WaPo's Jen Rubin: The Scandal Is MSNBC... ***Barf Alert**

[winstars]

Whereas this "person" named Jennifer Rubin says the problem is not Krispy Kreme's antics. No, its that lying Mayor Zimmer and these partisan MSNBC hacks.

She repeats the 70 million dollar lie about the $$$ that Hoboken HAS NOT received and says Zimmer's journal could have been written "at any time"...

The comments below the article are pretty good with some of us really wearing Rubin out about her nut job perspective... When someone mentions that Mayor Zimmer just did a interview with CNN and Candy Crowley, others immediately start the "Communist News Network" meme and that Candy Crowley is a Democratic plant. (we wish!!!)

Here is the link two the article, with a couple of Rubin's more delusional paragraphs:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/01/18/the-scandal-is-msnbc/

The test for the mainstream media and for medic “critics” (often merely on the prowl for Fox News bias) is whether they find the actual scandal: The MSNBC hit-squad that does not investigate, does not make any pretense of balance or fairness and is nevertheless given legitimacy by other media elites.
This is also a lesson for conservatives in dealing with liberal media bias. You don’t whine. You present the facts, fully and fast. You present compelling evidence of bias. If the conservatives want politicians who show some backbone when under attack by phony news operations, they’d be wise to follow the Christie model.
In the meantime, Christie, in an odd way, may be lucky here. MSNBC has turned a legitimate news story (the bridge) into a vivid display of media bias. That in turn will give conservatives who might otherwise see fit to pile on pause. Do they want to be the couriers of MSNBC smears?

[Armstead]

1. She is generally pretty awful

Another unpleasant cut-and-paste wingnut

[Wilms]

2. Check out this tool's wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Rubin_%28journalist%29

[MADem]

5. Lovely---a "neoconservative blogger." And we're supposed to rely on her for unbiased viewpoints?

[Berlum]

10. The Post (R) shit the cred bed long ago

This addition only makes them shittier.

[DURHAM D]

9. This is great -

In August 2013, former Washington Post ombudsman Patrick Pexton, in an open letter to new Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos under a section titled "The Ugly" called for Rubin to be fired, calling her columns "shallow and predictable" and "at best...political pornography." He added that "she is often wrong, and rarely acknowledges it"[35] Pexton finished with:

Rubin was the No. 1 source of complaint mail about any single Post staffer while I was ombudsman, and I’m leaving out the organized email campaigns against her by leftie groups like Media Matters. Thinking conservatives didn’t like her, thinking moderates didn’t like her, government workers who knew her arguments to be unfair didn’t like her. Dump her like a dull tome on the Amazon Bargain Books page.

[Kingofalldems]

23. Never trust a neocon.

[Boom Sound 416]

3. I with you

But the journal thing is a little thin.

[MADem]

6. What do you mean, "a little thin?" Please be specific. nt

[Boom Sound 416]

8. You know exactly what I mean, but

In case my cynicism is getting the best of me, I'll draw you a picture.

Christie - 'even though my closed deputies directly coordinated the abususes, I know nothing about them' - thin.

Zimmer - 'I was directly threatened 8 months ago and I'm coming forward now and my proof is my journal' - thin

Question I'd like to hear put to Mayor Zimmer: is your journal on a hardrive or in a book on your hope chest? If it's on a hardrive, she's nothing to worry about should it be subpoenaed.
-
Like I said, I'm with you (the OP) but it's a little thin. The journal that is. I can let the timing thing go. 8 mos ago she might not have had the ears she's has now. That's fine. The journal? Not ready yet.

[Demit]

13. I don't think you've quite explained your thinking yet.

Are you insinuating that the mayor's journal is fake?

[Boom Sound 416]

16. I'm insinuating the journal narrative is thin.

Is that so controversial?

[Demit]

17. I don't know about controversial, but it is oblique.

I'll bet you can come up with another way to say the journal narrative is thin. Flesh out your thinking, as it were.

[Boom Sound 416]

19. I'm good. Thanks.

You seem to be the only one with the question mark over you head.

And that in itself is thin

[salin]

20. Alone, perhaps.

Christie says: 70 million has been approved (note weasel word - rather than has been spent/given) for Hoboken - with more on the way when money approved by Feds.

Easy to check. How much money has actually been spent/given to aid Hoboken? 70 million "approved" (where is it?) vs. the reported less than $400k spent.

Official record will either support her contention, or not. Depends on how much money has come into Hoboken - and how that compares to similarly situated (per storm damage) cities of comparable size.

[Boom Sound 416]

22. That's a great report

Just has nothing to do with the discussion

[salin]

27. Perhaps,

but it occurred to me that it will be easy enough to resolve or disprove her accounts.

Perhaps a nonsequitor, but the exchange raised the point in my mind, so I added it to the exchange.

peace.

[Boom Sound 416]

29. Fair enough

[Kingofalldems]

24. That's Fed money.

I understand they got a pittance from the state.

[salin]

28. If I am reading correctly... the state is divvying up

the fed money. The issue (if it turns out to be true) is the threat (and withholding) of fed aid money at the state level - to leverage an unrelated development deal. If true - that is a big, big deal.

[Demit]

21. I think you're using a term you don't quite understand, actually.

As evidenced by your reluctance twice now to answer a polite request to explain what you mean.

[Boom Sound 416]

25. Right. No, I'm just not taking the bait

See # 8

[MADem]

30. You haven't been following the story, clearly.

The journal is HAND WRITTEN.

You do know it's possible for a forensic examiner to determine when something was written? They may not be able to get it down to a date-time grouping, but they can tell if something has been recently written or is older.

There's an entire subset of forensics devoted solely to document examination.

Here's one professional organization's website:

http://www.swafde.org/faq.html

And here's how they figure out when something was written:

Two new methods of determining the relative age of ballpoint inks has recently come to the forefront in forensic-document examination. Studies have shown that different inks have different drying times. The new method for analyzing the drying time of ink is done by chemical analysis. Unfortunately, this is a destructive process.

These new developments are extremely important when examining ledger or medical-record entries. It has been established that the longer ink has been on a sheet of paper, the slower it will dissolve in the various solvents used to analyze them. It is now possible to identify the age of ink to within a six-month period. This new process of dating the age of inks has had dramatic impact on the examination and detection of backdated documents. Many malpractice cases have been won due to the analysis of ink on questioned medical records.

http://www.evidencemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=267

[Boom Sound 416]

32. Clearly.

And like i said. Perhaps she had nothing to worry about. It's just a little thin.

That's all

[MADem]

34. It's not thin at all--she has a contemporaneous diary that is detailed.

What's "thin" here is your objection to this, and your self-assumed stance as some sort of impartial broker. It's pretty clear that you have a bias against her, despite being informed that her story can be proven, and your accusations can be disproven.

So....there's that.

[Boom Sound 416]

35. Here's your quarter

It'd be a dollar if you didn't use spell check.

I do like "self assumed stance". As opposed to, you know, the other kind.

Little dressing with that salad?

Yes, it can be proven or disproven. Thanks I did know that. That kinda has been my point all along, but hey you knew that. What am I saying?

[MADem]

36. What are you saying? I think we're starting to get a clue. nt

[seveneyes]

15. Have to agree

Unless there is a notarized journal, thin is a good way to put it.

[MADem]

31. I invite your attention to advances in forensic science that have occurred over the last, errr, 100

years...

[Barack_America]

4. I expect she wrote a similar article about Fox and Benghazi?

No?

[n2doc]

11. Funny you should ask

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/01/15/can-hillary-clinton-survive-benghazi/

In a word, no.

[otohara]

7. Blah,Blah,Blah

This reads like a press release from the RNC...

[spanone]

12. mrs rubin fails to see her own bias.

[Snotcicles]

14. Another nobody pops up out of nowhere. nt

[LittleBlue]

18. Rubin must have photos of her boss with the nanny

There's no other explanation for how she still has a job writing. She's a partisan hack and not a very good one, even the right-wingers think she's boring.

[MADem]

33. She writes like SHE was the nanny!

She's horrid!

[hrmjustin]

26. She is a tool of the right wing