Some others have skewered Rubin's defense that she did not update for
more than a day her provocative post laying blame on the wrong villain
and taking it an octave higher in her anti-defense cuts rant. Rubin,
according to Washington Post ombudsman Patrick Pexton, said that the sabbath got in the way.
Turns out there are some kinks in that story.
Some sleuthing by Eric Alterman as well as by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency's Ron Kampeas -- both a little Columbo-like in how they operate -- have said that the timing just doesn't work out.
One person forwarding me the exchange has said that Jennifer Rubin even
"lies to God." Well, I'm not going to go that far -- as I'm not into
faith-based excuses or rationalizations and that may be a bit too mean.
Folks have stuff going on in their lives. I get stuff wrong on
occasion -- have to backtrack. Occasionally I really regret a post I
made. Best thing is to admit it and make amends by apologizing and
trying to improve.
I wish Rubin worked from that kind of playbook as she is clearly smart, a
talented writer and thinker -- but she's deeply ideological and too
frequently chooses nastiness and corner-clipping with the facts to move a
deeply biased agenda. If she shifts gears and begins to more
responsibly engage alternative views and associates, then I'll keep an
open mind -- but so far, there is no evidence of that.
Given her intransigence, I basically agree with Kampeas' kicker:
. . .making Jewish observance an excuse when it clearly is not -- well,
it rankles. There's way too long a history of Jews having to take risks
to observe Shabbat for it to be used as a bad faith out.
Jennifer Rubin has been spitting on a lot of folks in the opinion
blogosphere for quite a while. She would be well advised to dial it
back a bit and find a path towards mutual respect with others with whom
she disagrees. There's nothing wrong with her passionate opinions;
there's everything wrong with how Rubin defames and engages in ad hominem assaults against so many with whom she disagrees.
When she was hired by the Washington Post, I asked Fred Hiatt
what he had in mind with this acquisition and was told that he wanted a
more conservative voice on the team.
Rubin's domestic US conservative commentary is limited, and not nearly
as frequent as her posts that touch on Israel. That's not
"conservative" but rather a silo of work in one obsessive, highly toxic
area of debate in which she provides a flamboyantly Likudist portal.
Fine -- but where's the balance on the Post's team to that? Fred
Hiatt suggests that he brought her in to "balance" the progressives on
the team. If balance is an issue, which it might very well be, where is
the "Muslim" or Arab voice at the Post that defends as passionately the other side of the argument? Or if having a blog voice on the Arab side of the equation is too much, how about a genuine two-stater from the Israeli side whose love of Israel and commitment to Israel's long term interests wouldn't be savaged as traitorous?