1. Why I respect Jennifer Rubin (October 22, 2011)

The post in question was limited to the following matter of respect:

I don’t always agree with Jennifer Rubin, the not-liberal blogger at The Washington Post, who used to blog at Commentary.

But I respect her because unlike the Stockholm Syndrome suffering not-liberal columnists at The New York Times, Rubin is willing to take on her own newspaper.

But I deeply regret saying it in light of Rubin’s conduct with regard to the Herman Cain allegations.  Rubin has been vicious, as pointed out by Dan Riehl tonight, far more so than the worst left-wing flame throwers.

Rubin repeatedly invokes her prior career as a lawyer, but has had a completely unlawyerly lack of concern for facts.  The demand for facts is portrayed by Rubin as a slavish adherence to some mythical conservative cabal, when facts are what we all should be demanding.

Where are the receipts for the hotel Sharon Bielak says was upgraded? Where is evidence of her travel?  Why did she not tell her fiance about it until the night before she flew to meet Gloria Allred, and why did she not tell one of her best friends at all?  We should be demanding these facts as a matter of basic fairness to both parties.  If the facts support Bielak, so be it; but if the facts support Cain, why would Rubin not want to know it?

And as to Karen Kraushaar, there are no facts reported as to what Cain allegedly did, other than Cain’s own recollection of a non-sexual hand gesture.

Politico reports that there were “conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually  suggestive nature….”  Those aren’t facts, those are characterizations.  What did he say, what words were used, when were the statments made, where was each statement made, and who else was present.

These are the basics which should be included in any reputable reporting, and these are the facts we all should be demanding before reaching conclusions.

Demanding facts as to Cain’s alleged conduct is not the same as excusing proven conduct.  But none of that lawyerly stuff seems to bother Rubin in the least.

If Cain is guilty, I’ll be the first to say it.  But show me the facts first.  That’s not a blind allegiance to some cause, other than the cause of justice and fairness.

I apologize.

[Note: Change made to paragraph regarding Kraushaar shortly after posting]