Jennifer Rubin

A New “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” For Conservative Politicians? You Wish, Jennifer Rubin…

/ Jack Marshall / 63 Comments

creationismOne of the Washington Post’s rare conservative columnists has a solution for GOP candidates and office holders whose views on some subjects are likely to make them targets of furious criticism: refuse to express them. She writes in her latest column:

“Not everything is a political issue, nor one on which politicians have any particular insight. Candidates are not asked their views on divorce, for example. Each state has laws on the topic, and one’s religious views aren’t a topic for public debate. It is not (and shouldn’t be) asked of nor answered by politicians…Creationism? Unless you are running for school board and intend to be guided by your religious convictions, it does not matter. Born again? None of my business.

“…[Q]uestions about creationism, gay marriage, the nature of homosexuality and other value-specific questions serve no purpose other than to provide targets for faux outrage. These questions are designed to divide the population into believers and nonbelievers, between those who share the same cultural touchstones and those who differ.

“If a topic has no relevance to public policy or character or fitness to serve, why ask the question and why answer it? We aren’t electing pastors, family counselors or philosophers; we’re electing politicians whose job description and qualifications don’t include a great many topics. If we are heading for a more tolerant society, we have to agree to disagree on some issues and to respect some realm of private opinion and faith. For Republicans running in 2016, I would suggest a simple response to the sort of question intended to provoke divisiveness over irrelevant topics: “I can’t think of a single instance in which [creationism/the origin of homosexuality] would be relevant. I’m not here to sow division or take sides in faith-based debates. Let’s talk about something germane to the presidency.”

Wrong.

Incredibly wrong. Continue reading →

Ethics Quote of The Week: Washington Post Blogger Jennifer Rubin

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

“How about this for a new communications plan: No one investigates themselves. No one take the Fifth. No executive privilege is asserted to protect anyone in the White House from testifying. Everyone tells the truth. And Holder goes. Otherwise it just looks like more spin and more prevarication from a White House determined to do everything but tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

—-Washington Post conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin, discussing the Obama Administration’s defensive and evasive posture in response to the various scandals within.

Good sign!

Good sign!

I was torn about how best to raise the issue of why Eric Holder’s removal as Attorney General is an ethical imperative. Labeling President Obama an Ethics Dunce in his ridiculous decision to leave the investigation of Holder’s conduct in the various news media investigations to the Justice Department itself was fair, but obvious. Noting the apparent dishonesty of Holder’s denial to Congress that he was involved in the surveillance of James Rosen—

“In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material — this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.”

—-seemed too easy, and I also do get tired of the word-parsing employed by the seemingly impenetrable Obama defenders here, for which this would be blood in the water. Continue reading →

Ethics Alarms Lubricant 1: Jennifer Rubin on Intimidating the Supreme Court

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Whatever one may think about the Constitutionality of the individual mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare,” it is a difficult and complex question. Anyone who argues otherwise 1) doesn’t know what they are talking about, 2) is lying, or 3) is basing their opinion on ideological considerations rather than legal ones. The members of the Supreme Court, which must decide the question (and in fact have almost certainly decided it) do know what they are  talking about, and while they all have ideological tilts in the sense that each gravitates to a particular Constitutional philosophy, political considerations, ideas pushed by the media and the popularity of particular legislation are supposed to play no part whatsoever in their deliberations.

The degree to which the Democrats, led by President Obama, have attempted to intimidate, hector and insult the Court into deciding the case in favor of the mandate is unprecedented in my lifetime, and I think it is unprecedented period. The advocates for the law had its legal representative make their case before the Court, and by all accounts he either botched it, or didn’t have points strong enough to withstand the challenges posed by the Justices in oral argument. Fearing that their landmark legislation that was passed by a whisker will topple because of the flawed cornerstone that its architects foolishly, arrogantly and unnecessarily placed at its foundation, Democrats have been pre-emptively impugning the honesty of the Court, essentially arguing that if the law is overturned, it will only be because of political favoritism and bias. It has been a disgraceful display, and is a despicable tactic. Continue reading →