Tweet
“a brilliant writer and extremely articulate conservative.”
The Baltimore Sun profiles Michelle Malkin who’s just a suburban mom who enjoys sewing with her daughter, tying her husbands shoes (" helps her husband, Jesse, get ready for a run"), and stalking crippled kids families. My favorite part (and only because Jonathan Pitts glosses over her less than stellar work history) is this:
"Sadly enough, it comes with the territory," says Malkin, whose most recent book, Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild, argues that the political left, far more than the right, suffers the presence of "moonbats" — Malkin-speak for those fated to play out life’s hand with a less-than-full deck. "I’m used to it. But when you have kids, you have to be cautious."
As she makes snacks for her daughter and 4-year-old son, helps her husband, Jesse, get ready for a run and steals glances at an open laptop on the dining-room table, it’s hard to conjure the right-wing menace who inspires hundreds of venomous e-mails a week. "[You] ought to be shot between those Viet Cong eyes," reads one. "How does it feel to be a paid prostitute for the Republicans?" says another. "Go get some collagen injected in your lips, it makes you look more the part."
"Stirring arguments, aren’t they?" says Malkin with a roll of her eyes. "That’s what you resort to when you’re losing the debate — name-calling and ad hominem attacks."
Another way of losing the debate is to cut and run, as Michelle did when the New Yorker (moonbats, each and every one of them) attempted to also do a profile on her. From her email correspondence that she shared with her readers to show off how wickedly hot and in-demand she is:
Dear Michelle Malkin,
I am the editor of The New Yorker magazine, and I believe that you have
received some sort of contact from our office, but I just wanted to assure
you that our desire to write about you is serious and genuine. I can be
reached through email above or [phone number redacted].Best regards,
David Remnick*
On 2/16/08, Michelle Malkin wrote:
Thanks.
*
Dear Ms. Malkin, “Thanks…” but can we talk? I am at home at [phone number redacted]. Best, David Remnick
*
Dear Mr. Remnick,
Again, thank you for your reassurance that your magazine’s “desire to write about” my work “is serious and genuine.” I have no doubt that your writer is serious and that your interest in printing some sort of profile for your audience is genuine.
The question is: Toward what end?
No disrespect to you and your august publication (of which my beloved in-laws are longtime subscribers), but I have neither the time nor inclination to sit down with your staff Jane Goodall and serve as an anthropological specimen for The New Yorker’s readership. If I want to play ape for amusement, I’ll do it for my kids.
Best,
Michelle
Ooooooo. Snap!
But then again….
At least she knows her audience.
11 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About TBogg
RSS/XML Feed
“That’s what you resort to when you’re losing the debate — name-calling and ad hominem attacks.”
Except that for Michelle, why debate at all? “Cut and run” seems to be the more “honorable” option when she’s asked about her work. Remember that Max Blumenthal video about the 2007 CPAC, where Max started asking her about her book, “In Defense of Internment?”
Now I’ve got that Monty Python song in my head:
“Brave Sir Robin ran away
Bravely ran away, away
When danger reared its ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled…”
Lady Michelle, Countess of Chicken-shit.
Michelle is clearly a spokesperson for the serious part of the conservitive movement.
(cue the cheerleading video, TBogg)
What a silly, awful, braying jackass she is.
Uhuh, so Michelle decided that — unlike the New Yorker — the Baltimore Sun was just dumb enough to run a fluff piece instead of a genuine profile of a [insert nasty invective here — it’s too early, not enough coffee yet]. So she took off the cheer leader costume, put away her Joe McCarthy action figure and sat down with them. And, behold, for once in her life, she was right about something — they made her look like the love child of Gandhi and Betty Crocker. Nice work.
Along with the ridiculous amount of face time playing the part of “serious pundit” on the EMESSEM, this sort of loving, caring profiling of “the human behind the persona” is what legitimizes bottom-dwelling scum suckers like Michelle.
Dear Baltimore Sun: after this total waste of paper and ink we all look forward to next week’s installment where you’ll have a real reporter do some of that, you know, investigationating and researchy stuff to find out the real facts about Michelle’s care for her fellow humans (hint; she doesn’t so much want to tie their shoe laces as torture them if they’re black/brown/gay/atheists/critical thinkers/not michelle).
So, “no disrepect to” David Remnick, except she won’t even pay him the courtesy of a phone call to explain why she’s too snotty to allow the New Yorker to do a profile of her (even though it’s an “august publication”). But she feels compelled to run Remnick’s correspondence, along with a rather tepid slam on his magazine, for the enjoyment of her less-than-august readership. “See? The New Yorker wanted to do a profile of me! Aren’t I important?”
Of course, it serves Remnick right, in a way, for considering that Malkin deserves anything other than scorn and derision.
Poor Michelle. The snot-nosed little brat is too dumb too realize that her rude behavior and snide little note to Remnick (of which she is oh, so proud!) just proves, once again, that she’s the asshole, not anybody at The New Yorker.
Dear Michelle,
I would like to do a story in my magazine, Cheerleader Illustrated, covering your background and ideology. We have tentively titled the expose “Irellevance and You: How to Cope”. I assure you we have the best of intentions. I’m assuming you have interned yourself in a camp somewhere in Idaho, therefore we are willing to meet you at the south fence for the interview.
Regards,
Chief Editor Hatmandu
“That’s what you resort to when you’re losing the debate — name-calling and ad hominem attacks.”
Well, she would know.
I guess the plan to be the next national media sensation a la Ann Coulter isn’t working out too well. Cool.
I live in the Baltimore area and almost choked on my coffee when I saw her picture in the Sun. Only read the first few paragraphs. It was in the entertainment section where fluff is a way of life. Baltimore is very provincial, which is part of it’s charm. It was one of those “hey there’s a celebrity in our area!” pieces.
The Sun’s editorial page is quite liberal.
Forget Malkin’s ego. The fact that The New Yorker felt compelled to write about Michelle is an indicator that the magazines standards have reached a new nadir in political coverage. NOTE TO REMNICK: Don’t bother sending the renewal notice.
Is that “Viet Cong” thing just more proof that we’re the Fascists?