The Washington Post has been subsidizing the left’s bloggers for a while now. Greg Sargent is a veritable mouthpiece of the Democratic National Committee. Ezra Klein repackages left-wing talking points as an “economics” blogger or some such despite the fact that his only credential as an economist is a college degree in political science.Now the Washington Post has put a Mitt Romney blogger on the payroll and everybody is pretty open about that connection.Jenn Rubin, when not pushing out Romney talking points is in favor of freeing traitors, claims to be a conservative covering the conservative movement, though she has nothing in common with conservatives other than hating terrorists. A conservative friend says she’s best understood as ‘Likud’ rather than Republican or conservative. There’s nothing wrong with being Likud, but one ought to be honest about it. (Please be sure to read this update regarding this reference)In any event, in a profile in the Politico, we get two rather stunning admissions for a supposedly objective blogger covering the conservative side of the aisle for the Washington Post.Couple these two together and one must objectively wonder how the Washington Post can keep her on the payroll without fundamentally changing the description of who she is and what she does.
Anonymous Republican attacks on Perry, for instance, may or may not come from Romney aides, she said.
[Her attacks on Rick Perry] often echo or prefigure former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney’s attacks on him.
Together, that paints a picture of a blogger who is ostensibly charged with covering conservatives for the Washington Post abusing her position to fixate on one candidate at the expense of another — though to be fair, Rubin has attacked pretty much any candidate who comes close to Romney in the polls whether it be Michele Bachmann, then Rick Perry, and also Herman Cain. She does, however, adore Chris Christie and adored Rick Santorum when he was attacking the non-Romney candidates.On Tuesday alone, Rubin wrote eight attacks on Rick Perry alone in a column styled as “commentary from a conservative perspective.”But this “conservative” has sided with the guy 75% of the Republican primary voters do not want, is pro-abortion, and cannot even admit that all partial birth abortions are wrong. To be fair, I guess it is progress to have someone at the Washington Post who at least speaks for 25% as if they are something.But I object to the characterization of her. Not only is she not a conservative, she’s shilling for one candidate while being paid by the Washington Post.