Matters took an ugly turn yesterday when Erick Erickson of Red State accused Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post of being in the tank for Mitt Romney — and we’ll have to get back to that accusation in a minute. Because in the process of making that accusation, Erickson wrote:
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.
Ummm . . . yeah. Well, Politico asked Rubin to react:
“You want a Washington Post journalist to comment on an anti-Semitic screed by some blogger?” Rubin asked. “My arms are not long enough to punch down that far.”
Whoa! I’d imagine Dan Riehl (who doesn’t care much for either Rubin or Erickson) must be laughing his ass off at this dust-up. On the one hand, Rubin seems a bit hasty to play the anti-Semite card. On the other hand, the folks at Eagle Publishing and CNN probably won’t be too pleased to see their guy throwing “Likudnik” jabs at Jewish conservatives.
Donald Douglas has further thoughts. But who is Erickson — having sponsored Rick Perry’s presidential announcement — to accuse Rubin or anyone else of being unfairly partial to a candidate? And does Erickson suppose that picking fights with “Likudniks” is going to help Perry?
HERMAN CAIN for PRESIDENT
He’s OK With Likud, IYKWIMAITYD
Haven’t we had enough of thin skinned folks (usually the target of some unpleasant critique that turns out to be usually more true than not) screeching like a bee stung child over some vague HINT of reference to ethnicity or creed? Forget an actual negative accusation that is claimed to be proven just by the individual’s named ethnicity. That’s not a requirement anymore for the retort of anti-(insert ethnicity here)ism.
I don’t usually pay much attention to what Erick says as I think he’s too quick to want to censor views he doesn’t like (which is odd since he claims to be a conservative and that’s a Progressive proclivity) but in this case; where did he equate that Jennifer being a member or proponent of Likud-like demeanor equates with something despicable or to be shunned or to be denigrated because of it? If anyone should have an anti-semitic label it’s Rubin who’s first reaction on being labeled Likud is to assume that label is negative and thus anti-semitic?
Was there a further statement or subtext that is missing from the quote? Maybe Jennifer needs to reexamine her own PREJUDICES about the members of Likud and what they believe in and step back a bit.
(note the LIBERAL Media has branded Likud with negative stereotypes to support their views of Israeli intransigence. Their definition of intransigence as being anyone who reacts to repeated attacks with corresponding violence and defense. Say that sounds just like what Jennifer is doing.)
At least he didn’t call her “Democrat.”
I had always though the MSM had decide that the term ‘Likud’ in American politics meant being in the tank for Israel and hating the barbarians. . . ummm oops I meant Palestinians. Rubin needs to check in with her Wapo handlers and get on the same sheet of music.
That said Rubin is in the tank for Romney and Erickson for Perry. There is nothing wrong with that, everyone needs to make a choice but both are being super childish in the way they are handling each other. Guess I have to blame Erickson a bit more because he started it but Rubin’s ‘anti-Semetic’ rebuke is asinine.
Nothing says Inside Baseball like “blogfight.”
zzzzzzzzzz
I have no time for squishy Rino-Rubin, but “‘Likud’ rather than Republican or conservative”? Isnt Likud a conservative party?
We know that Erickson is a first-class jerk.
And we know Mzz. Rubin is not a conservative.
This is like the Iran/Iraq War: can’t both sides lose?
SIDENOTE: Even if JR was conservative, her ‘punch down that far’ comments would mark her as Establishment.
Rubin is only conservative in WaPolandia.
The barb only makes sense if you have a decent appreciation for Israeli politics. Yes Likud is ‘on the right’ in Israel. But Israel is a tremendously left leaning/collectivist country.
Actually I have no problem whatsoever branding such a statement antisemitic. Referring to a US politician or journalist as a Likudnik is usually an introduction to calling the US government ZOG and a reference to the Jewish controlled media. I don’t know enough about Miss Rubin to go jumping to her defense personally, but piss on Erickson anyway. We have a chance to make inroads among Jewish voters for the first time in a while, and he comes up with this shit?
Jennifier Rubin’s BIGOTED, arrogant, uptight, narrow-minded misgynostic sexist attitude towards women who are pro-life Conservative -in Rubin’s own words “For her detractors, both conservative and liberal, she is uncouth, unschooled, a hick, anti-science and anti-intellectual, an upstart, and a religious fanatic. There is no group so firmly in the latter camp as American Jews.” -superceeds all anti-screeds.
Just because Rubin pretends to be a Conservative does not mean she is any less the Liberal Fascist she is and forever will be.
Erickson has too quick of a temper and says things that he shouldn’t (this included), but he has basically been a strong and solid force for conservatism– and sometimes a visionary one. which is a heck of a lot more than I can say for Rubin.
And it’s absolutely true that establishment organizations like the NYT and WaPo tend to feature only “conservatives” who seem to have an unhealthy (to me) focus on Israel and often questionable conservative credentials otherwise. Pretending the elephant isn’t in the room doesn’t make it go away.
I have nothing against Likud, BTW. This Jewish guy is probably to the right of Likud when it comes to what I think the Israelis should be doing. But I tend to think those problems are Israel’s to solve– not ours.
The problem is we are hindering them. But if you point that out and support the Israelis, then you get branded a Likudnik or, my personal favorite one of all, Kahanist. Or you get branded as an Islamophobe, which frankly doesn’t bother me one bit. I support India as much as I do Israel when it comes to their national security concerns, so I guess that makes me a supporter of the Hindu caste system. What these people are really saying is that people who express support for the Israelis are basically guilty of divided loyalties, and its beyond the pale. If they have evidence of such, then they should present it and let the chips fall where they may. Otherwise they need to shut the fuck up.
I sense that Rubin is alot like Joe Lieberman. A Liberal on all issues unless its beneficial to Israel to take the conservative position.
The WaPo/NYT are never going to provide a platform for the kind of conservative blogging that Michelle Malkin does. We know that, so we can’t fault Rubin for being less conservative than Malkin.
So we have to ask, other than her (alleged) prejudices in the current GOP presidential contest, what is the evidence of Rubin’s non-conservatism? I ask that question with no particular answer in mind, as I haven’t paid close enough attention to her work to be able to remember any particular deviation.
What I do remember is a column she wrote for PJM in early 2009 — when a lot of the RINOs were calling for bipartisan cooperation with Obama — in which Rubin said: “The opposition party must oppose.”
That one sentence was as clear an argument as anyone might ask for rejecting the politics of Arlen Specter, Dede Scozzafava, Charlie Crist and Mike Castle. I cited Rubin’s argument repeatedly during 2009-2010 and, whatever deviations she has recently made from “True Conservatism,” I nevertheless feel some sense of gratitude for her prior service in this regard.
And it’s passing strange, I should note, that Erick Erickson is nowadays acting like The Compleat Establishmentarian when, two years ago, he was just as much the wild-eyed Tea Party populist as I was (and still am). Erickson was a vital part of the anti-Scozzafava and anti-Crist uprisings, but he seemed to pull back as the 2010 mid-terms approached. I remember during Right Online 2010, when I was shadowing the Christine O’Donnell campaign while they met with Erickson to seek his support. Erickson seemed very reluctant to go all-in, even though the O’Donnell campaign team was mostly the Hoffman team from NY-23, and Castle was at least as much a RINO as Specter or Crist.
O’Donnell’s known shortcomings as a candidate (which were never exactly a secret) could explain most of that reluctance, I suppose. But, c’mon: A chance to knock off Mike Castle and put another torpedo into the GOP Establishment? Who could resist that opportunity?
To me, Rubin’s seeming turn toward moderation is less mysterious (and less harmful) than Erickson lining up with the Establishment hacks who are running the Perry campaign.
Pass the popcorn. 😉
To be fair, Erick did post a retraction/clarification last night:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/10/26/an-anti-semite/
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize Erick, but I think this is a tempest in a teapot.
There’s nothing mysterious about Erickson’s change. He wants to be a respected member of the CNN politburo, where he’s now an “analyst”, and he’s also influenced by Eagle Publishing. He’s like an old hillbilly my grandpa used to tell me about. They’d leave the sticks, go up to Detroit, get a job, and their first paycheck they’d buy the best suit of clothes they could afford and a brand new car, and then come back home that weekend talking and acting like they’d been a Yankee their entire lives.
I don’t know, you have to dig pretty deep to find someone who’s as big an asshat as Joe Liebermann.
When I first began blogging in the Spring of 2008 and through most of 2009, I often quoted her favorably, but I started noticing a change in late ’09 – a shift from that Wolverine Spirit you mention. It was as if she saw the TEA Party and thought it too ‘messy’, disorganized. In other words, it didn’t follow the Establishment Rulebook.
Also, I noticed a naivete in her thinking about Islam and domestic matters.
Perhaps, like so many others, she was infected with the Beltway Virus?…I don’t know.
It was a very poor choice of words. Anybody possessing any decent sense of Common Sense knows that the term ‘Likud’ carries with it the implication of divided or suspect loyalties to The United States.
For such a self-proclaimed deep thinker, this was just plain stupid [he had to have it explained to him???]. Makes you think the wise man is just a wise guy.
I’m not a fan of either of these clowns, but isn’t it interesting that Erickson is always in the thick of these dustups. EE never critically thinks about his position and ends up turning off groups of people when he hits the send button.
Conservatitves have gotten a lot less lenient, and overall, I think that is a good thing.
It seems that Rubin is a Ruling Class conservatives in the same vein as Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Peggy Noonan, shall I go on?
Yes, I have a litmus test and her name is Governor Sarah Palin.
All of these folks are either patronizing or dismissive of the most concrete LIVING example of a conservative currently active today.
Because she’s of the Country Class.
And you can bet they’re still cursing the day John McCain let such a Country Class rube get SO close to Ruling Class power.
We saw how much they HATED the idea, from Noonan’s still-miked f’in comment to Kraut’s Palin should leave the room comment to Jennifer Rubin’s constant belittling and dismissing Palin ever since Rubin got her WaPo credentials.
It’s not conservative vs. liberal.
It’s Ruling Class vs Country Class.
They want to live in a feudal society; they just won’t admit it.
It’s mainly evidence of what deep resentments a contested primary can provoke. Trying to keep one’s sense of perspective can be difficult when the stakes are so high. I think both Erickson (who obviously intended the “Likud” remark as a putdown of some kind) and Rubin (who arguably overreacted) can be faulted for having made this a cage-match battle to the death.
How did this get amped up into such an Armaggedon-like struggle? I consider the occasion when Streiff impugned Michelle Malkin’s “intellect and integrity,” an unnecessary and hurtful slur that Erickson refused to amend or retract, as the first such incident in this escalation.
My warnings against this kind of thing were ignored, and I was mocked and ridiculed, and now we see what it has produced. But everybody else knows more about politics than I do, so I suppose there’s no hope that I’ll get any credit for having been right about this — and people will hate me all the more for having been so right when they were so wrong.
C’est la guerre!
[…] Regarding this whole Jennifer Rubin / Erick Erickson dust-up [Stacy McCain has the details here]: […]
The O’Donnell myopia. YEP. I still remember all the gushing. That’s when I first thought you’d be a guy you could take to the racetrack, and he’d bet longshots all day. Might lose 50 times, but that 1 time they come in makes it all worth while. That’s why I give you hell over Cain- you’re still betting on the longshots.
Yes, it is interesting re: Erickson because we see how he really thinks when he rushes to put pixels to his thoughts.
Same with Perry. We don’t have a heart, fat cats, etc.
Retractions mean very little, just like clarifications and backtracking.
Occasionally, OK. Everyone misspeaks sometimes.
But when people are almost constantly having to change their initial gut reaction statements, I say ignore the reactions and understand that what they really think is their first statements.
And yes, I include Cain in that.
1. Extremists Muslims are a problem, meets with Muslims, and retracts Muslim criticism.
2. Families should be able to choose whether or not to abort their babies. Oops, no, I’m absolutely prolife.
3. Electrify border fences, oh no, I’m only joking, but yes, I think they should be electrified.
…
“SIDENOTE: Even if JR was conservative, her ‘punch down that far’ comments would mark her as Establishment.”
Bob, In her case it might be more accurate to describe her as a wanna be Establishment or Elite. There are a lot of bloggers/tweeters who fall in that category. They’re the ones beating up TP type candidates for any imperfection or speaking error while supporting the establishment guy sure to disappoint on policy. I think some of them believe they seem more serious by dismissing the Tea Party movement candidates.
I am not sure it is anti Semetic as much as stupid on Erickson’s part. But hey, we are talking Erik Erickson here.
I am no fan of Jen Rubin. Her ? is with Fatty McAwesome. But now she is promoting Romney is playing to power and going with the (current) establishment guy. She is down on Perry but so are most Republican voters. Get over it Erik.
It is called being infected with getting a job in the beltway. Commentary was fine, but it pays very little. Having a gig with the WaPo and having time to spend with her kids…I get it. She is not out there shaking her tip jar. Instead she is shaking her column by being contrary but not too contrary.
Yeah, a willingness to disparage Sarah Palin is a sort of litmus test, which was why I found Erickson’s mockery of Palin’s prospective candidacy so troubling.
Trust me: I got sick as hell of the long will-she-or-won’t-she game, and said so, but I also knew that Palin wasn’t just playing games. She was seriously weighing an actual decision, and not an easy one at that, and I felt deep sympathy for her well-meaning supporters.
It was kind of a fluke, after all, that I had a hunch — in November 2010 — that if Palin did run, she’d take her time about deciding. And because I felt that the Tea Party needed a candidate in the field early, I jumped on the Cain bandwagon, thinking more or less, “Well, if Palin does get in later, we’ll see how that shapes up and weigh the options.” Then Herman got that huge bump in from the South Carolina debate in May, and I was like, “Uh-oh. If Palin gets in now, the option-weighing is gonna be a lot more difficult.” By the time I got to Iowa in August, and Palin made a sudden decision to show up at the State Fair, I was frankly in disbelief: “She’s seriously thinking about getting in now? That’s crazy!” But there were the Organize4Palin people vouching for her seriousness, as did others, and the cognitive dissonance was extreme.
Of course, it’s not an accident that as soon as Palin said “no,” Herman Cain got a huge surge in the polls. I’d always thought of them as representing the same sort of populist outsider sentiment, and they do seem to attract the same enemies. When Karl Rove did his little whiteboard spiel against Herman the other day, I could imagine any uncertain Palinistas watching that and saying to themselves, “OK, that’s it — if Rove hates Cain that much, I’m for Cain!”
I guess I distinguish a bit between the different RedStaters; on one hand there’s streiff who as you mentioned viciously attacked Malkin for no good reason, and has done the same to Herman Cain, whereas on the other hand there’s Erick and Leon, who when they put something out there that went too far (Erick with Rubin, Leon with calling Cain ‘pro-choice’) had the good sense to post a proper retraction. I don’t think it’s necessarily Erick’s place to apologize for streiff, but I do think Erick needs to talk to him behind the scenes and get him to stop being a loose cannon like he has been lately.
More like voting on principals instead of voting for the “same as it was” candidate.
[…] response to Stacy, who posts on it here – not really. When arrogance fights with ignorance, no one wins, most especially when […]
My thinking, too. Rubin was right to suggest that Erickson is low down; however, her perception of herself as presiding from on high is amusing.
I’ll give you your point 1 on Cain, but I disagree on the other two. Regarding his much-debated comments on abortion, if you look at the whole exchange instead of just the usually-quoted bits, it’s clear that that’s not what he’s saying. And as far as the border fence goes, again if you look at the entirety of what he was saying (which included a moat with alligators), it should be clear that he was engaging in hyperbole; now you can argue that candidates shouldn’t engage in hyperbole because of the risk of being misunderstood, but I don’t think your criticism as stated is apt.
Or deluded.
That Beltway virus is very difficult to recover from, most who succumb to it don’t unless they move.
I suspect that looking to ones personal future is the biggest factor when people like Erickson and Rubin become enticed by the elite side of darkness. They switch from supporting those they hope will win to those they think will win.
No prizes for being wrong first?
Elize,
“Conservative” becomes a not-very-useful term when applied internationally.
Likud is generally thought of as “center-right,” which economically is somewhat “liberal” in the European sense, which is the opposite of what “liberal” is usually thought to mean in the US.
You forgot “Mossad plant” (I once got labeled a Likudnik and Mossad plant for arguing that the Arab-Israeli conflict was probably not a pivotal issue in some penny-ante internal Libertarian Party conflict).
Seriously. Jennifer Rubin a conservative?
What mind-cave did that gestate in?
There’s a Jargon File term that I find apt in cases like this (and not just because it’s credited to Purdue):
dumbass attack: Notional cause of a novice’s mistake made by the experienced ..
The subtext here is that you have to be experienced in order to make one; otherwise you’re just a dumbass. Erick certainly qualifies as experienced, but like all of us, he can succumb to a dumbass attack every now and then.
There’s something not right about Redstate.com. Between Erik and Moe they are quick to take on a nasty and petty tone over everything. They are welcome to hurl insults, but post anything they don’t like and they remove you from their website. I’ve given up on Redstate and EE/ML as I can do without their abusive website. They are fast on their way to becoming littlegreenfootballs…
They’re longshots for a reason. O’Donnell winked at Stacy and he was smitten.
I certainly don’t want to be in the position of defending Erickson, who shoots from the lip, has a low tolerance for snarky dissent (although I’ve been there since the start with but a single warning from moderator), and a grossly exaggerated sense of his own intelligence and importance. But his mocking of Palin fans wasn’t directed at Palin, but the people who insisted she was running all along despite all the evidence otherwise. Many of them became truly annoying with smug assurance that, yes, she was in as of X date because that was her deadline. Then they kicked the can down the road a couple of times, but kept insisting they were right.
Even that, he didn’t handle so well, as so many people believed he was mocking Palin, which was not the case. But I blame it on his ego – he’s not nearly as smart-aleck as he thinks he is.
Hard to miss the message of the “Likud” jibe against a Jewish conservative, though.
Jen Rubin’s history is one of a conservative commentator. Maybe she is not conservative ENOUGH for the most conservative of us; that doesn’t make her a “RINO” at all. In fact, most of the people who throw the “RINO” insult around so freely as soon as they disagree with them on any issue are the sort who also threaten to leave the party if so-and-so is or isn’t nominated. That makes those people RINO in fact, doesn’t it?
There’s a proven method of settling disputes among us – the ballots. We select a nominee democratically. If you can’t abide by the result, don’t play the game. Don’t be the kid who takes his ball and bat home if he can’t pitch.
If that’s the way you feel, go on and leave now, find Howard Phillips and run him on some fringe ticket, and enjoy the second Obama Administration, you RINO idiots.
The one they found the Dead Sea Scrolls in? Zing!
She also believes in border control that’s a bit more porous than Swiss cheese.
And Romney is the horse the establisment punters fall in love with, and bet all the way down to 1/10, even though the nag only has about a 40-percent chance of winning the race. In other words, a $5.00 bet on Romney is worth about $2.20.
The smart money is on Cain. He’s on the board at 4/1, but actually has about a 30-percent chance of winning the race. A $5.00 bet on Cain is worth about $6.00.