The Washington Post's bio page invests 96 words in describing opinion-writer Jennifer Rubin, of "Right Turn," as a woman who "provides insight into the conservative movement and the Republican Party," which she previously did for such insightful publications as The Weekly Standard.
The Post would be well-advised, as a gracious service to its readers, to shorten its bio to only six: Jennifer Rubin is a witless hack.
Or, a fair argument could be made that the Post's editors believe such a revised description would be hugely superfluous, since within seconds of actually reading Rubin, the reader finds that her witless hackdom glistens like Cantor on a tax cut.
I quote, from her opening insight of last night:
President Obama gave a speech tonight that was aimed at re-election -- not victory in Afghanistan. In doing so, he made clear that he doesn’t much care whether we accomplish our mission (making certain Afghanistan is not a safe haven for terrorists); his mission is ending a war so we can spend more money domestically.
Obama made clear his indifference to terrorist threats, you see; he only wants to bathe, soak, and rinse in more of his sinisterly socialist schemes at home.
Yet Rubin, as a conservative public intellectual, prefers that you not merely take her word for it. No, no, oh, no, Rubin substantiates her opinions, as she did last night, quoting from, and I quote, "a confidante of Tom Pawlenty" [sic]: "It was a speech designed to cater to and encourage rising isolationism in this country. The references to nation building in this country clearly indicate that. The president is playing with fire here." Got it?
But wait. Maybe I'm the one who has this all wrong. Maybe the Post's bio description is indeed the best of all possible Panglossian slanders: She "provides insight into the conservative movement and the Republican Party" -- no actual insight into affairs of the day, you will note, except that into the incestuous malignancy of the conservative movement.
My error. Well played, Washington Post.