Live from Bullwinkle Plaza: The execrable Ruth Marcus of the long-past-its-sell-by-date Washington Post burns Carly Fiorina.
I assume this is not because Ruth Marcus wants to see Hillary Rodham Clinton win the presidency, but because Ruth Marcus wants to keep the only female candidate from winning the Republican nomination.
Anybody know why? Anybody know who Ruth Marcus is working for?
It cannot be because Ruth Marcus is too dumb to know that not just Carly Fiorina but pretty much every Republican candidate has said some very nice things about Hillary Clinton, can it?
UPDATE: People are asking me why Ruth Marcus is “execrable”…
I addition to this story:
Carly Fiorina’s conversion from Hillary Clinton fan to fervent critic: Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/carly-fiorinas-conversion-from-hillary-clinton-fan-to-fervent-critic/2015/08/14/fd23521a-42ad-11e5-8ab4-c73967a143d3_story.html: Carly Fiorina says some, well, interesting things while waiting to go on camera. In 2010, the then-GOP Senate nominee went all middle-school-cafeteria on her Democratic opponent’s hairdo. “God, what is that hair? Sooo yesterday,” Fiorina, already miked up, commented, quoting an aide’s assessment.
Take a look at:
Ruth Marcus — Short of Perjury Washingtonpost http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001335.html: I find myself in an unaccustomed and unexpected position: defending Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales fans, if there are Gonzales fans left, except for the only fan who counts: Don’t take any comfort from my assessment. In his Senate testimony last week, Gonzales once again dissembled and misled.
Barack Obama: Embittered and unfair over Iran Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/barack-obama-embittered-and-unfair/2015/08/11/8b8b4538-4049-11e5-8d45-d815146f81fa_story.html: President Obama says those who oppose the Iran nuclear deal are either ideological or illogical. I support the deal, yet I think this assessment is incorrect and unfair. It diminishes the president’s case for congressional approval. That case is strong but not overwhelming; it is not, to use a loaded phrase, a slam dunk.
Ruth Marcus Is Outraged by Overly Generous Social Security Checks Cepr http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/ruth-marcus-is-outraged-by-overly-generous-social-security-checks: Well, who can blame her? After all, we have tens of millions of seniors living high on Social Security checks averaging a bit over $1,200 a month at a time when folks like the CEOs in the Campaign to Fix the Debt are supposed to subsist on paychecks that typically come to $10 million to $20 million a year.
Ruth Marcus: The perils of legalized pot Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-the-perils-of-legalized-pot/2014/01/02/068cee6e-73e9-11e3-8b3f-b1666705ca3b_story.html: Marijuana legalization may be the same-sex marriage of 2014 — a trend that reveals itself in the course of the year as obvious and inexorable. At the risk of exposing myself as the fuddy-duddy I seem to have become, I hope not. This is, I confess, not entirely logical and a tad hypocritical.
About the first, Matthew Yglesias wrote http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2007/07/31/187205/defending_gonzalez/:
Ruth Marcus, driving hard for the wanker of the day prize, decides that though Al Gonzalez “dissembled and misled” and he didn’t commit perjury and so rather than “trying to incite criminal a prosecution that won’t happen of an attorney general who should have been gone long ago,” Democrats:
“need to concentrate on determining what the administration did — and under what claimed legal authority — that produced the hospital room showdown. They need to satisfy themselves that the administration has since been operating within the law; to see what changes might guard against a repetition of the early, apparently unlawful activities; and to determine where the foreign intelligence wiretapping statute might need fixes.”
The possibility that if the administration continues to dissemble and mislead congress, and is told in advance that it can get off the hook for doing so, it might be difficult to get to the bottom of this matter doesn’t seem to have occurred to her. Oh, well.
To call for the 2007 Democratic congressional majority to “concentrate on determining what the administration did” while at the same time telling them to throw away the levers that might allow them to find out is execrable wankerhood of a very high order indeed.
She is not the worst in Jeff Bezos’s and Fred Hiatt’s stable. But in a world containing Charles Krauthammer, who else could be?