Jen Rubin, the token Washington Post “conservative” blogger who’s most famous for her incoherent anti-Palin screeds and “Ann Coulteresque” cheerleading for Mandate Mitt, is at it again. Now, instead of Coulter, Rubin’s channeling her inner Dana Milbank by echoing the WaPo lefty’s recent rant against Senator Ted Cuz:
There is being principled, and then there is being a jerk. Putting down your colleagues to boost your own street cred with the base falls into the latter category.
There are many things wrong with Sen. Cruz’s comments, whatever you think of the merits of the gun legislation…
Cruz’s actions suggest an immaturity and lack of sophistication about conservative governance. He might want to apologize to his colleagues for betraying their confidence and sit down and think what it is he wants to do in the Senate. Obstruction is easy; governance is hard. And if the answer is that only hackneyed gestures (e.g. push for repealing Obamacare with a Dem Senate majority, but offer no alternative) that interest him, then the people of Texas are being shortchanged. Worse, he’s doing nothing to suggest he’s a man of stature and future leader in the party.
Allow me to translate Rubin’s screed: These beltway Republicans who’ve been destroying conservatism — and the country — since before Reagan left office, are beyond criticism, Senator Cruz. So why don’t you be a good boy and sit down, shut up, and mind your manners. Who are you to criticize the brilliance of the Republican political class who’ve managed, in collaboration with the Democrat Party, to bring the nation to the brink of financial collapse? Maybe in another 20 years or so (when it’ll be too late to do anything), we’ll let you have an opinion. But only if you behave until then.
This is essentially the same “advice” she gives Governor Palin from time to time. Thankfully, like most self-respecting conservatives, neither Senator Cruz nor Governor Palin is inclined to listen to her. Rubin used to be a bit less predictable, and even made sense on rare occasions, when she wrote for Commentary. Not anymore. Now, like most writers and bloggers for the Post, there’s an easy rule of thumb to follow when she opens her mouth (or keyboard, as it were). If she’s for an individual, it’s a safe bet I’m going to be against him or her. If she’s in favor of a certain policy (a neo-con approach to foreign policy, for example), I’m likely to be against it. And vice versa.