Sarah Palin is the front runner for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination is just a liberal conspiracy because, you see, they want her to be the nominee, as she simply has no chance whatsoever of winning the general election, even against such a failed president as Barack Obama. Rubin hits all of the talking points from the elites of the left and the right - Sarah Palin has limited appeal among independents; golly, she sure did back some questionable candidates for the Senate, especially that awful Christine O'Donnell; her political judgment during a general election might be just too risky; most elected Republicans don't think Palin is a front runner, etc.

That last one is a real gem. Has Rubin asked "most" elected GOP officials or conducted a survey? We don't think so. Oh well, "when in Rome..." or perhaps better said, "while at the Post..." Are we accusing Jennifer Rubin of changing her own narrative to try to get the "progressives" who account for most of its readership to read her column? Not substantially, no. Only just a little. Actually, for Jennifer Rubin its more a case of her reverting to type rather than making a compromise. She's a Rudy Guiliani conservative again. Apparently that's not too conservative for either the people who buy and read the Washington Post or those who run it. And since being negative on Sarah Palin is part of the Post's program, it's good for Rubin that she has no problem with that. It didn't seem to bother her to go negative on Fred Thompson three years ago, so this Palin-marginalizing should be a piece of cake.

- JP

Quote of the Day (October 25, 2010)

*
Jennifer Rubin at Commentary Magazine's Contentions blog:

"The one who came out of academia and who had not done much that was 'real' (other than write books about himself and get elected) before coming to the White House is Obama. That’s who has been leading the McCarthy-like attacks. That’s who’s got nothing to offer on the economy and jobs. Granted, Obama is surrounded by political hacks who lack real-world experience, but he put them there, and he’s shown himself to be sorely lacking in know-how and judgment when it comes to everything from the Middle East to 'shovel-ready' jobs. The Democrats’ finger-pointing and recriminations are only getting started. (Reminds me of the McCain campaign, which started blaming Sarah Palin before the election.) There will be plenty of blame to go around. But ultimately, Obama is head of his party as well as president. The upcoming electoral debacle will be his."

- JP

Jennifer Rubin: Palin in Ascendance, Liberals Admit Defeat

*
At the Contentions blog hosted on commentary Magazine's website, Jennifer Rubin weighs in on the feminist left's recently expressed Palin envy:

Palin clearly has the left in a tizzy. They have finally gotten it: she is redefining feminism. In the New York Times, two liberal feminists exhibit more than a little anxiety over the Palin juggernaut. To put it bluntly, they have Palin envy...

[...]

You betcha. You see, Palin has proved by example that a woman politician need not spout the pro-big government, pro-abortion, pro-welfare-state line. “Ms. Palin has spent much of 2010 burnishing her political bona fides and extending her influence by way of the Mama Grizzlies, a gang of Sarah-approved, maverick-y female politicians looking to ‘take back’ America with ‘common-sense’ solutions.” She sure did, and she proved herself to be the most effective female politician in the country. Sorry, Hillary — while you have been playing errand girl for the Obama foreign-policy train wreck, Palin has ascended to the throne. (Nancy Pelosi’s days are numbered.) The left is waving the white flag of surrender:

"It’s easy of course, for liberals to laugh off Ms. Palin’s 'you go, girl!' ethos and increasingly aggressive co-optation of feminist symbols. We progressives discount her references to the women’s movement — not to mention her validity as a candidate — by looking down on her as a dim, opportunistic, mean-girl prom queen, all spunk and no policy muscle.'
...

"If Sarah Palin and her acolytes successfully redefine what it means to be a groundbreaking political woman, it will be because progressives let it happen — and in doing so, ensured that when it comes to making history, there will be no one but Mama Grizzlies to do the job."

Wow.

And it’s really worse than the New York Times worriers admit. Palin not only trumped the left on style but she also managed to connect on nearly every issue — ObamaCare, bailouts, Israel, taxes, American exceptionalism, and the stimulus plan — in a way the president and his liberal supporters could not. For all of her supposed lack of “policy muscle,” it was she who defined the debate on ObamaCare and she who synced up with the Tea Party’s small-government, personal-responsibility, anti-tax-hike message. Who’s short on policy muscle — the White House or Palin?

Read the unabridged original Rubin op-ed here.

- JP

Jennifer Rubin: Sarah Palin’s Certain Type of Genius

*
As political junkies wait for the absentee ballots to be counted in Alaska, many in the punditocracy remain wowed by Sarah Plain's perfect Tuesday, especially the strong performance of Joe Miller in Alaska's GOP primary for the U.S. Senate. Jennifer Rubin comments at Commentary Magazine's "Contentions" blog on Sarah Palin's political prowess:

It’s not simply candidates that she gets right. Her death-panel zinger not only revealed an underlying truth about ObamaCare’s plans to ration care; she also managed, with a hot button phrase, to electrify critics and infuriate defenders of the bill. Her populist appeal, and sometimes overdone criticism of elite media, was in 2008 a precursor of the Tea Party movement — conservatism that is anti-establishment, small-government-minded, and celebrates individual responsibility.

Now, being a political soothsayer and a superb judge of talent (she plucked Nikki Haley out of obscurity by watching a single video) doesn’t ensure a successful candidacy or an effective presidency. But it’s not nothing. And having experienced an over-credentialed pseudo-intellectual president who lacks a basic understanding of the American people, the public may find something refreshing about someone who “gets” what the country is about. Palin knows what to look for in candidates because she is in sync with the center-right zeitgeist. If she knows what the country is about and what makes it successful, the argument would go, she might possess, as Dickerson explains, “a special light to guide the country out of the muck.” (This was the secret to Ronald Reagan, by the way. It didn’t matter what the issue was — he would get it “right” because he instinctively understood the superiority of free markets, the destiny of America, and the character of his fellow citizens. Yes, all caveats apply, and Palin is not Reagan.)

It’s not clear whether Palin will run in 2012 or could even win the nomination, but her potential opponents and the media underestimate her at their peril. And if she doesn’t win, whichever Republican does would be crazy not to take her counsel and guidance. The lady knows a thing or two about how to win races.

The full Rubin op-ed is here.

- JP

Jennifer Rubin: Sarah Palin as Power Broker

*
On Commentary magazine's Contentions blog, Jennifer Rubin posts that Sarah Palin "just might become the most influential king-maker in the GOP":

She has the grassroots appeal to stamp outsider candidates as authentic populists. That’s what she did today with Carly Fiorina in the hotly contested California senate primary race...

[...]

This seems significant for at least three reasons. First, Palin is now, as they say in advertising, in the business of “branding” Commonsense Conservatives, a descriptor she introduced in her memoirs.

[...]

Second, Palin endorsed Rand Paul in Kentucky, who raises concerns with many conservatives on foreign policy and national-security issues (as, of course, does Rand’s father Paul). It is significant and perhaps reassuring to national-security conservatives that Palin is giving the nod to Fiorina in her race against Tom Campbell, who’s taken a drubbing over his Israel record. And finally, as in the Rand Paul endorsement, this suggests a certain riskiness on Palin’s part.

Rubin concludes with the observation that while Sarah Palin is keeping everyone guessing about her 2012 intentions, she’s putting her political rock star reputation on the line with her endorsements. Read the full Jennifer Rubin post here.

- JP

Quote of the Day (April 11, 2010)

*
Jennifer Rubin:

"The media’s great obsession from the moment Obama took office was to identify the 'leader' of the Republican Party. Was it Sarah Palin? Rush Limbaugh? The nonsensical game — for opposition parties rarely have a single standard bearer — was intended mostly to fuel the storyline of Republican disarray and dissension. With the pre-pre-campaign for 2012 underway, consisting mainly of book tours and Republican gatherings, the media is at it again. Ron Paul won a straw poll! Oooh, now Romney won one. What does it all mean? Very little actually. The tea-leaf reading is all a bit silly and very premature. For once, the Republicans aren’t being sucked into the media narrative."

- JP

Jennifer Rubin: Why Jews Hate Palin

*
Jennifer Rubin has authored a lengthy essay for Commentary magazine on why Sarah Palin "more so than any other major political figure in recent memory (with the possible exception of Patrick J. Buchanan), she rubs Jews the wrong way":

"What is it about Palin that so grates on American Jews? It is more than that she is a conservative and that the vast majority of Jews are not, although this cannot be ignored..."

"It follows, then, that Palin's vocal and unabashed conservatism on social and economic issues does not sit well with most American Jews. But... there is something more fundamental at play."

"On one level, part of the explanation lies in misunderstanding and media-induced panic. As Continetti documents in his telling book,* the media frenzy that surrounded Palin upon her surprise selection by McCain at the end of August 2008 led to distortions and outright falsehoods that had particular toxicity in the Jewish community. The most inflammatory of these was her alleged support for Patrick J. Buchanan..."

"The press ran with the story, despite its falsity, that Palin was a Buchananite. She had, in fact, supported the wonkish and pro-Israel Steve Forbes for president in 2000... Nevertheless, the image took hold and was used to good effect by Obama's team to frighten Jews..."

"The notion was planted that Palin herself was, by association, anti-Israel, and Jews remained convinced of that, despite her unflinching support for the Jewish state, the presence in her gubernatorial office of an Israeli flag, and her eagerness to attend a rally protesting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to the UN in the fall of 2008 (which was canceled at the behest of Obama supporters, no doubt to deprive Palin of that platform)..."

"Certainly, Palin's status as an unabashed conservative and as exemplar of the Religious Right would have been sufficient to alienate the majority of American Jews. Yet if that were all, and that is plenty, Palin still would not provoke the degree of hostility with which most Jews regard her. Something else bothers them more. That something else is Palin herself..."

Ms. Rubin's full article is available only for paid subscribers at Commentary, although an abstract is posted on the magazine's website. But there is more of the essay at Villagers with Torches.

Sarah Palin may actually be more popular in Israel than she is among Jewish Americans. If so, we may be witness to history repeating itself:

"For most of the 1980's, Ronald Wilson Reagan dominated the American political landscape as no man had since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The attitude of most Jews, however, was that Reagan's presence in the White House was a not altogether pleasant fact of life, something about which they could do nothing and for which they bore little responsibility..."

"In 1984 Reagan was reelected in a landslide of historic proportions, but his share of the Jewish vote actually decreased by nearly eight points from 1980. When he left office in January 1989, it was with a higher approval rating than any president before him, but Jews - a majority of whom evidently consider a president?s fealty to liberalism more important than his support of Israel - gave him lower marks than any other voting bloc save African Americans."

- JP