Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Is Malkin the Columnist of Corruption?


Dear Michelle:

I know you will likely need months of therapy after reading this, but I just have to say:

I am terribly disappointed in you.

CultureOfCorruptionBookCvr Ok.  Maybe it won’t upset you, or you won’t even read this.  But you sure upset me.  For a long time I pointed to you as one of the conservative pundits who didn’t let passion get in the way of precision, nor opinion in the way of objectivity.  You’re book, Culture of Corruption (click on pic to order) was nearly as well documented as any Aaron Klein book while helping us to see the underlying patterns predicting the future of these “corruptocrats.”  Frankly, you had risen to “heroine” status in my eyes by using the “Big Stick of Truth” like a laser.

But you’re piece on Santorum?  Not so much.

Of course, you’re entitled to have your “guy” in the race and put the best spin on him as possible.  If I thought Santorum would have even the remotest chance of inspiring the Tea Party to follow him (let alone the GOP and the general electorate) I would likely be spending much more time on promoting him myself. But you are showing the very dishonesty and lack of integrity of which you accuse Mr. Gringrich.

For example of Santorum you say,

Most commendably, he refused to join Gingrich and Perry in indulging in the contemptible Occupier rhetoric against Romney. Character and honor matter. Santorum has it.

Wow.  Really?  Perhaps you missed this speech where he went all coal miner class warfare on Romney’s rump.  And is it ok for Santorum to use “Occupier rhetoric” to trash his “mentor” who swept SANTORUM into office on his reformer track record?  It would be funny how Santorum tried to downplay the greatest minority takeover since Benjamin Disraeli in the NH debate if we had an educated public.  But it was distorted and disrespectful.  How is that any better that what you are doing in your column?  Can’t you write how much you like little Ricky without completely distorting the facts on Newt?  (And there are many more issues of substance that are fair game than the dishonest ones you used.)

Worse, you have fallen into the trap now of having to not only defend crony capitalism that Romney and Bain engaged in buying government favor with cash, but also Obama’s 2012 strategy of promoting the false notion that Republicans defend the Enron’s and Bernie Madoff’s of the world worshiping the making of money over morality.   You’re charge that Gingrich is somehow akin to an “Occupier” alone is beneath you.  Remember, his famous response about OWS and the park the protests in?  It is Gingrich’s rhetoric that more closely mirrors Adams, de Tocqueville and Monroe, and yet you want to use this as a “wedge” to promote corrupt capitalism.

It is not like you to not do the research, so I’m especially shocked at your reprint of Gingrich’s very mature with the man who said, “You’re an embarrassment to the Republican party.”  Funny you don’t mention any FACTS of substance in trying to demean the former Speaker.  Forgive me but are you going all “Ann Coulter” on us now?  Now many have taken it as fact that Gingrich slammed Paul Ryan so you are not alone.  But it is beneath you to distort what really happened. Quoting myself from an earlier column:

  • David Gregory asked if Newt would buck public opposition to implementing Ryan’s plan IF IT WAS UNPOPULAR.
  • Newt was responding to FORCING the Ryan Plan on America the way ObamaCare was forced upon us.
  • Newt’s own newsletter PRAISED the Ryan plan 3 days before this interview.
  • Newt had praised Paul Ryan over and over again prior to this.
  • Newt was GENIUINELY shocked, people took it the way they did.
  • Listen ESPECIALLY to the end of the interview. He is concerned about how to educate Americans who think they are entitled to free services TO TAKE PERSONALY RESPONSIBILTY! The same subject as his course that the Democrats tried to lay the ethics charges on!

We all can be forgiven of our error if we don’t know the facts.  But now that you do, I am hoping that you retract the idea that Gingrich was somehow against the Ryan plan.  I admit – he failed big time on timing and clarification.  But at least unlike Romney and your candidate, Gingrich is quick to apologize for his mistakes.

You say you have no illusions about Santorum’s “big government” stances but oddly somehow nominate him for sainthood in comparison for Newt:

Then there’s Newt, who has long made a career out of trashing progressive Saul Alinsky while employing his tactics at every turn.

This must be the same “Newt” who while Santorum and Bachmann were demeaning Herman Cain’s 999 which was acknowledged as FAR BETTER than Santorum’s program by none other than CATO and Art Laffer, was asking his fellow campaigners to quit tearing down each other. 

When baited to go AFTER Santorum and others in the early debate – it was Gingrich who asked us to get back on the issues.  Santorum?  He didn’t even have the grace of Mitt Romney to not try to score cheap political points off of Drudge and ABC’s false smear from his ex-wife who herself had been cheating on Gingrich.  But you go ahead and reorganize history in a way that makes you feel better ok pookie?

You go on to lie about Gingrich’s embrace of Dede Scozzafava going as far as to suggest a Gingrich cabinet would include her, Al Sharpton and Al Gore.  Never mind the fact that Gingrich didn’t even know who the GOP had asked him to endorse and when Dick Armey called to explain what she stood for – he immediately retracted the endorsement and supported Hoffman.  Never mind that it was Gingrich who gave an impassioned 2 hour defense AGAINST Al Gore as the keynote rebuttal during the Cap and Trade discussions on the Hill.  And, although he has admitted the Nancy Pelosi idea was one of his worst, you are like narrow minded Southern preachers who exhibit all of God’s fury and damnation without any of the grace. 

Except when it comes to your own candidate.  In that case you conveniently overlook his degradation of women, and HIS attack on other conservatives and conservative causes including that against Jim DeMint.  And your supposed paragon of virtue then lied about it in the debate.

Doesn’t that paycheck from FOXNews require you be even slightly “fair” and “balanced?” 

I suppose Santorum’s support of the most rapid pro-abortion legislator in Pennsylvania that has resulted in tax payer funded death to unborn children through Specter’s 60th vote on ObamaCare is MUCH more acceptable than Gingrich being too lazy to do his homework on an obscure New York congressional race.

But of course – that wouldn’t fit with your bias, so let’s just go ahead and gloss over that, ok?

I suspect that like many women, you still personally don’t WANT to accept Gingrich’s philandering past although American Family Foundation, Moral Majority founders and his own children who actually KNOW him testify to the change God has done in him. 

But you tell me which candidate will be worse off in a general election?  One who has tried to reach to those who disagree (as he urged Reagan to do when he refused to accept an invitation to the NAACP), or one who will not renounce his own campaign suggesting that women are not worthy to lead.

Other than that of course I’m sure Santorum is as pure as the driven snow in comparison to Gingrich when it comes to “crazy.” Unless of course you include the whole “adultery is the gateway to bestiality” thing.  Or his still unexplained ability to get a home loan rate he didn’t qualify for.  Or why his charity doesn’t even pass the BBB criteria for use of their collected funds, much less the ECFA.

But as you point out, at least he isn’t like the “establishment” Gingrich ….whom the establishment is in a fury to deny any chance.  And whom Pete DuPont, Paul Weyrich, Michael Reagan, and Thomas Sowell (you know, huge conservative leaders who made the way for you to have a conservative column and job) all say is Gingrich’s best trait to tear down Washington as usual.  I noticed that you listed the major Romney conservatives you admire, but not those who endorsed Gingrich.  Now why would that be?

Surely you couldn’t be the Columnist of Corruption.

You are right to be concerned with Santorum’s “big government” core tendencies.

Ok, I’ve now had my fun at your expense.  Do you now see how easy the game is when you have a bias?  I feel you owe the man who gave Rick Santorum his start in politics, a GOP majority from which to govern (which was wasted after he resigned), and who helped Santorum over and over in his re-election efforts a bit of an apology.

I have (and remain) a big fan.  It is a crazy primary season no doubt.  But an appeal on my behalf to you.  Is it necessary to tear down one specific candidate (falsely) to promote your own?

And isn’t that what you accused Gingrich of by saying he used “Saul Alinksy" tactics?

This election will be won on nothing other than “the economy stupid.”  If you are so enamored of Rick Santorum, perhaps you could him to explain why he has the weakest economic plan of all the candidates.  At the end of the day, it is all the GOP voters and the general electorate will care about.


PolitiJim, I am new to your blog but I have to say that I have been very impressed with your posts. Both you and Professor Jacobson of Legal Insurrection have rapidly risen to the top of my reading list. I want to thank you for your excellent work.

As you have stated, conservatives owe Malkin more than I can ever say for her outstanding work over the years. Having said that (and as your top notch post points out), she can seriously disappoint me, as well.

IMHO, it is particularly during Republican primaries when she exhibits her 'not quite so stellar' traits. Every candidate is a major disappointment to her and none of them are 'true' conservatives. If any of them have ever served in office then they are ipso facto part of the Establishment and, thus, part of the problem.

It is at this point that she brings out her (rather tiresome and over worn) "nose clips" and deems all of them to be unworthy of serving in public office. Nevertheless, once she has (reluctantly) settled on the least bad apple of the bunch, she has a tendency to gloss over their failings while railing ad nauseam against any and all real (or imagined) faults that she perceives in the others.

But my biggest criticism of Malkin is that she seems to enjoy backing third or fourth tier outlier candidates knowing that they have no chance of winning just so that she can then absolve herself from the winning candidate's inevitable future foibles, failings and faults.

I'm not prepared to call this cowardly, but note how this is a very convenient position for a political columnist to be in. She is now free to continue railing against the 'Establishment' without fear of ever having to accept any responsibility for having voted for 'it'.

(And, on the flip side, Michelle, for not having made a real difference to change it for the better when you had a chance to... if only by a little bit.)

Post a Comment


Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More