Tag Archives: Michelle Malkin

International news

Far-right pundit goes after the ‘ghost’ of a statesman

1 Comment

I’ll just get this off my chest from the get-go: Michelle Malkin makes me sick.

The Fox News contributor and far-right columnist took it upon herself at a conference of fellow far-righties to attack the late U.S. Sen. John McCain, who she called a “grifter.” She said McCain, who died in August of brain cancer, didn’t do enough to secure our borders against illegal immigrants.

She was speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference, which has become a haven in recent years for far-right activists to vent their frustration not just at the rest of the country, but also at members of the Republican Party who don’t see the world through the same prism as they do.

Malkin said this to the CPAC crowd: “And yes, I’m looking at you, the ghost of John McCain. It’s the GOP sellouts, not just the radical open-borders left that is in bed with the immigration saboteurs. Those are the real grifters.”

Sen. McCain’s wife, Cindy (pictured above), fired back at Malkin via Twitter, saying that “You never knew @SenJohnMcCain. You should be so lucky.”

Indeed, Malkin and others of her stripe are making a lot of hay against those who favor increased border security but see no need to spend billions of dollars while seizing Americans’ private property to erect a structure along our southern border. And to what end? Illegal border crossings have plummeted in recent years, negating the phony notion of a “national emergency” existing along our border.

As for attacking Sen. McCain, Malkin and others of her ilk continue to act as shameless demagogues. Malkin’s “grifter” crack got her a standing ovation from the CPAC crowd. It didn’t do anything to advance the only solution worth discussing: comprehensive immigration reform.

national news, political news

Open your eyes to threats to Obama

barack-obama-serious-expression_1048371_ver1-0_1280_720

Michelle Malkin is one of the nation’s more fiery conservative columnists.

I don’t care for her world view, but I’ll read her essays every so often just to hyperventilate a little, oxygenate my bloodstream; it’s good for my physical health.

Today, the Amarillo Globe-News published a little ditty from Malkin that deserves a brief rejoinder. She writes about what she calls the “assassination fascination” since the election of Donald J. Trump as president of the United States.

Malkin talks about how all those meanies on the left keep saying they want to kill Trump. They’re echoing earlier meanies who said the same thing about President George W. Bush.

The only mention IĀ could findĀ in the column of President Obama came in a sentence in which Malkin asks why the president is silent on these idiotic pronouncement from aggrieved lefties.

http://michellemalkin.com/2016/11/22/from-kill-bush-to-assassinatetrump-the-return-of-assassination-fascination/

I’ll accept that as a good point. The president ought to condemn such talk.

However, let’s take stock of something else.

Nowhere in Malkin’s screed does she mention that Barack Obama received arguably a record number of threats against his life during his eight years in the White House. There were assassination threats being leveled constantly at the president. The Secret Service has been working diligently to examine all these threats against the current president.

Therefore, this “assassination fascination” isn’t a one-party monopoly.

I agree that such threat-making is dangerous and uncalled for. The lefties who say such things need to get a grip, take stock and understand the consequences of what they’re saying.

A columnist who launches into a partisan polemic, though, needs to understand as well that there’s plenty of guilt and blame that belongs to her side of this argument.

Why didn’t she condemn the Barack Obama haters for their equally shameful pronouncements? Oh, I know. It doesn’t fit her right-wing narrative.

Uncategorized

What's wrong with Meet the Press?

2 Comments

Michelle Malkin is a noted conservative firebrand/columnist whose views on the “mainstream media” are well-known.

I read her recent column on “Meet the Press”‘s ratings troubles and she lays the problem squarely at the feet of the host, David Gregory, who she calls a lot of names.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/23/nbcs_cognitive_dissonant_hack_syndrome_122382.html

She said he’s boorish, a “jerk,” he throws tantrums, he hates conservatives. In other words, he’s a “typical Washington elite.”

OK, I’ll accept her bias going in. My own view of Gregory’s troubles can be summed up simply. He isn’t Tim Russert, the man who preceded Gregory in the moderator’s chair on TV’s longest-running program.

Russert died of a massive heart attack in 2008 at the age of 58. NBC-TV went to great lengths to eulogize Russert, an everyman from Buffalo, N.Y., who went to law school, worked for Democratic U.S. Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan and Democratic New York Gov. Mario Cuomo before settling into the “Meet the Press” chair he occupied with such distinction.

Malkin’s recollections of Gregory’s hectoring of NRA guru Wayne LaPierre and Cardinal Timothy Dolan are vivid. They’re also accurate portrayals of the way Gregory often crosses an invisible line that is supposed to separate him from the issues he is covering.

I didn’t know about the tantrums or the boorish behavior until I read Malkin’s column (see attached link).

To my eyes and ears, Gregory just hasn’t met the standard Russert set with his equal-opportunity grilling of guests. He was tough on lefties and righties, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives.

The one thing Russert did so artfully was to research his interview subjects’ own statements. He would then use their words to make a point and ask them to clarify what they said. If they could, so much the better — for them. If they couldn’t, well, score one for Russert.

Malkin also noted that Russert conducted himself like the gentleman he was and it showed in the way he handled his tasks as “Meet the Press” moderator.

I also should add that a little self-deprecation goes a long way in the ego-filled world of TV journalism. Russert could poke fun at himself, such as when he told the story of when NBC asked him to fill in on “Meet the Press.” “What?” Russert would say. “Look at this face.” It didn’t matter. He knew his stuff and was good at what he did.

It is that legacy that is dragging David Gregory down. Pure and simple.

Uncategorized

Scandals know no partisan bounds

A word of caution is due to Republicans here and across the country as they watch the struggles of three well-known Democratic politicians.

Let’s not gloat, folks.

Anthony Weiner wants to run for mayor of New York. Bob Filner already is mayor of San Diego, Calif. Eliot Spitzer, the former governor of New York, now wants to become NYC’s comptroller. All three of them have made headlines for (in order) sending text messages and videos of a certain functional body part to women; groping and speaking hideously to female staffers; consorting with prostitutes.

Some Republicans are relishing the troubles that have befallen these Democrats. One noted conservative columnist and Fox News TV commentator, Michelle Malkin, recently tweeted about how silent Rep. Nancy Pelosi and other Dems have been about Filner’s difficulty; I responded to her with a tweet thatĀ advised her to cool the “partisan perv” talk.

The record shows that Republicans have endured more than their share of sexually related difficulties. To wit:

House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s extramarital affair with a staffer while he was blasting President Clinton for his own marital misbehavior; U.S. Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana becoming involved with a call girl; U.S. Rep. Mark Foley’s email flirtations with underage congressional pages; U.S. Sen. John Ensign’s marital infidelity; U.S. Sen. Larry Craig’s arrest (and this is my favorite scandal) for making indecent sexual advances to others inside a men’s restroom at aĀ Minnesota airport.

Let’s stipulate that all three men now caught in the sexual perversion vise — Weiner, Filner and Spitzer — deserve every bit of the scorn they’re getting.

Misbehavior by male politicians, though, hardly is aĀ partisan endeavor. Pols from both parties in recent years have garnered their share of infamy.

Ā