A day after Washington Post writer Chris Cillizza, wrote that Chris Christie should "take on" Governor Palin (Brian covered that here), the paper’s token phony conservative, Jennifer Rubin, decided to weigh in as well. Her column begins (at this point anyway) with an update stating:
Correction: An earlier version of this post incorrectly said that Rand Paul said he would not vote for Chris Christie if Christie were the GOP presidential nominee in 2016. This post has been updated.
Laughing out loud! See, just like with the rest of the forthcoming article, Rubin pulled the sentence that implied otherwise right out of her backside. This woman doesn’t use honest sources to back up her claims. Just go over to the main article and click on her links to see what I mean.
Anyway, the actual (as of now) article starts out:
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) is headed for a monster re-election win, which will cement his place in the top tier of presidential contenders for 2016. Even better, the loony flank of the GOP has made him into the paragon of conservative sobriety.
First of all, Christie isn’t a "conservative" anything. Second, according to Rubin, actual conservatives who believe that the government should operate within constitutional boundaries and in accordance with the law, are the "loony flank" of her party. Meanwhile, she and the other northeast, blue state "moderates" are the ‘sane’ ones. If she really believes that, she’s the crazy one.
First, Christie took on irresponsible attacks on anti-terror policies. That incited Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to start popping off, inaccurately, about Christie’s money grab from D.C. (In true conservative style, Christie shot back that it is Beltway pols who take more from New Jersey residents than his taxpayers get back from the feds.)
Did Christie really take on "irresponsible attacks on anti-terror policies?" No. What did Christie actually say that got under Rand Paul’s skin? According to USAToday:
This spat began when Christie noted last week that there is a "strain of libertarianism" in both parties representing "a very dangerous thought" when it comes to opposition from Paul and others to the NSA’s warrantless surveillance efforts and similar programs aimed at fighting terrorism.
To the Rubin’s and Christie’s of the world, our Constitution carries little weight. Violating the Fourth Amendment is no big deal to them. These are the people who would sacrifice liberty for perceived "safety," and thus, are no different than the current administration in that regard.
Then the gift with a big red ribbon arrived in the form of Sarah Palin’s pronouncement that Christie has too much schtick – if winning a blue state overwhelmingly is schtick, perhaps the whole party needs more of it — and is a “big government” Republican. Where she gets the latter from I am not sure.
No genius, the "schtick" that Governor Palin was referring to is the one where Christie seemingly has somebody following him around to capture video of him yelling at his constituents. It’s his stupid "tough guy" routine, but nice try.
Also, Rubin doesn’t know where Governor Palin gets the latter from? Try reality. I won’t go into all of the gory details in this post, but folks in his state know who he is. The site Conservative New Jersey has a great run-down of Christie’s record. Go check it out.
Rubin then goes into full PDS mode:
Palin, even among conservatives, and even among hard-line conservatives, is a bit of a joke and not a serious person. She was entirely irrelevant to the 2008 race, and she serves as sort of a reverse compass for political judgment.
Tell that last line to Ted Cruz. And concerning Rubin’s claim that Governor Palin "was entirely irrelevant to the 2008 race," check the numbers, Ms. Rubin. That claim is downright false and anyone who has eyes and ears knows as much. But the funny part is where she links to a Richard Cohen article to prove her assertion that "even among hard-line conservatives" Governor Palin "is a bit of a joke." Now that’s funny!
Finally, the line in Rubin’s article that really had me in stitches was towards the end when she wrote:
Christie hardly needs Rand Paul and Sarah Palin to seem like a grown up.
This guy is the grown up?
Look, I understand that Rubin’s job is to talk presidential politics three years before an election, but this article (while funny) was really just outright shilling for Chris Christie. She spun his record and attacked anyone who disagreed with him.
And the lefties who run WaPo paid her to do it. Let that one sink in for a moment.