In an age of rage, Washington Post columnist and MSNBC contributor Jennifer Rubin has long been a standout in her attacks on Republicans and conservatives: “We have to collectively, in essence, burn down the Republican Party. We have to level them because if there are survivors, if there are people who weather this storm, they will do it again.” However, her recent column shows that she has made a clean break not only from Republicans but from reason. The writer (long cited by the Post as their “Republican columnist” for balance) has called for the media to abandon balance and impartiality. Rubin is demanding that the media just become overt advocates in refusing to report both sides in the myriad of political issues in this election.
In her column, Rubin rejects the “need for false balance” because the coverage can suggest that Republicans are “rational.”
Jonathan Turley
September 24, 2022
Washington Post Columnist Calls for the End of Impartiality and Balance in Journalism
[This is what they think of you.
Prepare and respond appropriately.—Joe]
Oh, that’s funny. It was just a matter of time before they got around to speaking out loud what was always in their dark little hearts.
They would be openly killing us if they thought they could get away with it. Soon I expect.
Just like Allison Aires. Get them in the right mental state and it always comes out.
She’s just taking a page from the conservative playbook. The past decade of conservative media has been filled with complaints that Democrats are a threat to democracy and need to be neutralized before they destroy the U.S.
Definitely a “both sides are doing it” kinda situation.
Of course there is a significant difference – Democrats actually are a threat to democracy and do need to be neutralized before they destroy the U.S.
Is there any form of opposition party to the Republicans you view as legitimate?
Yeah, I’ll take the Libertarians over them both.
In a lot of ways, the (big-L) Libertarians are as utopian as Communists, but at the least the (small-L) libertarian principles explicitly reject “…and then we load our opposition into the cattle cars” as a step in their political aspirations.
Given a practical choice between D and R, I’ll hold my nose and vote R, nearly every time, because D’s party platform is closer to the NSDAP’s 1935 party platform.
Give me a practical choice between R and L because D is not a factor, and I’ll vote for whoever is giving me the better shot at destroying the utility of national or state level political parties, and ending “politician” as a career.
Sure – one that isn’t enthusiastic about disarming its citizens, doesn’t tremble with delight at the thought of ripping a baby from its Mother’s womb or snuffing out the life of the elderly, has a sensible plan for maintaining America’s low cost energy availability, isn’t ecstatic about removing a little girl’s breasts or a little boy’s testicles, doesn’t jump for joy at the idea of starting another war it has no intention of letting America’s military win, etc.
I think you’re missing the point of what “opposing” means in this context…..
Or maybe you just mean “no?”
Kind of like Trump having the FBI arrest his political enemies? And that election he had stolen? Hillary being arrested and perp walked? You mean that kind of playbook?
Most of the “R” I see are lapdogs for the commies. (Think Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McCon-job-Connell.)
I see both parties burning themselves down. And the American people getting caught in the crossfire.
This is government against the people.
Burning down the republicans is like going after the violent white extremists. Their a made up codeword/boogeyman to go after what’s left of America.
Rubin is just ginning up the base.
John, re “both sides”, I don’t think so. Turley quotes Rubin as saying “We have to level them because if there are survivors, if there are people who weather this storm, they will do it again.”
Can you point to any Republican columnists, writing in major national publications, who are advocating a policy of “no survivors”?
I don’t think you can. And unless you can, your “both sides” argument fails.
Seems evident to me that she’s referring to political survivors, i.e. people who are still viable candidates for office under a particular platform, not physical ones. It’d be convenient assume the worst implication possible, but that’s not likely what she meant.
And of course we have Dan replying here on this thread saying “leftists” shouldn’t be allowed to keep breathing, which seems to rather clearly imply a boxcar solution is his preferred scenario.
For purposes of this discussion, let’s regard Dan an agent provocateur of the FBI and continue along a more moderate line of thought.
John, agreed, let’s assume some hyperbol on her part and she’s referring to political viability.
Now… are there any mainstream Republicans who use comparable language?
How about Trump’s buddy Steve Bannon?
“We Intend to Destroy the Democrat Party As a National Institution”
https://www.redvoicemedia.com/2022/04/steve-bannon-we-intend-to-destroy-the-democrat-party-as-a-national-institution/
And of course there are the more determined folks like Marjorie Taylor-Green who talk directly about killing off Democrats: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-democrats-violence/index.html
Close, but when examined in depth I think it fails. Destroying the party is not “eliminating all survivors”. And Bannon is referring to action via elections. Rubin is demanding people be denied their First Amendment rights.
And both you and the talking heads are greatly overstating Taylor-Green. She said Pelosi should be executed for treason. That’s dramatically different from assassination and/or “killing off Democrats”.
Leftists are insane. The longer they are allowed to convert O2 into CO2 the more insane they become. There is only one rational, logical response to this insanity.
Remove them from society. Permanently. There is no other viable solution. As long as these insane evil criminals are allowed to steal oxygen they will work incessantly to destroy freedom…and all of us.
Are you saying that, unlike Tirno, above, you favor the boxcar solution?
Thanks for proving John’s point Dan.
Boxcars? All you have to do is quit feeding the lazy bastards for a winter. They would starve.
Although Stacy Abrams could probably outlast most of us in that race. I’m pretty sure her own party would fry her in her own fat a couple months into the new hunger games.