If you’re waiting for Jennifer Rubin to say something positive about this most conservative president since Ronald Reagan, you may be waiting a long time.
Rubin writes a blog in the Washington Post called “The Right Turn,” which is promoted as a conservative take on the news.
But as Charles Cooke wrote in a piece for the National Review, Rubin is willing to change her views 180 degrees to ensure she always opposes Trump.
On the Paris Climate Accord, Cooke said Rubin “left her readers under no illusions as to the scale of her disapproval.” She called the deal “ephemeral,” a “piece of paper,” a “group wish” and a “nonsense” that would “achieve nothing” from this agreement, which was reached solely to serve Obama’s preference for “phony accomplishments” and his base’s “craven willingness to eat up any ‘bill of goods” they were served.
So, pulling out of this meaningless agreement would be good, right? Not if President Trump did it. In that case, At that point, Cooke wrote, “adhering to the position she had theretofore held became a ‘senseless act,’ a ‘political act,’ a ‘dog whistle to the far right’ and a ‘snub to elites’ that had been calibrated to please the ‘climate-change denial, right-wing base that revels in scientific illiteracy.’”
Abandoning the pact she had called “ephemeral” and a “piece of paper,” would “materially damage our credibility and our persuasiveness” and constituted conduct unbecoming the “leader of the free world.”
Rubin had a similar epiphany when President Trump announced the U.S. was moving its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and recognizing Jerusalem as the capital. She had been all over the board on it previously, changing her views as her political crushes of the day changed theirs.
She praised Marco Rubio “for arguing that ‘Jerusalem is Israel’s capital, as the U.S. Congress has repeatedly recognized” and lauded the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 as the concrete on which Republicans should walk,” Cooke wrote. But when she fell for Mitt Romney and he thought otherwise, she attacked Newt Gingrich for holding the precise position she had put forth earlier, saying “It really is time to stop promising something that the U.S. can’t and shouldn’t deliver unilaterally.”
Then, when Romney became more hawkish on the subject, Rubin did too. “Of course Jerusalem is the capital,” she wrote. “It was declared so in 1948. The Knesset is there. The disposition of its borders is a matter for final status negotiation, but only an uninformed or virulently insensitive administration would be unable to distinguish the two.”
Then, when President Trump took office, she accused him of “delaying its move of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem” and pointed out he needn’t worry about disrupting peace talks since none were occurring or inflaming Palestinians since they are perpetually inflamed anyway. What was important was Trump’s failure to keep his word. “The world is learning to disregard everything this president does and says,” she wrote. Trump, she added, “looks buffoonish in his hasty retreat.”
And then he did it – he ordered the move. No more delays. No more pointless nods to peace talks that weren’t occurring. “And what did Rubin say? That it was a foreign policy move without purpose … indicative of a non-policy-based foreign policy.”
“If Trump likes something, Rubin doesn’t. If he does something, she opposes it,” Cooke wrote. “If his agenda flits into alignment with hers – as anyone’s is wont to do from time to time – she either ignores it or finds a way to downplay it. The result is farcical and sad; a comprehensive and self-inflicted airbrushing of the mind.”