Video: Michelle slams Smutgate, predicts Dems will take House

posted at 5:50 pm on October 27, 2006 by Allahpundit

And says the RNC playmate ad about Harold Ford backfired by making him look like “a pretty cool guy.”

Thus is the political role reversal between her and KP finally complete.

Barnett thinks the Webb/Allen race reached rock bottom with Smutgate. Not so.

Update: Ace calls upon the right to be as moronic and disingenuous as the left is:

Oh, Please… The normally sober Michelle Malkin is shocked, shocked that Allen is fighting back with Webb’s smut.

Yes, let’s by all means take the high road. Just make sure you read down to the end of that link to learn that Allen’s divorce files are being rifled through, and that the coming charge is that Allen once spat on his wife.

But yeah — let’s not resort to dirty tactics or anything.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

This is like some huge family fight.

EnochCain on October 27, 2006 at 10:14 PM

EricPWJohnson–

You are accusing me of being paid off because you disagree with my opinion? Who is paying me?

Pardon my language, but don’t leave bullcrap on this site.

Michelle on October 27, 2006 at 10:15 PM

Revolution…..ok ok….but the shot at McCain about the NVA docs pissed me off…..I don’t like McCains politics…..but if the NVA asked you to vote BLUE you would look like a smurf.

Limerick on October 27, 2006 at 10:15 PM

You are accusing me of being paid off because you disagree with my opinion? Who is paying me?

Uh, the usual conspircy theorist would say, the jooooooooos.

EFG on October 27, 2006 at 10:19 PM

Uh, the usual conspircy theorist would say, the jooooooooos.

…this page doesn’t need a “preview” function…it needs an audio blog functin…’cause “the joooooooooooos” would be hilarious!

…(heavy, Darth Vader-esque music, lots of bass) Who’s paying off Michelle (sound of James Earl breathing through a regulator)….

…the joooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooos…(get Ben Stein or maybe Gilbert Gottfried, maybe even Fran Drescher to do the voice)…(sneaky music and fade out)….

Puritan1648 on October 27, 2006 at 10:25 PM

Er..right, so anyone watch Battlestar Galatica tonight? Sounds like some folks in here want to be in the secret jury and throw poor Michelle out of the airlock into space. No, it’s just another case of McCainitis; righties doing their favorite thing; stabbing each other. I see nothing wrong with Michelle giving an honest opinion. What do you guys want? A very cute version of James Carville? No, I’d rather she call it as she sees it, then pray that she turns out to be wrong. We can have fun the day after the election and razz her while the dems file lawsuits and allege bad voting machines. Give her a break guys; disagree if you will but tone down the nastiness. And don’t even think about starting with me. I have partial moral authority (family member with Parkinson’s) and am above all but moderator criticism.

austinnelly on October 27, 2006 at 10:26 PM

I would be tempted to play devil’s advocate just to get a comment from Michelle. But I won’t. You go girl.

SnowKat on October 27, 2006 at 10:38 PM

Ford was at a playboy party, hanging with Bill O
It was in F L A after the superbo

When asked, he replied “Hef’s mansion was no place I’d go.”
and then a church chicken shit heart did show.

A corker of an ad exposed his lily liver
and then we all saw this chicken quiver

and cluck that, like Kerry, he was not at the party
before he was at the party, and him like football, and
oh whatever the hell you want to fill in here …

cms on October 27, 2006 at 10:41 PM

and I’ll need some confirmation on MM being a pedophile before I choose my halloween outfit. Thanks.

cms on October 27, 2006 at 10:42 PM

I’m going to keep the disagreement respectful and civilized; hopefully we can bring things back into the realm of reasonable discourse here.

In case you all haven’t figured out yet, I am pretty much a (figuratively) trigger-happy gung-ho maurader, absolutely hellbent-for-leather on pulling out the big (and stupid and irrelevant) guns on the democrats. In fact, the only thing I disagree with about this whole Webb revelation is the fact that I didn’t discover it myself!

Allow me, if I may, to explain why, with a metaphor:

When two people are in a competition, the rules must be agreed-upon beforehand. As far as politics go, I think boxing is a very apt description. If my opponent is using Marquis of Queensbury rules, and I am limited to kicking him repeatedly in the shins, it’s not really much of a competition.

As far as I’m concerned, the Democrats took off the gloves and started rabbit punching a long time ago. I don’t debate the irrelevance or stupidity of smutgate. Michelle and AP and I agree on every bit of it. But that having been said, I am all in favor of fighting dirty in any way short of illegality.

Democrats speak of “moral victory” when they lose. We can do better than that, people. Can you just hear it? On November eighth, Karl Rove saying, “Well, we lost the house and senate, and our commander-in-chief is essentially a two-year lame duck, but at least we fought clean?” Aw, come on!

gryphon202 on October 27, 2006 at 10:43 PM

Michelle,

If I offended you or implied you were paid off – I stand corrected

But….

Just stating facts – are you paid by Fox News or do you appear for free? Also are you viewed as conservative or liberal and does that persona make you a marketable personality? Do you get speaking engagements by being a fence sitter or by having strong positions?

If you were the least bit aware of Jim Webbs works the fact that Nancy Reagan completely disavowed him, his lying, his deceit, his consistent unsubstantiated personal attacks, You would understand that Jim Webb is not a candidate that will discuss his positions, his platform.

Attacking me threatening me with banning will not undue your Dixie Chick moment. Also, seems that many of the conservative pundit world disagrees with you as well.

EricPWJohnson on October 27, 2006 at 10:46 PM

The age old question…does the end justify the means?

Mankind has been wrestling with this question since the dawn of time.

For the long answer, try your local university, and get a PhD in philosoply.

For the short answer: It depends.

EFG on October 27, 2006 at 10:48 PM

I think it is time to dust off Ann Coulter’s How to Talk to a Liberal and read her point about criticizing fellow conservatives (especially on Fox News 11 days before an election). Dems love it when Republicans start doing this.

It seems to me people are more upset about the tactics rather than the content 11 days before an election of criticizing the “smut.” I’m sure nobody means any disrespect for the brilliant Michelle Malkin. But you should not hold off criticism when you think it is warranted.

And AllahPundit, it is not “staggeringly stupid” to point out what James Webb writes in his fiction. Look at the gains Dems made in the polls with the Foley scandal.

I’m sure most of us want strong national security. Dems will erode the Patriot Act and anything else conservative attempt to do to make us safe. George Allen is a rock solid conservative. So why try to derail his election by criticizing his campaign? We can be so sanctimonious that we end up having Webb be elected. What would Dems have done with the info?

One more thing: How do you think the MSM is now going to report this Webb scandal? They are going to have headlines like “Conservatives criticize Allen campaign” “Conservative backlash against Allen.” Voila, Republicans on the defense yet again, this time thanks to famous conservatives.

What could have sealed the election now becomes a liability. It is funny: Republicans know how to go after terrorists and foreign enemies without appeasement, but they still get sanctimonious and refuse to be ruthless against political foes. It is almost as if they would rather lose elections than offend Democrats.

januarius on October 27, 2006 at 10:53 PM

EFG Says:
The age old question…does the end justify the means?

You tell me, EFG. To what lengths would you be willing to go to keep the congress out of Democratic hands? Speak from the heart, my friend. Would you not be willing to morally sully yourself if you knew that, by refusing to do so, you would hand over the reigns of power to the likes of Nancy Pelosi?

See, this is a truism to me: The left must not have power. It’s just axiomatic! Doesn’t need proving or explanation! Just like “two parallel lines never converge or diverge” in plane geometry class. It’s the assumption from which all my political predilections flow.

gryphon202 on October 27, 2006 at 10:53 PM

Methinks that the conservatives posting on this thread are rather deeply divided. Maybe we all need a huddle on this one. I suggest that the VENT group take up the topic at the next session (when La Shawn returns from California). That would give MKH, LSB, and KP a chance to rough Michelle up a bit (presuming that one or more of them actually disagrees with each her). Besides, in the interests of establishing their credibility, this group of four ladies needs to (finally) have (at least) one polite disagreement. As long as they behave themselves (and don’t act like Rosie O’), it could make for a very interesting vblob.

CyberCipher on October 27, 2006 at 10:56 PM

this crud is starting to sound like a DU site…..agree or die!!!!!………..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Limerick on October 27, 2006 at 10:58 PM

Limerick not really…because most of the people here would no longer be here if this was DU.

EnochCain on October 27, 2006 at 11:02 PM

Michelle,

i just watched your comments again and I must say, (and you can ask rightwingsparkle – I am – a big fan)

What were you thinking?

And thanks, with a daughter hoping to attend the military academies and the number of officers who say they were sexual assaulted using Webb’s official stance as reason, your complete glossing over it, you added about as much balance to your three minute critique of Allen as well as anyone from the Clinton administration could of.

“Grow up” was appropriate but Webb wrote the book, shopped it to publishers and got paid for it. He, also, has used his Vietnam experience as a focal point of his campaign, bringing up the book in his campaign, numerous times.

These are not sealed court documents, statements from political biased officers and comrades, these just were Webbs own words.

Please research Webb, interview on Vent some of the women brutally attacked at our service academies – women who have served their country in combat, defended me, you everyone and comeback to where you once were.

EricPWJohnson on October 27, 2006 at 11:06 PM

Topmaker, I disagree. There are lots of people on the fence here in Virginia, and I think letting the constituents know about the content of Webb’s novels will help Allen. There isn’t time for Allen to be the gracious opponent, and doing so would be going against his grain I suspect, after the press threw him under the bus for allegedly using the “n” word but gave a pass to Webb, who not only acknowledged using that word, but thinks all southerners do it! What an idiotic and baseless viewpoint.

There are elderly or religious or conservative Virginians who might be a little disenchanted with the war and therefore might have considered voting for Webb (because after all, our last 2 governors have been Democrats pretending to lean right). This news flash about Webb’s novels is like ice water in the face. That he would write this stuff is part of who he is, like it or not. I think it will absolutely help George Allen get re-elected.

And I don’t agree with Michelle on this one, but do agree that she has to be true to herself. Allah, as your loyalties to Michelle go, so do mine go to the GOP and my President. My fingers are crossed that America once again stands strong for traditional values and protection of our homeland, including by seeing the fight through in Iraq.

eucher on October 27, 2006 at 11:41 PM

This is ugly.

Get back to bidnizz, y’all.

Ugly on October 27, 2006 at 11:42 PM

…yeah, U…I dated a girl once who looked like this thread reads…I lost her phone number. I was actually the good looking one of the two of us. Do you have *any* idea how homely that is?

…really, y’all….

Puritan1648 on October 27, 2006 at 11:55 PM

That ad attacking Ford was hillarious. “Canada can take care of Nork Ko-rea. . . ” OH, MAN, I laghed so hard.

Troy Rasmussen on October 27, 2006 at 11:56 PM

Hey, MORON, hilarious is spelled with one “l”.

Troy Rasmussen on October 27, 2006 at 11:57 PM

I dated a girl once who looked like this thread reads…I lost her phone number. I was actually the good looking one of the two of us…

Puritan1648 on October 27, 2006 at 11:55 PM

Whole lotta woman.. whole lotta Rosie…

Ugly on October 28, 2006 at 12:19 AM

It appears that the east coasters may be turning in for the night. Interesting thread. I agree with thirteen28:

Look, Michelle is awesome for the conservative movement, and totally rocks on the immigration issue. However, she’s not above questioning, nor is she above being taken to task when we disagree with her. To do so is not insulting one bit, it’s just part of the debate.

wytammic on October 28, 2006 at 12:25 AM

Heh wow. I guess AP and MM need to drink more koolaid based on some of the responses above?

I applaud MM for calling it like she sees it and not giving Republicans a free pass when they do stupid crap. And believe me folks, Republicans are doing a lot of stupid crap atm. If I wanted someone to serve me koolaid I’d listen to Hannity or Rush. Michelle has been critical of Republicans over certain issues for a long time guys. Immigration anyone?

Bringing quotes from a book that’s fiction against someone is stupid crap. The Dems did it recently and it was just as stupid when they did it. It’s made up folks. It’s not real.

Benaiah on October 28, 2006 at 12:32 AM

wrong lik earlier, will try one more time funny take on webb

Scot on October 28, 2006 at 12:49 AM

Revolution…..ok ok….but the shot at McCain about the NVA docs pissed me off

Fair enough Limerick, I apologize for the NVA comment.

revolution on October 28, 2006 at 12:58 AM

Which was entirely expected, and yet she gave her honest opinion anyway.

You got a run-on sentence, there, Allah.

And since we have The Boss reading tonight, might I just add that you looked really, really great on Fox tonight.

Message sucked, but you looked great.

Jaibones on October 28, 2006 at 1:00 AM

Revolution? Paragraphs, man. For something that size, they ain’t an option. Seriously.

Your prose started out good, but I couldn’t continue.

You lost me EFG, could you clarify? “…they ain’t an option”?

revolution on October 28, 2006 at 1:02 AM

OK, I went back and listened again, and I must agree with AP that the comments are generally correct and not unreasonable, and bravo to the Boss for speaking her mind freely, as always.

For the record, Michelle, your prediction is nuts, and the GOP will hold the House (somehow) and the Senate. Also, where are you getting the DU notion that the Harold Ford ad is “backfiring”? Ford is falling behind, acting crazy/desperate, and has been exposed as the empty suit fraud that he is, no matter what Reynolds thinks.

The Republicans may be a bunch of queers and nitwits, but they’re OUR queers and nitwits…

Jaibones on October 28, 2006 at 1:12 AM

But do they want us to win?

White guilt, projection, self image. On a quantum level, are expectations always self fulfilling?

Scotsman on October 28, 2006 at 1:20 AM

Wow! Is this the boo-freaking-hoo thread, or what?

I won’t try to cover all of the bases here as it would create too big of a post, and I’ve got preparations to make for tomorrow’s local Get Out The Vote Parade, so…

Allah, you are quick to point out all of the potentially bad things that might be associated with the Foley debacle, yet the FBI recently admitted that they had yet to find that any laws were broken. House hearings are what they are; political witch hunts, and I doubt that anything relevant will come of this particular one.

Michelle, shame on you! I understand what you base your election prediction[s] on, but be advised that I am busting my butt to prove you and the MSM wrong, and there will be no living with me if I, and other conservatives succeed in our efforts. :oP

Allen was totally right in bringing forth the passage from Webb’s book. It is great when we have proof of a liberal candidate breaking the law, but in todays America those stories don’t get much traction [see Cigarman's Impeachment]. If you want to put a political candidate on the ropes you need something with sex, sex, SEX, and no matter how the leftists try to redefine it, putting a childs ‘sex’ in any adult’s mouth is sexual in nature, and pretty sick IMHO. Indeed, I refuse to dirty this thread by posting the exact words in that book. Webb is on defence today, and that is proof of how effective Allen’s disclosure has been. Success!

I’ve been a long time proponent of not attacking a person with personal barbs, but instead attacking their ideals. People, your words in print do you a disservice when you resort to name calling.
You do not need to resort. You are better than that.

Time for me to go dig out some tools, and get my cooler ready as we will be covering our entire county, and Michael Bouchard will be there at 9:00 AM to kick off the event.

DannoJyd on October 28, 2006 at 1:28 AM

Michelle, I just read this on your site:

I’m not getting much negative mail. A few “we have to fight fire with fire” arguments and “you are not a real Republican…I’ll never watch/read you again!” fulminations, but most e-mailers agree this stunt was so beneath the Allen campaign.

If your emails are like the responses you are getting on this site and others, you may want to check your email box, it does not seem like very many people are agreeing with you.

revolution on October 28, 2006 at 1:29 AM

Let’s see here. Some crackpot accuses Allen of saying the “n-word” and Hot Air has banners proclaiming that “Allen’s Presidential prospects collapse in fiery heap” and “this guy is done, done, done, beyond even the ability of a teary Robert Byrd-esque error-of-my-ways confession to save him”

Now it turns out that Webb likes to describe man-boy sex in his novels and Hot Air attacks Allen for it.

Perchant on October 28, 2006 at 2:20 AM

Now it turns out that Webb likes to describe man-boy sex in his novels and Hot Air attacks Allen for it.

That’s right. Because we’re filthy, conservative-hating traitors.

All you have to do is show me how Allen’s alleged use of the N-word was dramatic, not sincere, and I’ll promptly eat shit for my posts about it. Otherwise, compare and contrast:

“Let’s go kill that nigger.” — Nathan Bedford Forrest
“‘Let’s go kill that nigger,’ hollered Nathan Bedford Forrest.” — Mark Twain

See the difference?

Incidentally, if Allen had written these books and the left was making a stink about it, you guys would be with them 100%, right? Michelle would be on John Gibson’s show slamming them for initiating such a stupid scandal, but you guys would be here defending Kos and company to the death on grounds that Allen’s book proved that he “likes to describe man-boy sex”? I’m sure you would be. No doubt about it.

Allahpundit on October 28, 2006 at 2:59 AM

Let me just ask: is there no critic of Michelle’s here who’ll cop to the fact that he/she is defending Allen because he’s a Republican, and that if Webb were the Republican his/her opinion would be 180 degrees different? It’d make you a rank hypocrite, of course. But an honest rank hypocrite.

Allahpundit on October 28, 2006 at 3:05 AM

Let me just ask: is there no critic of Michelle’s here who’ll cop to the fact that he/she is defending Allen because he’s a Republican, and that if Webb were the Republican his/her opinion would be 180 degrees different? It’d make you a rank hypocrite, of course. But an honest rank hypocrite.

Allahpundit on October 28, 2006 at 3:05 AM

What? Do you see someone here who supported Foley’s actions?

As I’ve blasted several ‘republicans’ here at Hot Air I am certain you are not referring to me.

DannoJyd on October 28, 2006 at 3:10 AM

All you have to do is show me how Allen’s alleged use of the N-word was dramatic, not sincere, and I’ll promptly eat shit for my posts about it. Otherwise, compare and contrast:

How am I supposed to show which adjective describes a remark that is alleged?

Perchant on October 28, 2006 at 3:27 AM

There’s a big difference between writing the book, and exposing the book. How can one equate the two, and suggest the positions would so neatly interchange?

The luxury of idealism is in play until one has to answer the question ” do you want to win?” Sure the team’s imperfect, and we would hope to do better. But in may ways the Left is like the radical Islamists. They don’t play from the same (our) rule book, so why waste time in discussion and attempted reason as they plot our deaths? We’ll never win if we allow ourselves to get hung up on etiquette and propriety while they shoot to kill. The example is extreme, but the point is clear.

Scotsman on October 28, 2006 at 3:46 AM

WOW!

The knives are out tonight….

I do disagree with Michelle about the Republican’s chances. My sense is that the Republican base is going to be out on election day and upset a lot of pundits.

On the issue of Allen and Webb’s book. I’ve already stated on the other thread that I certainly understand that the words a novelist writes as part of dialog or plot development does not imply that the novelist either agrees with, or participates in, the practices described.

However….

Foley was a planned attack on the Republican base. It was planned and executed with malice aforethought. This Webb controversy is also aimed at the Republican base, in order to bring as many of them in to vote as possible on election day.

In otherwords, I see a major difference in the two attacks focusing on the target audience and the intended results, not to mention the difference in source.

Frankly, I don’t think it will have much impact either way. just as Foley failed.

But, it is important to remember that the Democrats sowed the wind with a bogus sex scandal. They started with the slime over Foley. And it is important for the public to remember this, at least until election day. This attack on Webb through his book as well as the backlash against the Democrats over Foley is just two examples of their reaping the whirlwind in return.

The attempt of the Democrats using Blitzer to bring Lynne Cheney in with a “moral equivalency” attack on her alleged lesbian sex scene in retaliation backfired badly. More wind sowing on the part of the Democrats, IMHO.

Further, it is clear that the Democrats intend to go even deeper into the gutter with some other rather pathetic appeal to moral equivalency. Since it didn’t succeed with Mrs. Cheney, they’ll just dig deeper for more.

I think the actions of the Democrats need to be answered, because smear ads do work, even though most of us personally wish they didn’t.

I think the Democrats must eat the whirlwind.

I remember that these last 6 years, the Democrats threw out so-called “scandal” after so-called “scandal” trying to destroy the Bush presidency. Jeff Gannon, Cheney’s hunting accident, Plame, Katrina, and so on, even to yesterday’s nonsense over what Cheney meant about “dunking.”

So it is fair to place most (if not all) of the blame on the Democrats for the destruction of political comity since 2000. They clearly want to drag the conversation into the toilet because they are desparate for a win.

And as I noted, negative political ads work.

So it is time. And if taking Mr. Webb to task over both his non-fictional anti-woman prose and his fictional explicit depictions of pedophilia, then so be it. After all, the Democrats didn’t hesitate to go after Allen over the “N-word,” allegedly uttered over 30 years ago.

To quote H. L. Menchen: “Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.”

If we don’t, then your prediction will come true and the Republicans will lose the house. So, it is time to fight back or be destroyed.

georgej on October 28, 2006 at 4:26 AM

I see a lot about ‘winning’ being important. Well it is.

So lets look at the global war on terror. We want to win that as well. Would it suit us to adopt all the ways, and methods of the enemy to beat them? If we, by our actions, became that which we hate, how is that a victory?

Michelle Malkin is correct to regard this tactic as low. She isn’t a Dhimmi for the Dems, to say so. Not anymore than we are Dhimmi to investigate, and if necessary, prosecute a Marine for a real crime. Right is right.

Personally I do believe that 3 out of 4 Democratic CANDIDATES (not voters) are vermin. The 1 out 4 that aren’t vermin, I don’t have figured out yet. Lets not let our manners become that of vermin.

Lets not be on the wrong side of freedom of the press. So Webb wrote some smutty fiction. So what? Before I got married I had a subscription to Playboy Magazine. Someone had to pose for the pictures, someone had to write the articles, and someone had to go to all of the parties I didn’t get to go to. I had to buy the magazine. So what?

Webb isn’t Bill (Osama who?) Clinton cheating on his lawfuly wed harpy. That at least was an act of breaking a solemn vow! It should have established to the voting public, that no vow was sacred to him. (It didn’t???)

We need to leave freedom of the press as a non-issue. NYT treason is different, because it is treason, and why they aren’t being prosecuted I don’t know. Hanging is to good …

Make fun of Ford all you like. That’s free speech also :)

We all know Michelle is an anti-Jihadist, Dhimmi exposing pit bull, while remaining poetry in motion. If truth was a WMD, this war would be over thanks to her. Thats why we may feel betrayed when she doesn’t do as we expect. It doesn’t make her wrong. Buying Playboy magazine doesn’t make you evil, and if anything, it’s evidence you aren’t worried about earning your 72 virgins.

And who wants women who put out for terrorists anyway?

Thanks for letting me ‘vent’

ValhallaMike on October 28, 2006 at 5:05 AM

If we are going to use a smut based arguements to win, I think we should publish nude pictures of Nancy Pelosi !!!

That should chill the Democratic turn out.

ValhallaMike on October 28, 2006 at 5:12 AM

Wow. I’ve been gone a few days and don’t like what I’ve come back to. I’ve followed Michelle’s work for a while. It pains me that some are giving her grief for not sticking to a strict, pro-Republican line, regardless of the circumstances.

One thing I think I’ve learned about Michelle is that she (unlike many on both sides) has a very clearly dilenated picture of right and wrong in her mind. Because she is conservative, that line usually falls along the Republican/Democrat divide. However, that is not always the case (such as her criticism of the pro-amnesty Senate and Bush in the recent past).

I may occasionally disagree with what she, Allah or Bryan say. But I would never question their sincerity or motivation. Republicans don’t have a monopoly on being morally right, just as not every Democrat is an evil America-hater (despite the way it may seem sometimes).

That being said, if we are ever going to see candidates campaign on the issues like they once did, we are going to have to start criticizing them for these sorts of tactics… on both sides of the aisle. Republican or Democrat, we all live in glass houses when it comes to this issue.

Sorry. I know I’m late to the game on this one. Just wanted to get my 2 cents in. And, no, I have not been paid for this appearance.

SailorDave on October 28, 2006 at 6:02 AM

That should be “delineated.” I feel this site shamelessly discriminates against the proofreading-impaired.

SailorDave on October 28, 2006 at 6:07 AM

All you have to do is show me how Allen’s alleged use of the N-word was dramatic, not sincere, and I’ll promptly eat shit for my posts about it. Otherwise, compare and contrast:

“Let’s go kill that nigger.” — Nathan Bedford Forrest
“‘Let’s go kill that nigger,’ hollered Nathan Bedford Forrest.” — Mark Twain

See the difference?

Allahpundit on October 28, 2006 at 2:59 AM

“Allahpundit is an asshole.” – Nathan Bedford Forrest
‘Allahpundit is an asshole,’ – hollered Nathan Bedford

See the difference?

I might. You might. Not everyone will.

Ugly on October 28, 2006 at 6:13 AM

Pepsi or Coke?

This is weird.

Ugly on October 28, 2006 at 6:28 AM

Update: Ace calls upon the right to be as moronic and disingenuous as the left is:

And the Republican Underground storms Hot Air.

Pablo on October 28, 2006 at 9:29 AM

Let me just ask: is there no critic of Michelle’s here who’ll cop to the fact that he/she is defending Allen because he’s a Republican, and that if Webb were the Republican his/her opinion would be 180 degrees different? It’d make you a rank hypocrite, of course. But an honest rank hypocrite.

Allahpundit on October 28, 2006 at 3:05 AM

You still don’t get it, just as President Bush didn’t get it for a while after he nominated Harriet Myers. When conservatives started complaining about his naive action, what was the Bush administration’s first gut reaction? The same as yours and Michelle’s: He used phrases similar to what you haved to describe those conservatives who dared disagree: “fulminating,” “right-wing,” “nutcases,” “hypocrites,” “stupid,” etc. In other words, he attacked the base instead of reflecting upon why the base was upset.

Instead of doing the same thing in yours and Michelle’s Harriet Myers moment as President Bush did in his (hurl insults at conservatives, just as Dems always do), perhaps you both should reflect why people are upset (perhaps ask Ian).

I’ll tell you why people on this site are so upset. Go to Ann Coulter’s Chapter 1 in How to Talk to a Liberal. She is the expert on the MSM and Dems, and she wrote the first book on media bias. Malkin Malkin did what Dems love conservatives to do–break ranks thus weakening conservatives–and Ann writes extensively about this. Just as momentum is finally shifting towards conservatives, Michelle goes on Fox News and breaks the unity by suddenly getting holier-than-thou about “smut,” thus jeopardizing a rock solid conservative’s chance at winning election.

She has the right to be upset, to give her opinions, and to criticize Republicans. But wait until AFTER the election, especially when this election is going to be seen as a referendum on how to keep our country safe. People are not upset that she aired her opinions on TV; it is simply the timing. Please reflect instead of insult.

januarius on October 28, 2006 at 10:07 AM

People are not upset that she aired her opinions on TV; it is simply the timing.

Oh, come on. Punditry is Michelle’s J-O-B. Do you think she should have told Gibson “Sorry, John, I can’t talk about Republican stupid campaign tricks until after 11/7″ or do you think she should have done the show and said something other than what she thinks?

Disagreement on the issues is all well and good, but I’m seeing an awful lot of lynch mob mentality around here these days, and THAT does not help us keep this country safe. It makes the right look unhinged. It’s especially ugly to be slamming the HA crew on THIER dime.

I suuppose Michelle should just shut up about the Republicans abject failure to take border control seriously too. You know, to help out the Republicans who are trying so hard to protect us…

Michelle goes on Fox News and breaks the unity…

Turn out the lights, the Party’s over.

Pablo on October 28, 2006 at 10:37 AM

Pablo- You are misreading what I’m saying. You know as well as I do that Dems and the MSM love to hear conservatives bashing conservatives, especially right before elections. So let’s not give them what they want.

George Allen stands for everything conservatives want for our country. Look at his voting record. He is not a McCain or others who are weak on border security. He votes; Michelle doesn’t.

I’ll say it again. To get suddenly holier than thou on “smut” 11 days before a key election even if it means sabatoging a conservative’s chance at election is not the thing our country needs right now. But I’m sure Honora and other liberals applaud what Michelle has done. Why do you think they do?

Oh, come on. Punditry is Michelle’s J-O-B. Do you think she should have told Gibson “Sorry, John, I can’t talk about Republican stupid campaign tricks until after 11/7″ or do you think she should have done the show and said something other than what she thinks?

She could have said the truth: It is disgusting that a candidate would be writing that type of filth. Do we really want our kids reading their senator’s work at the school libraries? What a role model.

No, she goes on TV and puts Allen on the defensive instead of the offensive. She is the one that chose the topic of smut. And suddenly getting so sanctimonious could cost a conservative’s job (doubtful, but possible).

Again, what would Dems have done with the info? Let’s face it, even though she is great, Michelle is not above criticism: And that line of hers about that commercial making Ford look “cool” was not her shining moment.

As for the prediction, she could have evaded it and said something like, “I don’t know; Rove seems awfully confident.”

januarius on October 28, 2006 at 11:07 AM

I don’t happen to love the dirty nature of the Allen/Webb campaign, but to get all outraged that this is the one thing that suddenly took it out of bounds is just nuts. Webb went dirty from the start, and set the tone of every other thing to come. He earned this.

As for the Corker ad, it is a shame that the opposition was able to get Michelle to focus on the one aspect that they wanted people to focus on, and to disregard the rest. For my money, the hunter saying ‘You know what, Ford is right, I do have too many guns’ was laugh out loud funny.

Defense Guy on October 28, 2006 at 11:22 AM

She is the one that chose the topic of smut.

Gibson brought up Allen’s allegations, not Michelle.

George Allen stands for everything conservatives want for our country. Look at his voting record.

So no one should talk about it when he does something stupid? Not. Gonna. Happen.

She could have said the truth: It is disgusting that a candidate would be writing that type of filth.

It’s a freaking novel ferchrissakes, and the passage in question describes not pedophilia but a relatively common practice in certain parts of the world. He didn’t write it into a children’s book, and he didn’t write about what a wonderful thing it is. This idea that this makes him a filthy pervert is not just wrong, but unhinged. He may be a filthy pervert, but you can’t tell it from that piece of fiction.

I don’t care for the guy, and I really hope he loses. But if this is the best Allen has to offer by way of making that happen, it is a sad state of affairs for the Allen campaign. This is just as stupid as the macaca story. Is this what you want from your Senators?

To get suddenly holier than thou on “smut” 11 days before a key election even if it means sabatoging a conservative’s chance at election is not the thing our country needs right now.

So we agree. Allen shouldn’t have done it. How is that Michelle’s fault?

Pablo on October 28, 2006 at 11:40 AM

I don’t happen to love the dirty nature of the Allen/Webb campaign, but to get all outraged that this is the one thing that suddenly took it out of bounds is just nuts.

I don’t really see any outrage, other than at Michelle for talking about it. She called it silly and pathetic, not reprehensible nor even gobsmackingly vile.

I like the Corker ad, and I think the point was to make Ford look cool…too cool. Like a liberal DC rock star instead of a sober, thoughtful legislator. On first viewing, I was wondering if it wasn’t a Zucker production. Pretty funny stuff.

Pablo on October 28, 2006 at 11:48 AM

Microcosm of the type of comments we can expect in this election season:

“Did you see that!? The ‘contested elections’ were displayed in blue! Fox is biased!”

Or better yet…
“Fox is trying to hide their conservative bias! Yes, that’s it! They arent fooling me!”

starflyer on October 28, 2006 at 12:59 PM

Topmaker, I disagree. There are lots of people on the fence here in Virginia, and I think letting the constituents know about the content of Webb’s novels will help Allen. There isn’t time for Allen to be the gracious opponent, and doing so would be going against his grain I suspect, after the press threw him under the bus for allegedly using the “n” word but gave a pass to Webb, who not only acknowledged using that word, but thinks all southerners do it! What an idiotic and baseless viewpoint.

eucher on October 27, 2006 at 11:41 PM

I apologize in advance for pasyting this much of your comment, eucher, but it was aways up the post. I’m not sure I made my point well, based on your comments. The fact that the information got out is fine by me. My problem is Allen later inflating the crap out of it, instead of trusting the rabble (us) to run with it. He injects himself into it so it becomes him vs. Webb. Changes the dynamic of the story considerably.

Allen will never be portrayed as the gracious opponent, period. If he loses, the media might ask why he didn’t go after Webb more, but will give him no credit for not doing so. Yes, they threw him under the bus. That’s what they do. You can call them on it, but don’t think that you can shame them at this level enough to see them stop. If the press backpeddles at all, it is long after the horses have left the barn (see the NYT and SWIFT), and then they just keep on doing what they do. The entire Bush presidency has been like this. The press parrots the Dems, the story is published as if accusation is fact, the facts get disputed, but no matter, they have long since moved on. They do it because it works. They have been doing it since before ’94, and they have much patience.

In my state, the radio and newspapers are all atwitter about Nancy Johnson’s attack ad against her opponent, Chris Murphy. They will not even mention that it is a response, or even a return volley, as they made little noise at Johnson being accused of neglecting the welfare of a crippled child. Her response is not only highlighted, it is treated as if there never was an attack by her opponent.

Ned Lamont starts his campaign by calling Joe Lieberman “Bush’ lapdog”, and that gets nothing from the press. Meanwhile they write articles about Lieberman stretching a point against Lamont and how he is slinging muck. Same with Simmons/Courtney, same with Shays/Farrell.

I’m saying that the situational awareness should include the factor of the press and the echo chamber they control. The right will always have their negative ads shoved in their faces, while the left will always get a pass. That’s just the frickin’ way it is. Allen does not get this. He may be justified, but if it backfires on him, who cares?

Every one here is talking about playing the game to win. The right has a decided disadvantage, and it may be a generation before it changes. That’s the fact, and that is what the Republican party needs to remember. In playing on par, Allen does himself no good.

topmaker on October 28, 2006 at 1:03 PM

I don’t really see any outrage, other than at Michelle for talking about it. She called it silly and pathetic, not reprehensible nor even gobsmackingly vile.

I will concede that outrage is too strong. However, she did ask for more conservatives to condemn the tactic. I would be more inclined to condemn it as silly if I thought that the people should not get to choose for themselves what matters in their vote.

I agree that it is almost certainly silly to judge Webb on these fictional writings. I say that because I believe that giving everything else we know, it seems doubtful that this represents a darker turn in the mans life that we did not know about. Everyone gets to make up their own mind on it, but not if they don’t know.

I’ll be voting for Allen because he best represents the interests of Virginia and of the country.

Defense Guy on October 28, 2006 at 1:08 PM

First, let’s examine what was actually said so we can all be on the same page. This is a very loose transcript. Please, anyone, correct it as necessary:

JG: What is that Allen’s charging him with now?

MM: It’s just sooo dirty John. I should have brought my wading boots today. I think this charge is particularly silly and I happen to be somebody who supports Republicans so condemning it should be something more conservatives do.

He took some of the more Blue, Graphic sexual passages in one of James Webb’s novels Lost Soldier, and I guess the argument, from a Press release published on the Drudge report last night, is that it somehow shows a demeaning attitude toward women. Now There is a Point about James Webb and his non-fiction writing about his negative attitude about women in the military but I don’t think the campaign should be directly trafficking in this kind of muck. It looks desperate. It looks pathetic and it looks so immature. I mean can we grow up? This is fiction! It’s made up!

JG: Will it Make any difference?

Unfortunately it might. I have heard from a lot of political insiders who say Webb is toast now because all people are going to remember is some of the more gross and disgusting, lurid steamy scenes. There is a pedophilia scene that has been distilled into his nickname.

I just have to say as a conservative, I don’t think the means should justify the ends and if this is the way any candidate is going to win an election it’s not something we should be cheering.

Second, we have to get beyond the idea that the MSM still controls the agenda and information. Those days are gone which is why so many of them are caught in classic death spirals.

TheBigOldDog on October 28, 2006 at 1:58 PM

You lost me EFG, could you clarify? “…they ain’t an option”?

revolution on October 28, 2006 at 1:02 AM

“They” are paragraphs. You need ‘em. They help break prose up into logical chunks. Usually they come at transistion points in your prose as you move from one idea to the next.

Like here. Now I’m moving to another point. Namely, even the bible has paragraphs. Yeah, they have a different name, ie, verses, but the idea is the same.

New idea, next paragraph. The bible is divinely inspired. By God. You get that? God uses paragraphs. God wants you to use paragraphs. So quit with the defying the will of God and make with the paragraphs!

EFG on October 28, 2006 at 3:09 PM

Let me get this straight…

Michelle gripes that candidate A is trying to use candidate B’s fiction as a smear. She makes it clear that politically she is on candidate A’s side, but sure wishes he hadn’t made this tasteless attack. She states that it looks desperate, pathetic, immature. She states that we (conservatives) shouldn’t cheer winning by such a method.

And now Michelle is called a sell-out, is accused of…

= stabbing republicans in the back (a later retracted comment)

= having faux holier-than-thou outrage

= playing into the left’s tactics

= making democratic dhimmitude comments

= playing a schtick to ensure her media viability

= not caring if the dems win because she will have more to talk about and make money from

= hitting the “bus” (conservatism) full speed with her bulldozer

= using her prestige to weaken her own base

Now before anyone calls me a bootlicker, AP can pull up at least ten posts of mine in the past two weeks where I disagree with him and/or Michelle. But this is “staggeringly stupid”. Michelle has done none of the things she is accused of above. She answered questions and expressed her honest opinion on a political topic.

Yes, she scolded people on the right during Foleygate, but only those who tried to EXCUSE Foley on the basis of the left’s dirty timing. She kept the concepts separate. She most certainly DID bash the left for the timing and the bad faith politics involved, while equally condemning Foley for being a creep. She also, if you remember correctly, bashed the left for trying to maintain the traction of the story beyond Foley’s resignation.

What Michelle is, regardless of how it seems, is consistent. If the right does something foul, she cries foul. If the left does something foul, she cries foul.

Let me put it this way. We all applaud Kirsten Powers for not toeing (yes, it’s toe the line, not tow the line) a strict Democrat line, and for keeping their feet to the fire when they are obviously wrong. She criticizes her own party and you call her courageous. Michelle criticizes her own party and you call her a sell-out.

Bogus, people. Disagree with her in principle all you want, but don’t call her names or impugn her motives, I hope you know better than that.

Freelancer on October 28, 2006 at 4:39 PM

Freelancer,

I agree with you that Michelle has fault the good fight and continues to do so.
And yes 2+2 equals 4.
BUT!!!!!!!! WHY IS IT COURAGOUS TO GIVE THE OTHER PARTY TALKING POINTS AND NAMES THAT WILL AGREE WITH THEM DURING THE LAST TWO WEEKS OF THE ELECTION CYCLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can we for once keep our mouths shut and support and after Nov 7th have at it, or am I just “stageringly stupid”.

Come on guys, Michelle and AP (I am new don’t know who this is he did send me an email) lets get our Men and Women elected. Then have at it, don’t let yourself become DC talking points.

Ross

kara26 on October 28, 2006 at 7:01 PM

Allen was right to use the novel passages and Michelle was being self-righteous on Gibson’s show. I sense about 75% to 80% of us agree on that, from what I am seeing on this site and others.

revolution on October 28, 2006 at 10:53 PM

Ross/kara26,

AP is AllahPundit, the guy who actually manages HotAir.

Beyond that, nice use of exclamation points. In the future when you apply less than twenty of them, it will be obvious that you lack conviction. /sarc

Can you seriously believe that the left would use Michelle’s words as talking points? Do you seriously expect that they wouldn’t already intend to lambaste the Allen campaign as childish and absurd? Are you really that afraid?

Look, which side has reasoned positions on the issues, instead of fear and negativism? Which side holds the values that founded this nation as the only ones upon which it can succeed? Which side believes in the individual, not the almighty State, as the real power that makes a nation work?

Why on earth would the side that can answer “Ours!” to those questions spend more time convincing the voters who to vote against, than who to vote for? Michelle wasn’t being self-righteous, she was being right.

Freelancer on October 29, 2006 at 2:08 AM

Freelancer wrote,

“Can you seriously believe that the left would use Michelle’s words as talking points?”

Not if they want to keep dissing her other opinions.

Michelle is one of a tiny few who restored my political faith, by speaking truth. Robert Spencer is another.

ValhallaMike on October 29, 2006 at 6:33 AM

Freelancer,

!!!!!! Theres a couple for you……

Look I don’t think Michelle is in the tank for anyone. Yes we have to stand up. No I am not scared.
I just have a differant opinion than you and the 20% & 30% that agree with you, AP and Michelle on this blog.

But WHY WHY WHY do we have to be so ready to bash our guys and gals, 1 week and 4 days before the election.

Do you serously think this is ok, like I said before from now to next tuesday, Kool-Aid for everyone choose you flavor and drink it up, and if your on TV MIchelle I just want you to imagine that big red picture and sing the Kool-Aid song for the next 9 days.

ross

kara26 on October 29, 2006 at 9:53 AM

Yep, I seriously think it’s ok, to say what’s right. It’s always the right time to do what’s right. Even just before an election. It’s called integrity, and you don’t suspend it just to win.

Freelancer on October 29, 2006 at 1:14 PM

Freelancer,

it is not integrity, it was her opinion there is a big differance.

kara26 on October 29, 2006 at 1:55 PM

Oh man. I was going to let this one sit, but I can’t.

What she said was her opinion. Choosing to say it because she believed in it displayed integrity.

Choosing to say it even if it meant disagreeing with her base showed integrity to her opinion.

Choosing to say it even though she wants the right to win and it was the right she was expressing disapproval of, DEFINES integrity.

You don’t stop doing what you believe is right just because in one case or another it might prove inconvenient. You don’t suspend honor for the sake of political expedience. It is exactly that sort of decision-making that has watered down the Republican party.

Freelancer on October 29, 2006 at 4:07 PM

Freelancer,

I for one am enjoying the debate.
No on said she should lie. No one said she should not have and opinion. But to take the holier than thou atitude is not integrity when (Once again) WE ARE IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS OF THE ELECTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (is that twenty)
Say it here, put it in your blog if you just have to say something, but don’t go on national tv and call Allen out with — “It looks desperate. It looks pathetic and it looks so immature. I mean can we grow up? This is fiction! It’s made up!”

If this was Allen that wrote the books, I think we would all agree that Michelle would be defending him. But in turn she is defending Webb.

My point is this in a nut shell – I don’t know if it was right or not. Allen has fault a good fight and has got smacked around in every forum. He desides to slap back and republicans are slapping him. Elections are dirty and they will continue to be. They have been for more than 200 years.
I am not defending Allen, I am upset that people have to think their smarter and speak there opinons on matters that they are not going to change with TWO WEEKS TOGO!
She could have lumped all the stuff together but she did not.

You don’t stop doing what you believe is right just because in one case or another it might prove inconvenient. You don’t suspend honor for the sake of political expedience. It is exactly that sort of decision-making that has watered down the Republican party.

Freelance the stakes are high and some times you have to take one for the team, step into the ball and take your base. Michelle swung, hit, center field, back, back, back, catch made at the wall. OUT!!

again Freelancer I am enjoying this debate, good spar my friend.
Lets toast to control of Congress at least, we will not change the others mind on this.

Later
ross

kara26 on October 29, 2006 at 4:48 PM

“…the Republicans abject failure to take border control seriously too.”

This is not correct: President Bush just signed the Border Fence Bill because of House Republicans.
And the Republican-led House killed that awful Senate immigration “reform” Bill, too which would have opened our borders to 30 million illegals.
Hardly “abject failures.”
If the House and Senate weren’t able to accomplish more about immigration, it’s not because they didn’t try or didn’t want to, but because they were thwarted by the Dems in Congress, who want wide open borders and complete amnesty because they think those illegals are going to vote for them and it will also necessitate large tax appropriations to keep the Welfare Nanny state funded to take care of them.

Jen the Neocon on October 29, 2006 at 5:07 PM

Allah

Michael barone has an interesting work

[snip]
Serious pollsters concede that there are some problems with polling. Americans have fewer landline phones than they used to, and the random digit dialing most pollsters use does not include cell-phone numbers. Larger and larger percentages of those called are declining to be interviewed.

Interviewers can inject bias in the results. The late Warren Mitofsky, who conducted the 2004 NEP exit poll, went back and found that the greatest difference between actual results in exit poll precincts and the reports phoned in to NEP came where the interviewers were female graduate students — and almost all the discrepancies favored the Democrats
[snip]

He also goes on to say that polls are extremely poor projectors of turnout

EricPWJohnson on October 30, 2006 at 12:54 AM

I would add that I have yet to see how our Armed Forces are going to vote. Anyone see that poll?

My ire is due in large part to my working my arse off to get Republicans to go vote. I was among this group last Saturday, and we spent the day giving out lawn signs, trying to create a bit of energy, and we did so across an entire county. Forget that it rained. Forget that it was cold. Forget that the wind kept tearing up our float, and I had to repair it several times. We did the work that most Americans don’t want to do!

Remember to vote on Nov. 7th.

DannoJyd on October 30, 2006 at 6:43 AM

This is not correct: President Bush just signed the Border Fence Bill because of House Republicans.

Yeah. Whoopee!

And the Republican-led House killed that awful Senate immigration “reform” Bill, too which would have opened our borders to 30 million illegals.

Right, that awful Republican controlled, Bush-backed Senate Bill. And the sensible House Bill stands where now? It’s stone dead.

Nope, they’ve failed to take it seriously and they’ve done absolutely nothing of substance about it.

Pablo on October 30, 2006 at 8:29 AM

Right, that awful Republican controlled, Bush-backed Senate Bill. And the sensible House Bill stands where now? It’s stone dead.

Nope, they’ve failed to take it seriously and they’ve done absolutely nothing of substance about it.

Pablo on October 30, 2006 at 8:29 AM

So I gather that you want to see democrats win, but isn’t that like cutting off your nose to spite your face?

The House had the bill that we hoped the Senate would follow up on, but instead we had our beloved RINO’s side with the liberals, and Bush. Less than half of the Senate Republicans voted in favor of that Amnesty bill, yet you would crucify them all?

If democrats win this is what we have to look foreward to…

The first 100 days if Democrats win

DannoJyd on October 30, 2006 at 9:35 AM

No, I’d like to see the Republicans win and do something about the border. But while I think they’ll keep both houses, I’m not hopeful that they’re going to do anything about the border because they don’t seem to be very interested in fixing it.

Pablo on October 30, 2006 at 10:19 AM

As long as the President is more interested in a North American Union than in U.S. sovereignty, border security will fail to receive adequate attention.

The Senate bill was an amnesty plan foremost. Not even amnesty lite. Good that it was defeated. The House bill was much stronger, but where is it? Everyone is playing political football waiting for the election. I would think given the current climate that the Republican majorities would be trying to get ANYTHING done before they get kicked to the curb. Getting a few things done might be enough to make a commercial about and get reelected.

Tony Blankley’s column last week hits the nail on the head. Be advised that as of Wednesday the 1st that link will be to a newer column. Washington Times doesn’t give permanent links to editorial columns until they are archived.

Freelancer on October 30, 2006 at 12:16 PM

No, I’d like to see the Republicans win and do something about the border. But while I think they’ll keep both houses, I’m not hopeful that they’re going to do anything about the border because they don’t seem to be very interested in fixing it.

Pablo, I agree, but I look at it as just another reason for us to stay on the backs of our elected Republicans.
If they want to act like donkeys then we will ride them like donkeys.

DannoJyd on October 30, 2006 at 12:57 PM

oh whatever this is a political season. tactical disagreements don’t nessesarily corelate to ideological disagreements.

for what its worth, i agree that smutgate is stupid and gains us nothing. i dissagree that the corker ad backfired on us. i believe that the “race truther” “dog whistle” couter-attack backfired on them.

i agree with ace to some degree. i don’t think we should replicate “allen spit on his ex-wife” with “smutgate”, but i do believe that we should be more aggressive with promoting more substantive and defensible frames, such as that progressives oppose free speech, progressives hate america, progressives tend towards treason, etc.

jummy on November 4, 2006 at 12:52 AM

Comment pages: 1 2