Ruth Marcus

Liberal WaPo Columnist Marcus Cool to CBO Projections Others in Media Giddy Over
By Ken Shepherd | March 19, 2010 | 4:22 PM EDT
Democrats will be pointing to this preliminary CBO score as if it is engraved on stone tablets. Republicans will proclaim their respect for the CBO and proceed to argue that its estimates should not be taken too seriously in this instance. This may come as a surprise, but I think the Republican argument is closer to correct. To crow, as did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, that the package is "a triumph for the American people in terms of deficit reduction" is premature at best, delusional at worst.

That's none other than Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus -- no conservative acolyte she -- in an op-ed today entitled in the print edition, "Score one for skepticism."

As Marcus went on to explain, the central flaw in taking the CBO numbers as the gospel truth is that (emphasis mine):

WaPo’s Marcus Doesn’t Get Opposition to Repealing 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell'
By Sarah Knoploh | February 24, 2010 | 2:54 PM EST
It’s one thing to advocate for the repeal of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" (DADT). It’s altogether another to maintain that you find the other side of the argument “incomprehensible.” But that’s what Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus did in her Feb. 24 column, “The Inevitable Backlash on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’”

While stating that DADT should be repealed, Marcus professed to be perplexed at why some are hesitant to repeal the military’s policy and frustrated that the top brass chose not to precipitate the change all at once.
WaPo's Marcus: 'Ignore the Hype,' Virginia Landslide Means Nothing
By Tim Graham | November 4, 2009 | 8:48 AM EST

On the home page of the Washington Post website this morning, the headline for liberal columnist Ruth Marcus is "Ignore the hype." Inside the newspaper, it's "As Virginia goes, not so much." Marcus advises that this GOP landslide is all some meaningless fairy tale:

Bozell Column: The Nobel Surprise
By Brent Bozell | October 13, 2009 | 1:26 PM EDT

Like everyone else on the morning of October 9, the major media’s first reaction to Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize was shock and disbelief. NBC’s Matt Lauer spoke for the pack when he said he didn’t want to be "rude," but how did Obama earn it?

Nobel for Obama 'Ridiculous,' But Wash Post's Marcus Admits: 'I Voted for President Obama'
By Brent Baker | October 10, 2009 | 5:35 PM EDT
Hardly shocking news, but it's always good to note for the record whenever a mainstream media journalist admits – or boasts – of voting for the more liberal presidential candidate. The Nobel Peace Prize going to President Barack Obama prompted such an admission from long-time Washington Post reporter Ruth Marcus, the paper's deputy national editor from 1999 through 2002 (bio) and now a columnist. In an opinion piece in the Saturday Post, Marcus called the selection “ridiculous -- embarrassing, even.” Then she offered up what gives her the credibility to make such a judgment:
I admire President Obama. I like President Obama. I voted for President Obama.
She concluded by fretting of Obama's Nobel: “I suspect it did not do the president any favors. Obama's cheerleaders don't need encouragement -- and his critics will only seize on the prize to further lampoon the Obama-as-messiah storyline. Now what does he do for an encore?”
NYT’s Brooks: Obama Nobel Prize Award a 'Joke' and 'Travesty'; WaPo’s Marcus: Not 'Necessarily Good News'
By Jeff Poor | October 10, 2009 | 1:53 AM EDT

Remember just a week ago when New York Times columnist David Brooks slammed the likes Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck? Naturally, that led to the left-wing noise machine, and the media which uses that message for show prep, to suggest there was a split in the conservative movement and therefore attempt to marginalize the conservative message.

However, will they be so eager to echo the sentiment of David Brooks in the wake of President Barack Obama's Nobel Prize announcement? On PBS's Oct. 9 "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," the Times columnist had some disparaging words for Obama's award - despite a sentiment from some liberals that those who question it were somehow un-American.

"Well, my first reaction is he should have won all the prizes because he has given speeches about peace, but also he's give economic speeches. He wrote a book - that's literature. He has biological elements within his body. He could win that prize. He could have swept the whole prizes," Brooks said tongue-in-cheek before delivering the knock-out blow. "Now - it's sort of a joke."

WaPo Columnist Bashes Obama While Defending Rush Limbaugh
By Noel Sheppard | September 21, 2008 | 8:36 PM EDT

When I saw the headline at WashingtonPost.com "Closing the Whopper Gap" with columnist Ruth Marcus's name next to it, I naturally assumed this had to be another hit piece on John McCain akin to what my colleague Mark Finkelstein reported last week. 

Yet, upon closer examination, it turned out Marcus's target of disaffection this time was -- wait for it! -- Barack Obama.

And, she even defended Rush Limbaugh.

I'm not kidding.

In fact, Marcus went after the junior senator from Illinois in such an aggressive fashion that she not only will likely be eviscerated by her typically adoring fans in the liberal blogosphere, but also could end up being named Keith Olbermann's "Worst Person in the World" next week (emphasis added throughout):

Ex-Wash Post Reporter 'Nervous' What McCain Means to SCOTUS
By Brent Baker | June 22, 2008 | 3:30 PM EDT

In a Wednesday column decrying John McCain's condemnation of the Supreme Court's ruling giving Guantanamo detainees access to the courts, former Washington Post reporter and editor Ruth Marcus illustrated that no matter how unexcited conservatives may be about McCain liberals still see him as dangerous as she expressed fear of what McCain's efforts to appease conservatives will mean for the Supreme Court if he wins:

As his evolving reactions to the Guantanamo case may indicate, legal issues are not at the center of McCain's policy interests. But they are a top priority for conservative activists, which makes me all the more nervous about what a McCain presidency would mean for the court.
Marcus, the Post's deputy national editor from 1999 through 2002 (bio), noted that “the oldest justices are also the most liberal,” so she worried “a President McCain could shift the court significantly to the right” while, she lamented, “a President Obama would be lucky, even with a Democratic Senate, to nudge the court even a bit in a liberal direction.”
WaPo's Marcus: Harvard-Grad Mrs. Spitzer 'Serious Person' Not Some Tammy Wynette
By Mark Finkelstein | March 11, 2008 | 5:15 PM EDT

In a revealing moment of MSM elitism, WaPo editorialist Ruth Marcus, discussing the decision of Silda Wall Spitzer to appear with her husband Eliot yesterday, wanted people to know Mrs. Spitzer is a Harvard law grad and a "serious" person, not a Tammy Wynette type.

Marcus was interviewed by Contessa Brewer on MSNBC this afternoon, and the pair turned to the question of why political wives tend to appear with their husbands who have been caught up in sex scandals.
RUTH MARCUS: I just don't think that we should also lump all these women together. And to use a line that got Hillary Clinton in some trouble back in the 1992 presidential campaign, Eliot Spitzer's wife is not some Tammy Wynette, stand-by-your-man kind of woman.
She continued . . .