Dave Neiwert reminds us this is not the first time Michelle has turned her heels and fled:
Malkin boasted to the audience: “I’ve been openly engaging the other side in debate.”
She went on: “Their approach has been to censor me. As if the other side hasn’t had equal time already!
“What are they afraid of?”
I was there taking notes. Begging the question of how having someone to provide factual counter to her afactual nonsense constituted censorship, I thought it would be interesting to see just how openly Malkin in fact was willing to engage the other side in debate.
So I approached her during the signing that followed her talk, introduced myself, and asked her if she’d be willing to be interviewed by phone sometime in the next few weeks.
She said yes, and gave me her e-mail address.
A little while later, I wrote her at that address and asked how and when we could set up the interview.
She responded by asking me to just submit the questions in writing by e-mail.
I wrote back and said that, as a journalist, she should know that wasn’t acceptable. An e-mail exchange is not an interview, and should never be considered an acceptable substitute. (This is so for a variety of reasons, including the fact that there is simply no assurance for the reporter that the person responding in the e-mail is in fact the interview subject.)
I received no answer for several weeks. After waiting what seemed like a civil period, I wrote her again last week and asked if we could set up the phone interview. Still no response.
So on Thursday, I sent her a final request, and warned her I’d take the matter public if I didn’t hear back.
She responded this time:
Despite knowing that you have expressed extremely hostile views of me on your blog, I politely agreed to schedule an interview with you after you came to my book-signing in Puyallup. As I wrote to you in my Sept. 23 e-mail, I wanted to do the interview with you via e-mail. You chose not to send me your questions. End of conversation. End of story.
This is the clown these folks are praising for her ‘courage.’ She doesn’t debate, she doesn’t do interviews.
She flings feces. No wonder she has a gig at FOX.
*** Update ***
Is Malkin’s support waning? On her previous Frost screeds, 74 and 53 trackbacks, most of which approved. On her response to Ezra/Unabomber manifesto, only 22 (obviously this could change), and most of them mocking her. Her core blog support appears to have dwindled to Captain Ed (who really doesn’t even mention it), Wake Up America, Jimmie at the Sundries Shack, and Dan Riehl.
This is important, because Michelle and those like her have a vested financial interest in getting a lot of attention. Obsidian Wings has a piece up on Malkin and Coulter worth perusing, but the nut of it is that Michelle has figured that outrage sells. She isn’t pushing principled positions- she is pushing crazy, and she is pushing it because it has proven to be a lucrative gravy train.
chazaroo
Count your blessings. You could probably conduct the interview with yourself, you must have a very clear idea what kind of answers you would get from that pathetic fascist cunt.
Zifnab
It’s probably for the best. Do you really want to see Malkin challenged to a battle of wits? Do you really want to see Malkin try to be smart? I can’t imagine it would be pretty to watch.
whipporwill
Michelle Malkin
Crack Journalist with degree from “Novak School of Right Wing Hackery Journo Rag”.
Why are we as a nation sentenced to experience people like Malkin and Coulter in what seems like every daily news cycle? What crime have we committed to suffer this silliness?
If it’s out, I’m going to howl at the moon tonight.
pharniel
it’s be so hot i might have to put some saran wrap over my computer.
I deserpatly want these folks to suffer something horrible, like coming down, one by one, on the bad side of an issue and be otu there, alone, and ‘targated’
in my advanced age I am becoming far less of a nice person.
To quote the eponymous Dr. “I used to have so much mercy”
Jake
I know that written interviews are a no-no but in Brave Sir Malkin’s case having her replies in writing might have been priceless.
It probably explains her backpeddaling.
Davebo
Michelle offered him the interview, but via email.
He declined and wanted a phone interview.
Why didn’t Dave just park in front of her house and shout questions at her? Or maybe visit the neighbors?
The guy obviously knows nothing about citizen journalism.
Bubblegum Tate
Seriously. The least he could do is intuit her answers based on her kitchen furnishings.
Zuzu
“She isn’t pushing principled positions- she is pushing crazy, and she is pushing it because it has proven to be a lucrative gravy train”
—————————————
A-yep. Just like Coulter and the rest of the feces-flinging wingnutosphere.
Zuzu
“The guy obviously knows nothing about citizen journalism.”
———————————————
Not to be confused with actual journalism. Which involves standards and accountability.
Jon H
Coulter, on the other hand, has lately been castigating women in general (shouldn’t vote!) and Jews (should convert!).
I bet pretty soon she’s going to be on some show bitching about babies. “Babies are nipple-munching parasites, inherent socialists, they’re useless, they should get jobs and pull their own weight.”
The Populist
MY all time favorite Malkin moment is when she appeared on Hardball.
Here’s a transcript of her beat down because she tried to fudge the facts and for once Matthews decided to call her on it:
(Since it would be too much to post the whole thing go here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5765243/ to see the whole transcript):
MALKIN: He hasn‘t been subjected to this kind of heat. And as Willie Brown is suggesting, if he can‘t stand the heat from his fellow veterans, do we really want to trust him to stand up to Islamic extremists?
By the way, it‘s not just—not just these right wingers who have been questioning his record. The “Boston Globe” isn‘t, aren‘t operatives of the Bush campaign and they have said the same thing as the veterans did about all three incidents regarding the purple hearts. You were hammering Larry Thurlow about specific name.
BROWN: He volunteered twice. He volunteered twice in Vietnam. He literally got shot. There‘s no question about any of those things. So what else is there to discuss? How much he got shot, how deep, how much shrapnel?
MALKIN: Well, yes. Why don‘t people ask him more specific questions about the shrapnel in his leg. They are legitimate questions about whether or not it was a self-inflicted wound.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: What do you mean by self-inflicted? Are you saying he shot himself on purpose? Is that what you‘re saying?
MALKIN: Did you read the book…
MATTHEWS: I‘m asking a simple question. Are you saying that he shot himself on purpose.
MALKIN: I‘m saying some of these soldiers…
MATTHEWS: And I‘m asking question.
MALKIN: And I‘m answering it.
MATTHEWS: Did he shoot himself on purpose.
MALKIN: Some of the soldiers have made allegations that these were self-inflicted wounds.
MATTHEWS: No one has ever accused him of shooting himself on purpose.
MALKIN: That these were self-inflicted wounds.
MATTHEWS: Your saying there are—he shot himself on purpose, that‘s a criminal act?
MALKIN: I‘m saying that I‘ve read the book and some of the…
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: I want an answer yes or no, Michelle.
MALKIN: Some of the veterans say…
MATTHEWS: No. No one has every accused him of shooting himself on purpose.
MALKIN: Yes. Some of them say that.
MATTHEWS: Tell me where that…
MALKIN: Self-inflicted wounds—in February, 1969.
MATTHEWS: This is not a show for this kind of talk. Are you accusing him of shooting himself on purpose to avoid combat or to get credit?
MALKIN: I‘m saying that‘s what some of these…
MATTHEWS: Give me a name.
MALKIN: Patrick Runyan (ph) and William Zeldonaz (ph).
MATTHEWS: They said—Patrick Runyan…
MALKIN: These people have…
MATTHEWS: And they said he shot himself on purpose to avoid combat or take credit for a wound?
MALKIN: These people have cast a lot of doubt on whether or not…
MATTHEWS: That‘s cast a lot of doubt. That‘s complete nonsense.
MALKIN: Did you read the section in the book…
MATTHEWS: I want a statement from you on this program, say to me right, that you believe he shot himself to get credit for a purpose of heart.
MALKIN: I‘m not sure. I‘m saying…
MATTHEWS: Why did you say?
MALKIN: I‘m talking about what‘s in the book.
MATTHEWS: What is in the book. Is there—is there a direct accusation in any book you‘ve ever read in your life that says John Kerry ever shot himself on purpose to get credit for a purple heart? On purpose?
MALKIN: On.
MATTHEWS: On purpose? Yes or no, Michelle.
MALKIN: In the February 1969 — in the February 1969 event.
MATTHEWS: Did he say on it purpose.
MALKIN: There are doubts about whether or not it was intense rifle fire or not. And I wish you would ask these questions of John Kerry instead of me.
MATTHEWS: I have never heard anyone say he shot himself on purpose.
I haven‘t heard you say it.
MALKIN: Have you tried to ask—have you tried ask John Kerry these questions?
MATTHEWS: If he shot himself on purpose. No. I have not asked him that.
MALKIN: Don‘t you wonder?
MATTHEWS: No, I don‘t. It‘s never occurred to me.
demkat620
Because we have a press(other than Fox News) that thinks everybody’s arguments should be presented as reasonable otherwise you will be accused of “teh liberal bias”.
John Cole
If you want to see how off the deep end I was a few years ago, I defended Michelle for that Hardball appearance. Mind you, I was one of the few people on the right pissed off that people were questioning Kerry’s service, so I wasn’t peddling the Swift Boat BS, but now I watch that Hardball segment and clearly see what she was doing and think it was outrageous.
I guess it just took some time for me to clue in how these folks operate. Much the same thing happened when I was watching the Hunting of the President again a couple weeks ago. I remember the first time I saw it, I thought it was a bunch of conspiracy bullshit. I watched it two weeks ago, and I saw the tried and true formula they have been using successfully for years. Through that lens, my belief that Bush and company had nothing to do with the Swift Boat vets is laughably naive.
Live and learn, I guess.
capelza
Sometimes Chris Matthews drives me crazy, but when he really feels something, like the Malkin example, he is a righteous pit bull. I’ve seen him do this alot lately. Then, of course, he’ll go musshy, but damn when he’s on, he’s on like no other.
John Kerry should have told those bastards to say it to his face. It was the greatest mistake of his campaign..well, that and having absolutely no charm.
BFR
Dude, don’t be an ass.
Mike S
Malkin is a perfect example of the new Republicans. Cowards to the core.
ThymeZone
Of course. It’s made a lot of people rich, Limbaugh being the most obvious and famous example.
The great thing about Limbaugh is, he actually tells you that’s what he’s doing. In his words, it’s just “saying what people want to hear somebody say.”
As long as it meets that standard, then it’s good enough for any mass media outlet.
The Other Steve
Read David Brock’s book. Blinded by the Right.
That was the real eye-opener for me.
Alan
You think the Right questioning Kerry’s service was off the wall. Do you remember the NY Sun and others peddling the story that Kerry knew of plans to assassinate U.S. Senators back when he was protesting the Vietnam War? That’s the kind of idiocy that resonates with the RW fringe.
Jim
One step at a time, John. You can take this however you like, but in my honest opinion, you will be a dyed-in-the-wool liberal within five years. The more you notice the sheer pigs-rolling-in-shit awfulness of Movement Conservatism, and the power they still hold, the more you realize that it’s been bullshit ever since Nixon and you start to feel terribly betrayed. The news is slow these days, but I guarantee you, take a look back and you will realize that the leftist conspiracies were dead-on 95% of the time.
It’s kinda like when you first smoke pot after DARE, and nothing bad happens, and then you start taking ‘shrooms. It just gets better and better. But, unlike “moving on” from pot, your descent into raise-the-fucking-taxes-already / exorcise-the-Pentagon liberalism will prove inexorable.
Zifnab
Coulter gets big book sales. Ergo, she must be popular. If she’s popular, she’ll get viewers. If she gets viewers, we want her on our show. If we put her on our show, she sells more books, which increases her popularity, which in turn gives us more eyeballs when we bring her back next time.
So the cycle plays out until everyone gets sick or bored with the same bullshit they’ve been hearing regurgitated for the last twelve years. And finally, the eyeballs drop off and the book sales die, and no one wants to listen to her anymore.
But don’t worry, we’ll have a new media messiah once we find someone else to whore for the cameras. It’s really not hard. Look! Cindy Sheehan!
Mike S
A large portion of her sales come from discounts on places like Newsmax. As a matter of fact I think I read yesterday that they are giving people free copies.
mt
Eegads, if you were defending Malkin’s Hardball appearance I would have thought you were past the point of no return. It’s as if you’ve been reincarnated sans karma recoil.
Otto Man
Well, the market for “children’s books for adults” is pretty thin. No wonder she sells so many.
John Cole
Terri Schiavo. Torture. Surveillance. Prescription Drug Plan.
RSA
Entertaining reading, even the comments. It surprises me that of the commenters I recognize, none of them seems to have seen the light. Where are they all now?
jcricket
Wingnut welfare is well established. Billionaire nutballs like Scaife have been funding the hate peddlers for years.
Yet one more aspect of politics where Republicans are projecting their own weaknesses/failures onto others (their constant railing against welfare).
The Populist
Zifnab,
Who buys Coulter’s books? Certainly not mainstream folks that make things like The Secret such huge and lucrative hits.
She’s a welfare baby. Her books are bought in bulk by right wing think tanks.
Alan
And that’s the pundit to fringe circle-jerk which helped drive the GOP over the cliff. Another part is letting the religious right choose our candidates (they’ve got to be “pro-life”). Now when we hear our pundits and GOP leaders rail against Democratic Party spending everyone sane laughs.
jcricket
Don’t forget all the cheetos and spittle flecked keyboards. Those certainly play a part (i kid about the cheetos)
I believe the term is “cackles maniacally”
ThymeZone
Malkin is not the story. The Frosts are not the story.
This is the story. This is the true story of American health care, and politicans bought and paid for by Pharma money and HMO money.
This is what they don’t want you to be talking about. They don’t want you to know that they have foisted off a system that means instant ruin for American families like yours, and like mine, the day they get a bad diagnosis, or have a bad accident, or throw a clot, or have a baby with a birth defect …. because very big moneyed interests want it that way, and don’t care about you.
This is the Republican world.
Peter Johnson
You might want to hear Michelle’s account of what happened that night on Hardball:
The Stranger
This little Dave Niewart guy is whining like a little girl because he’s not important enough for Michelle to give an interview to?
What a sissy.
ThymeZone
What’s the real story here? The Frosts?
Or the Frists?
Cuzco
“Much the same thing happened when I was watching the Hunting of the President again a couple weeks ago. I remember the first time I saw it, I thought it was a bunch of conspiracy bullshit. I watched it two weeks ago, and I saw the tried and true formula they have been using successfully for years.”
I remember wanting to see that but never getting around to it. Just bought the DVD from Amazon. Thanks for the reminder.
This is way off topic but as a potential “hold your nose” Hillary voter, it would be interesting to hear what role you think Bill will play in her administration if she wins. I think he’ll have some important position but it will be her Presidency so it’ll be interesting to see where he ends up.
I’m kind of luke warm on Hillary but there is no question she’s smart and smart in the right ways. Still, I wouldn’t be too disappointed if she won. A Hillary win would also be followed by an explosion of fur, fangs and feces in the right wing monkey cage which will certainly be entertaining.
The Populist
Peter,
You really believe that nonsense? In her world anybody who would dare challenge her are liberals.
To me her credibility is nonexistent just based on that. I did read her reply as well as see the fallout on Hardball a few days later. She went on the show waiting for the right moment to spring that little gem of falsehood. Matthews is far from a liberal, btw. Last I checked he’s been Bush’s waterboy on many issues as well as fawningly interviewing Tom “I am the government” DeLay.
Sorry dude…Malkin’s excuses are not anymore believable than the MSM. I saw the show and she set herself up and lost bigtime.
The Populist
BTW – how can anubody bring anything on to Michelle Malkin when she doesn’t have her facts and she hides from legitimate debate?
Sorry, people do bring it on and the best she can muster is making fun of people and inspiring her legion to attack any dissenters.
RSA
All she had to say was, “People made this accusations and I find them credible.” Not just that somebody said something; they weren’t on the show. She brought up the topic for a reason, and she should have been clear about her view of whether the accusations were true or not.
Pooh
In my darker moments, I completely agree with what TZ is hinting at. The hypothesis goes something like: the reason the pols from both sides seem so obsessed with trivia and messaging and inside the beltway bullshit is that turning the population away from substantive examination of the issues is not just A feature, but The feature, and definitely not a bug. That way we are not really cognizant of the actual effects of any enactment. And regardless of which “side’s” agenda is passed, the powers that be (i.e. wealthy donors) win.
How paranoid is that? Yet I don’t feel crazy…
Pooh
Why won’t John Kerry tell us when he stopped beating (actually, MM would probably have phrased it “being beaten by” since he was a vaguely French, effete coward) his wife?
ninerdave
Nice try dumb ass:
Try a reading comprehension class.
jake
Brave, brave, brave Sir Malkin…
The Stranger
Try a reading comprehension class.
She was just placating the fawning little wussy boy.
Cuzco
Peter Johnson: “You might want to hear Michelle’s account of what happened that night on Hardball.”
I saw that episode and thought that Matthews was kind of a jerk. But the central point of what he was getting at isn’t refuted by Michelle’s account.
It was utterly transparent that Malkin was trying to push out the meme that John Kerry was a coward who shot himself for political reasons. It’s plain as day. Even in her account, she never brings up the issue of whether she actually believed that crap, focusing instead on how she was wronged.
Matthews was a putz but Malkin was actively attempting to push slander into the mainstream dialog for the sole purpose of damaging Kerry. Her claimed innocence is horseshit. She was on the show exclusively as a political operative and needed to be called on it.
The Stranger
The Populist Says:
MY all time favorite Malkin moment is when she appeared on Hardball.
Here’s a transcript of her beat down because she tried to fudge the facts and for once Matthews decided to call her on it
The lovely Michelle never said that the idiot Kerry shot himself in the foot. Tweety was trying to set up a straw man.
What the hottie was referring to was when the idiot Kerry got spooked by a noise screamed and jumped up like a little girl and shot the grenade launcher cliff face right in front of him. He wet his pants, too.
It was a self-inflicted wound, just as the gorgeous Michelle said.
Tweety knew it and tried misdirection.
ThymeZone
Nor should you, your reaction is a totally rational response to the situation.
Gus
Yeah, I noticed that in Malkin’s account she still doesn’t answer the fucking question. Pooh, that’s not at all paranoid. Anyone who doesn’t see that politicans are bought and paid for is blind. Oh, and my dad was lucky enough to get in a drug trial for his form of cancer. The drug in question stopped the cancer in its tracks. The kicker is that the trial period is over, and the drug costs $15k/month. Since more research apparently needs to be done, the drug isn’t approved for my dad’s cander by Medicaire, so he has to take a less effective substitute. I guess you could also see that as a problem with Medicaire and the FDA.
capelza
Please tell me “The Stranger” is a spoof.
Tsulagi
LOL! This probably from one of the dipshits who claims they see the “big picture.”
Put Cheney in a thong and he’d probably be seeking medical attention to help with a four-hour erection.
The Populist
Stranger,
Were you there? Was Michelle? Tweety was right to challenge her on that.
Oh and speaking of straw man arguments? Malkin is the queen of them since she can’t stick to the facts.
whipporwill
Capelza says
Maybe, but he is certainly a swift boater lying stack of shit.
The Populist
Cuzco,
While I didn’t think he was rude (He was fawning over her at the beginning of the interview!) he got angry when she was implying Kerry shot himself. It was a rare moment where Matthews showed some guts and called somebody on their b.s.
As for Malkin, I firmly believe she got way more acclaim from that one appearance than she deserved. I knew who she was, but had never given her much thought. There she is on Hardball, she insinuates a bogus point and voila, the host castigates her for it.
From that point on, I saw her everywhere.
Peter Johnson
Matthews really betrayed his bias that night. He doesn’t do so well around attractive women. Just ask Erin Burnett.
The Populist
Matthews really betrayed his bias that night. He doesn’t do so well around attractive women. Just ask Erin Burnett.
Yet Malkin is perfectly unbiased?
Argh…I wish some would take off the partisan blinders and call a spade a spade sometimes.
Rome Again
She’s been pushing crazy all along. Is she somehow related to Survivor’s Johnny “Fairplay”? I’m just curious!
ninerdave
You’re a spoof.
whipporwill
Johnson,
”
Matthews really betrayed his bias that night. He doesn’t do so well around attractive women. Just ask Erin Burnett.”
I’ve posted several times how creepy Mathews is around wingnut women in particular. And I’m certainly no overall fan of his.
But every now and then he actually practices journalism, and the night with Malkin was one of those. Your pals and your attempts to smear decorated combat veterans who happen to be democrats is beneath contempt. As are you, Johnson, or whoever the hell you are.
The Other Steve
and here I thought this is the true story of politicians bought and paid for by Pharma money.
All bundled in a little purple pill.
The Other Steve
Malkin is attractive?
huh?
John Cole
The definitive piece on Nexium is by Malcolm Gladwell.
I wish he wrote more often.
libarbarian
I would say that most men would consider Malkin physically attractive.
She acts like it too – like a spoiled brat who is used to getting her way because of her looks and popularity and can only react to frustration by (a) throwing a fit or (b) putting on the “I’m a poor innocent girl being hurt by bad people” routine. Anyone else think that she acts like the bitches in “Mean Girls”? She can go from 0 to “bitch” in 3 seconds flat, and then switch over to the “poor, innocent, and injured girl” equally fast.
Zuzu
John Cole said: “If you want to see how off the deep end I was a few years ago, I defended Michelle for that Hardball appearance. Mind you, I was one of the few people on the right pissed off that people were questioning Kerry’s service, so I wasn’t peddling the Swift Boat BS, but now I watch that Hardball segment and clearly see what she was doing and think it was outrageous.”
———————————————
Exactly. All you have to do is consider some of the actual exchange:
MATTHEWS: This is not a show for this kind of talk. Are you accusing him of shooting himself on purpose to avoid combat or to get credit?
MALKIN: I‘m saying that‘s what some of these…
MATTHEWS: Give me a name.
MALKIN: Patrick Runyan (ph) and William Zeldonaz (ph).
. . . .
MATTHEWS: What is in the book. Is there—is there a direct accusation in any book you‘ve ever read in your life that says John Kerry ever shot himself on purpose to get credit for a purple heart? On purpose?
MALKIN: On.
MATTHEWS: On purpose? Yes or no, Michelle.
MALKIN: In the February 1969—in the February 1969 event.
MATTHEWS: Did he say on it purpose.
MALKIN: There are doubts about whether or not it was intense rifle fire or not. And I wish you would ask these questions of John Kerry instead of me.
MATTHEWS: I have never heard anyone say he shot himself on purpose.
I haven‘t heard you say it.
MALKIN: Have you tried to ask—have you tried ask John Kerry these questions?
MATTHEWS: If he shot himself on purpose. No. I have not asked him that.
MALKIN: Don‘t you wonder?
MATTHEWS: No, I don‘t. It‘s never occurred to me.
—————————
Arrrrgggh. Not even the lying scum slowboaters claimed Kerry shot himself on purpose. Not even in that collection of lies they call a book.
And Runyon and Zaldonis sure as heck never said it, nor even implied it. Not even slowboater Hildreth, who is the only one to claim there wasn’t “intense fire” when Kerry won his second PH in Feb. ’69, makes such a claim.
Yet her entire butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-my-mouth defense later was that she was merely repeating what was in “the book.”
She deserved to be kicked off that show.
RSA
I really liked his book Blink. He’s a great science writer; interesting to laymen and even scientists in the area he’s writing about.
jcricket
Holy crap! How did I miss that one?!?
Remember that one of the biggest canards libertarians trot out to oppose single-payer is that big pharma would stop innovating because payments wouldn’t be as high. Looks like that’s already happening (I know, let’s make patents never expire, that would solve the problem).
Or, to be more charitable, you could eliminate about 50% of pharma spending (to be charitable) and not lose a single real innovation that actually helps people.
I have previously read that other countries with single-payer (or the like) do a much better job at using generics and keeping people on medicines that are actually proven to be significantly better (and cost-justificatory) compared to previous therapies (medicinal or surgical or otherwise). But I’m sure that kind of nuance escapes the haters.
laneman
cummon, don’t you
droolfeel kinda nauseous watching it But it takes all types,Tax Analyst
Malkin “attractive”? a “hottie”? “gorgeous Michelle”? Maybe in the “Bizarro World”.
Dude, I’m not a big fan of Chris Matthews, but I think he handled her lame-assed innuendo and conspicuous dissembling just about the way it should have been.
Now I hate to spoil anyone’s fun, but just before you get ready to watch MM again why don’t you try a cold shower? It’s obvious she gets you too lathered up to see clearly, and then your big, manly protective reflexes kick into gear and you want to protect “Poor Michelle” from those not genuflecting in the presence of her Goddess-like person. Hey, there’s a couple women out there in this world that do that to me, but I don’t necessarily form my political opinions from what they say.
Chris Johnson
Ye gods and cute little puppies.
I’d missed that Malkin moment completely. Go Matthews, apparently anything can have a spine when sufficiently insulted.
Here’s the thing. If Malkin had any faith in such a crazy pronouncement, WHY COULDN’T SHE SAY IT? Even as a matter of opinion- “Well, I think it’s possible that Kerry shot himself”?
“I wish you would ask John Kerry these questions instead of me”. Ye gods. Please take this handful of poo, and fling it, good sir. Oh no, I’M not touching it! You’re the one who has to fling the poo, because I said so!
So insulting. No wonder Matthews flipped out on her.
The Other Steve
I’d say on a rank of 1-10, Malkin is a 6. That is, it’d take at least 6 beers to find her attractive.
So slightly below average, but not horribly ugly.
The Other Steve
Plausible deniability. By saying “I heard”, or “They say”… She can make the claim, without really having to stand behind it were the claim later to be found to be untrue.
This wasn’t by accident. Someone taught her how to do that.
John's Minions
Sir!
Regarding Jim’s earlier comment, please don’t become a liberal sir! You’d just become what future generations will call a “neolib” and ruin your unique snowflake-ness!
Do you really want to be arguing the case for mandatory gun confiscation 10 years from now with a shitty porn-star moustache on MSNBC-5 (the cinquo!) with Olberman’s clone?
Stay classy sir!
Yes, we’ve seen the future and it’s a dark one.
The Other Steve
The 11:14 trackback… I’ll save you all time. Basically his argument is a repeat of the excuses offered a couple of days ago. No original thought, no insight, just repeating cliches.
Ned R.
I liked that trackback. He apparently has billions to spare. I asked him to share out but he moderates his comments, so alas my plea may never make it beyond his filters.
ThymeZone
His blogroll lists Don Surber as a “daily essential.”
The very idea of that just renders me speechless.
Don Surber, for crissakes.
David Neiwert
Thanks for this, John.
Davebo:
Michelle offered him the interview, but via email.
He declined and wanted a phone interview.
This isn’t accurate. I specified at the time we talked that I would call her and conduct the interview by phone. She agreed, then changed her mind.
David Neiwert
Incidentally, John, I don’t necessarily agree with the poster who says you’ll be a dyed-in-the-wool liberal in a few years.
You may just be like me: someone who is just profoundly skeptical of any agenda or storyline emanating from the conservative movement. I’m not really that much of a liberal, to tell the truth (I’m actually very pro-business and hold the anti-globalists, for instance, in fairly low regard, and am a real gun-control skeptic). I’m a strict law-and-order guy, which is why I’m a bias-crime-law advocate (recall that bias crime laws originated with the combined efforts of victims-rights and civil-rights groups.) In fact, my Marxist friends (when I was hanging out with economists) always regarded me as a conservative.
But with movement conservatives, simply calling out their bullshit and standing up to their nonsense makes you a liberal. I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that.
So I wear the badge proudly now. Just because I know all it really means is “not intellectually and morally bankrupt.”
Ninerdave
Yeah here’s what I left at that blog…which is awaiting moderation. I saw your comment there ToS, so I’m guessing mine’ll be ok’ed too…but…for fun…here it is:
rococo
I went off a bit at the trackback’s site. Here’s what I wrote:
Ad hominem is not argument. The messenger is not the message. Showing that the supporter of a policy is a “bad person” does not show the policy is bad. Even proving that the Frosts were cheating the rules of the SCHIP system – something clearly not the case – would not prove that SCHIP is itself a bad policy prescription.
But let’s be honest – this has nothing to do with policy prescriptions. If Malkin proved that the Frosts’ kitchen countertops were made of solid granite from the most exclusive mountain in Vermont, or that the Frosts’ grandparents had season tickets to the Opera and wore tophats, capes and monocles to every show, how would a reasonable person weigh that into a debate about the merits of extending SCHIP benefits? Logically he could not and would not. These facts could not make any difference in deciding whether SCHIP is good policy or bad policy. SCHIP’s merits can be debated and the clash of viewpoints would tell us something; any reasonable person understands that discussion of the Frosts’ relatives’ finances or 1990 wedding announcement placement is a waste of time on its own merits and ultimately tells us nothing about whether SCHIP should be extended or not.
I think the people attacking the Frosts are not doing it because they think proving something about them as individuals proves something valuable about SCHIP. I don’t think they’re that stupid. They attack to send the message that you shouldn’t speak out about certain issues unless you want people aggressively scrutinizing every aspect of your lives, down to your home decor, your neighbors’ opinions of you and your parents’ finances. It’s about showing people that they can be found by people who disagree with them. It’s about intimidating those who are identified as political enemies. It leads to bad policy decisions and worse it leads to a brutal and debased society.
Free speech and open debate are essential to democracy. They must be protected through cultural mores even more than by the Constitution. If I need to be afraid that I will be personally vilified or my house menacingly scrutinized by strangers simply by speaking out reasonably on an issue of public importance, then I will not speak out. Malkin knows this and thinks its good. I think we all lose something very valuable.
Where the Right is heading on these issues is not conservative, and you guys should think about this some more before you take it much further down this path. We’re headed towards some very ugly places, frankly, and you’re the ones taking us there without much thought.
John Rohan
I have a question. Exactly what purpose would a Malkin-Klein debate serve?
Are either of them health care experts? Do either of them have any medical training whatsoever? Are they tax experts? Elected officials? Or even running for office? It might be good theater, but it’s unlikely anything substantive would come from it.
At least Malkin seems to realize this. Ezra Klein doesn’t seem to realize yet that he isn’t an expert on everything; heck, he’s only 23 and barely old enough to drink (you can see more about his qualifications here)
If we’re going to have a debate about this, let’s see the current candidates engage in it, or get a couple of real health care professionals, not just professional bloggers.
Peter Johnson
I’ve never read anything on Klein’s blog that was at all surprising. It’s pretty much a rehash of typical left-wing talking points. And he didn’t exactly cover himself in glory with that whole Primary Colors anonymous fiasco. He has less credibility that Malkin. And Malkin doesn’t have that much sometimes.
rococo
“And he didn’t exactly cover himself in glory with that whole Primary Colors anonymous fiasco.”
That was Joe Klein, about 12 years ago, when Ezra was still in grade school.
Mr. M'Choakumchild
Watch for Malkin to change the subject with canned screed against Al Gore, Swedish Socialism, Swedish Meatballs,and even Swedish anti-catholic King Gustave Adolf (Adolf!!). I give six hours before gratuitous ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ crack.
John S.
As a matter of fact, Ezra Klein is very knowledgeable on healthcare, so he is definitely qualified.
The words ‘expert’ and ‘Malkin’ don’t belong in any sentence together, unless ‘expert’ is followed by a pejorative.
Punchy
This is easily the funniest thing I’ve read here in weeks.
over_educated
E.J. Dionee at the Washington Post is calling these jackasses out:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101101601.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Frank
So are Krugman in this morning’s NYT column and Karen Tumulty in Time. We might be witnessing Schiavo II: The Malkining.
Frank
Wrong Klein. You’ve really demonstrated your in-depth knowledge of Ezra’s writings.
Just because you’re writing under the name “Peter Johnson” doesn’t mean you have to be two times as dickish.
whippoorwill
Well, small wonders, I believe you may be coming around Johnson. Keep coming back and pretty soon you’ll be sucking down Lattes and bean sprout salad.
chopper
what, i never occured to matthews to ask a political candidate whether or not some crazy-ass accusations from way out in fruit-bat country are correct? why not?
and when is matthews going to ask malkin if the accusations i made in my book are true, that she built a time machine and went back in time and caused the holocaust??
Jake
I’m currently reading Tipping Point. Excellent stuff, but when I apply the hypothesis to the political landscape in the US, more than a little depressing.
Fruitbat
Mr. Chopper sir, I am offended by your insinuation that my homeland is in any way affiliated by anything that might be called crazy-ass. Except for the breadsticks we offer along with our pizza delivery. Those are some crazy-ass breadsticks.
The Populist
And Malkin doesn’t have that much sometimes.
Try all the time. Remember, there is no left wing liberal media and the rightie talkers are all about smears and innuendo.
Baskaborr
Populist, You thought you were making a joke but you got it exactly right. There is no left wing media, at least in the United States, and the rightie talkers really are all about smears and innuendo. Perhaps not so much innuendo, they’ve pretty well reached the point where no lie is to outragious to repeat directly and with a straight face.
The Populist
Baskaborr, no joke. I guess it reads that way (I write very stream of consciousness) but I like to remind those on the fringe right that the following propaganda are myths:
Liberal Media (not since they deregulated the ownership rules – even before it wasn’t all that liberal except for the fact that the pundits weren’t the meat and potato cons)
Free Markets (code word for making the richest get easier access to the market and strangle anybody who dares come up with a better mousetrap)
Rightwing talk radio is all about selling a propagandized message.
Patriotism or Anti-American is code word for those who don’t march lockstep with said rightwing talkers and far right politicos. Take this flag lapel b.s. for the best example.
Elitist is code for liberals to take pressure off of their anti-middle class, anti-small business goals. These folks call Soros an elitist, yet that man is not nearly as dangerous as the likes of Rev. Moon, Richard Mellon Scaife, Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh.
Deregulation = giving the richest more power at the expense of smaller competitors.
Tax & Spend Liberal is their favorite boogeyman. It’s a shame the lefties can’t point out how dangerous this worse breed of tax and spend REPUBLICAN is to this country. What, righties? You don’t tax and spend? Sure you don’t…borrowing large sums of money and leaving the bill for the future is akin to taxing and spending, maybe even worse.
Socialism: Argh…what’s that? 98% of America, regardless of their political leanings would NOT nor NEVER want socialism as defined. Like the word Liberal, they take this meaning make it into something bad to describe programs that use tax dollars to help the unfortunate. That is not really socialism since we still have supposed free markets and such. Since the socialized government cash goes into the pockets of free marketeers, how is this socialism?
Lastly, LIBERAL: Again, turn the word into something that almost sounds like code for a bad person or worse (a friend of mine likes to compare it’s usage to the N word). These definitions take a noble word and turn it into something sickening. I am not a liberal in my overall political leanings, but if I say something a far-righties disagrees with…wham-o…I am a socialistic liberal or something dumb like that. This is a liberal democracy. The constitution is founded on LIBERAL principles. If anything I have liberal viewpoints on society as in…let me be me as long as I am respectful of others, compassion for others, love of peace and prosperity for all.
Yep, I know you know these things, but I wanted to be clear that I wasn’t so much joking than being sarcastic.
Psycheout
I’m glad we’re finally getting some right leaning commenters here again. It makes the discussion here much more interesting. Echo chambers are so boring, especially leftist echo chambers.
TenguPhule
Factchecked.
CalD
You got it all wrong, dude. It she’s not Balkin’ Michelle. It’s Bawkin’ Michelle — as in bok-bok-bok, BAWK!
Chicken girl.
CalD
I meant Bawkin’ Malkin.