Video: Michelle slams Smutgate, predicts Dems will take House
posted at 5:50 pm on October 27, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 »
I don’t get it
Dems do this crap and they’re going to take congress
Reps do it and the Dems will take congress
I think Allen has indeed shot himself in the foot with this but after all the garbage he went through i’m actually happy with him fighting back. republicans are too likely to bend over and take the sort of attacks that allen recieved and not fight back. for once he did and now he’s a fool?
And re: Ford, I don’t have a problem with him going to a playboy party, he’s lucky, but by the same token he’s been very john kerry about it (I was for it before i was against it) and that’s what those ads were against. It shows hypocrisy and if he’s hypocritical in that what makes voters think he won’t be in his political action?
Defector01 on October 27, 2006 at 5:54 PM
She didn’t seem very comfortable, especially after being asked for a prediction.
I’m a huge fan of Michelle Malkin, but she didn’t seem very outraged at Dems for putting out the Foley “smut.” She claims that the Allen statement about Webb’s porno books does not have anything to do with campaign “issues,” but did Foley?
Most people don’t blog and don’t watch Fox. They get their news solely from the Mainstream Media, and before elections they will see TV ads. Therefore, with the exception of Republican TV ads, most people (swing voters) are solely getting Democratic propaganda. If Republicans and now conservatives like Michelle Malkin are too holier-than-thou to put out politically incorrect ads, like the Harold Ford ad, no wonder Republicans are always on the defensive.
Can you imagine what Dems would have done with it if Allen had written the books?
januarius on October 27, 2006 at 6:01 PM
The ad against Harold Ford Jr. was REALLY stupid. 5,000 people attended that party, even Bill O’Reilly was there apparently. It wasn’t a bunch of skimpy playboy models hopping around giving the male guests hummers. It was just a football party.
It made Corker look pretty lame.
Grebrook on October 27, 2006 at 6:01 PM
“Most people don’t blog and don’t watch Fox.”
Actually, 25% of Americans watch Fox on a daily basis, and I’m sure the majority tune in now and again.
Grebrook on October 27, 2006 at 6:02 PM
Gee I didn’t know Michelle thought “made up” incestuous pedophilia was ok and something Voters didn’t need to know about. You learn something new everyday.
TheBigOldDog on October 27, 2006 at 6:03 PM
Could she look ANY CUTER…sorry…shallow…but we NEED the SMART HOT WOMEN on point for us! Go Michelle!!!
seejanemom on October 27, 2006 at 6:03 PM
75,000,000 watch Fox News daily?
januarius on October 27, 2006 at 6:04 PM
And to keep her credibility, she can’t carry water for the RNC all the time. Perhaps CUTE isn’t the word she’d prefer….but own it girl…you’re CUTE! And aren’t we all glad????
seejanemom on October 27, 2006 at 6:08 PM
Well, i thought michelle and allah had gotten thier fill of stabbing republicans in the back, but apparently they’ve still got a few blades left.
Scot on October 27, 2006 at 6:11 PM
I don’t want to put words in Michelle’s mouth, but I would think that her prediction had less to do with the political ads and more to do with the general public opinion of the war in Iraq.
She can speak for herself, of course.
I think most political commentators are making similar predictions for the same reasons. Stranger things have happened, however, than for the Republicans to retain or gain seats in these elections.
God help us if we should be under a Democrat-controlled Congress and have a Democrat elected to President in 2008. Prepare for the United States of Islam.
Lone Star on October 27, 2006 at 6:13 PM
I’m not sure what was so offensive about that Corker ad with the Playboy bunny in it.
It was sarcastic.
It wasn’t racist, despite how badly some want it to be.
It was amusing.
What’s not to like?
Yeah, I know MM said it made Ford look cool. I don’t know. Maybe to the 18-25 year old single demographic. But I don’t think it made him look sympathetic to any other demographic.
And as far as it being sarcastic and amusing, well, that great as far as I’m concerned. Let’s face it, well all say we want serious ads, not attack ads.
Well, we don’t want a bunch of boring ass ads that look like bullet points on a black and white PowerPoint slide.
Does AP check his humor and wit at the door when he writes about political matters? No, he uses it to make his point. And that’s what the Corker ad did. As far as I’m concerned, there was nothing wrong with that ad.
EFG on October 27, 2006 at 6:19 PM
This may be just me but…isn’t it worse that he made that stuff up? If he was writing non-fiction and included that type of passage I wouldn’t mind so much. The fact that he can dream this up and think it belongs in a book is disturbing. I don’t think it’s too far out of bounds to let the voters know what kind of stuff has come out of their Senator’s mind. I don’t want a Senator that thinks up pedophilia and then writes about it. “oh, it’s just fiction” doesn’t cut any ice with me.
jdpaz on October 27, 2006 at 6:21 PM
Webb is derogatory in his non-fiction as well as his fiction, but there is no pattern? I must have missed something.
- The Cat
MirCat on October 27, 2006 at 6:23 PM
Sorry Michelle, but as I pointed out on another thread, save your faux holier-than-thou outrage, because you undermined your own position with this little bit from your own blog:
Quite frankly, I’m getting sick of this. When Foleygate broke, who did she bash? Republicans.
When this thing breaks, who does she bash? Republicans.
Where was her outrage when Webb was engaging in his Jew-baiting schtick? Where was her outrage when Webb’s “surrogates” were dredging up HS buddies who allegedly heard him say the N-word or stuff a deer head into someone’s mailbox? She seemed to have no problem when the campaign was sinking to this level on the dem side (but damaging Allen nonetheless), but now that Allen fights fire with fire by bringing up what Webb wrote in books that are a matter of public record, NOW she decides to speak up?
No, she doesn’t have to carry the RNC’s water all the time, but geez, this is getting ridiculous.
Maybe she can help soon-to-be Speaker Pelosi measure the drapes.
P.S. As a side question, where is she now on the issue now that it is abundantly clear that Foleygate was a complete orchestration from the get-go, after her repeated accusations that those of us who called it from the beginning were somehow excusing Foley’s behavior?
thirteen28 on October 27, 2006 at 6:29 PM
Actually, 25% of Americans watch Fox on a daily basis, and I’m sure the majority tune in now and again.
Grebrook, don’t you mean that 25% of those who watch cable news watch Fox News?
dhawbake on October 27, 2006 at 6:29 PM
Why do I get the feeling that Michelle is playing this shtick only to increase Republican voter turnout?
Niko on October 27, 2006 at 6:34 PM
Well, not merely cute, but Beautiful… Even moreso than usual today.
That nothwistanding I have to disagree with something: I thought the Ford ‘Playboy’ ad was a superb bit of political messaging. Two things are able to destroy liberals: Make them see and understand reality (which is darn near impossible) the other is to laugh at them or mock them in a lighthearted way…. Which this ad did very well.
LegendHasIt on October 27, 2006 at 6:34 PM
Just thought I’d share this with ya’ll though I don’t know where to put it. This is an ad for Rick Perry in TX. I think it is priceless.
http://www.rickperry.org/audio/MrWayTooLiberal.mp3
jematlock on October 27, 2006 at 6:35 PM
I think she’s playing this shtick because the whole Smutgate thing is, in fact, staggeringly stupid.
Allahpundit on October 27, 2006 at 6:37 PM
So was Foleygate, but she was only too happy to bash Republicans on that one as well, since fighting back was equated with “excusing his behavior”. Remember?
thirteen28 on October 27, 2006 at 6:39 PM
My earlier remark about michelle and allah was pretty rude. Sorry about that.
Scot on October 27, 2006 at 6:41 PM
I disagree w/MM. The republicans KEEP the house. You heard it here first! or 98th.
shooter on October 27, 2006 at 6:45 PM
I with you there, exactly. I’m a Virginia resident, and I hadn’t heard anything about this until the Allen campaign released this. To me, as well, this is disturbing that he could write such filth as fiction. This would be our senator, a role model. Any kid could pick up these books. They would be in all the school libraries.
MM’s Democratic-dhimmitude comments in the interview (fearing the wrath of Dems by doing what they do, not wanting to put out ads that Dems don’t like, not being politically incorrect, criticizing conservative Republicans right before an election) irritated me. She doesn’t think this is a campaign issue? But Foley was? What is she thinking? Like another poster said, she has really stabbed conservatives in the back on this one.
Another thing: MM thought the RNC ad made Harold Ford, Jr. look cool?! In what manner, a Bill Clintonesque way?
januarius on October 27, 2006 at 6:47 PM
Let’s just say if I were voting in that state and had been on the fence these passageS would have turned me away from Webb. It wasn’t just that one sentence, it’s over and over, indicating a certain freakiness. Granted, it’s not a political issue that we SHOULD be talking about, but when we’re given nothing of substance to talk about, this kind of stuff can’t just be dismissed.
NTWR on October 27, 2006 at 6:53 PM
Ford a “pretty cool guy”??
Quick! Michelle’s been hyp-mo-tized by the left wing propoganda flood!
10cc’s epinephrine STAT! STAND CLEAR! BBZZZZZZZZZZTTT!!
Ok, she’s coming around. Put her in the recovery room next to Hastert. They’ll be fine once they stay out of the MSM fumes for a day or two.
Put on a Pelosi interview tape. They’ll feel better if they can throw up.
Left_Behind on October 27, 2006 at 7:04 PM
Foleygate was staggeringly stupid? That pervert was telling 16-year-old kids he wanted to take their boxers off. Webb was writing fiction. Are you really so partisan that you can’t see the difference? Good god.
Allahpundit on October 27, 2006 at 7:07 PM
This is a lame non-scandal.
Maybe there is something creepy about Webb’s book (I haven’t read it), but if so I haven’t seen it described intelligently on the right. All I’ve seen is “it describes something gross, therefore Webb is just like Foley!” which is really stupid.
sandberg on October 27, 2006 at 7:08 PM
Hmmm…
I wish I could say that I thought this was a shtick, but I do not believe it is. To me, atleast, it seems as though Mrs. Malkin is playing into the left’s tactics, what they have been trying to do from the very beginning and that is turning us against ourselves. Maybe if Mr. Webb and his liberal cohorts had not been excessively trying to find “smut” on Mr. Allen first, we might not have to see such things. Now, on the actual issue, I do not really care who you are or what kind of “art” you are trying to produce, portraying children being fondled and molested is not something a sane mind thinks of and writes about for the “heck” of it, to me that is not art or in anyway amusing or entertaining, and I hope I am not the only one who thinks this way. It is sick and crude, and good for Mr. Allen and his bringing to our attention, now we know Mr. Webb is not only a racist, but he is also ok with writing and protraying lude acts against children in his writing for the sake of book sales to members of N.A.M.B.L.A.
I’m ashamed to say the least.
I really thought better of and looked up to Michele.
I really don’t know anymore…
lgodfrey88 on October 27, 2006 at 7:08 PM
Why not respond to mudslinging… by calling your opponent a mudslinger? It’s so crazy, it just might work!
Political pundits consistently underestimate the voting public, to their detriment.
sandberg on October 27, 2006 at 7:13 PM
You know, no offense to Michelle, but watch this lame segment and then watch the interview with Mark Stein - it seems clear that a vast majority of what goes on in the MSM isnt even worth the time to watch. That interview should be airing on the cable networks.
Resolute on October 27, 2006 at 7:13 PM
It’s NOT shtick. Some of you guys sound as nutty as the nutroots accusing her of that. Do you think she would ever give less than her honest opinion under any circumstances? Look at all the static she’s getting for this. Which was entirely expected, and yet she gave her honest opinion anyway.
As for this:
Yeah, Jim Webb and Michelle — ranking members in the NAMBLA fan club. Honestly, sometimes I understand why the left has the stereotypes they have about the right.
Allahpundit on October 27, 2006 at 7:15 PM
What was stupid about Foleygate was that it was made into a scandal for anyone other than Mark Foley himself. When the news of the IM’s came out, he was immediately forced to walk the plank and put under the shadow of a criminal investigation. That should have been the end of it right there.
But instead, it was played up by the left/media as a huge, Republican-wide scandal, and those of us that fought back (and you were originally in that crowd) by questioning the timing and the fact that those emails/IM’s were held until a politically convenient moment were chastised by Michelle for “excusing Foley’s behavior”. just sit there and take it. Have you conveniently forgotten about that aspect of the “scandal”? Do you not think that blowing it up into a party-wide scandal as the left did wasn’t stupid?
So let’s see - fighting back against left/media’s attempts to tar the whole Republican party with the same brush as Mark Foley even after they did the right thing and forced him to resign - too partisan.
Gotcha.
thirteen28 on October 27, 2006 at 7:19 PM
Damn lack of a preview function … there should have been a “We were supposed to just sit there and take it” in the middle of that.
thirteen28 on October 27, 2006 at 7:22 PM
But it is a scandal for other people if they knew about it and either covered it up or did nothing. That’s why people on the right are so interested in finding out if the Dems sprang it as an October surprise: the possibility that sat on this for political effect while kids were being victimized is repulsive. And it’s also repulsive if Hastert or his staff did the same thing.
Allahpundit on October 27, 2006 at 7:23 PM
You’ve got my curiosity up. What stereotypes are those and why does this thread help you understand how they are formed?
TheBigOldDog on October 27, 2006 at 7:23 PM
The stereotype that we’re reactionary and ignorant. Jim Webb observes a scene in Thailand of a father putting his son’s penis in his mouth; he writes it into a novel about Vietnam; and lgodfrey accuses Webb of selling books to NAMBLA and, by extension, Michelle of defending that.
Allahpundit on October 27, 2006 at 7:28 PM
Allahpundit,
Do not take me out of context, thanks, it would be greatly appreciated. I said sales TO to members, so re-read if you were confused, oh, and no one is saying she doesn’t have right to say what she feels, we are disagreeing and if that means we are disappointed that is are right, too. Now, if you did not plan on being criticized from time to time, because of that whole right to make an honest opinion, than maybe you should have started a BLOG, where ever is free to sign up and say what they want. If you would like to change this, DISABLE THE COMMENT SECTION.
Thanks.
lgodfrey88 on October 27, 2006 at 7:29 PM
Yes, it would be repulsive if Hastert and staff did the same thing. But from the get-go, there was absolutely not even so much as a tiny shred of evidence that they did, while there was tons of evidence that those who sprang this scandal into the public eye DID sit on it until the political effect could be amplified. And those of us who smelled that rat from the beginning were “making excuses for Foley”. Yes, that was staggeringly stupid.
It was also the kind of thing that took this campaign to the point where it is now. And when Michelle and other like minds on the Foley issue could have spoken out against the Dems for taking the campaign down that road, they chose instead to blast those of us who question their tactics instead.
But I guess since it was sprang on the public by “surrogates”, it’s ok.
thirteen28 on October 27, 2006 at 7:31 PM
This is getting pretty serious. I guess I had better do my part to add to the debate, by trying to channel the spirt of the inimitable frankj.
Why do you hate God, Allahpundit?
EFG on October 27, 2006 at 7:33 PM
How is there not a “shred” of evidence? Various former House staffers have testified that Foley’s predilections were known years ago and, specifically, that Hastert’s staffers had been warned before. Whether or not it’s true, I don’t know. But they’ve been holding hearings on it in the House Ethics Committee for two weeks now. Hastert himself testified for three hours yesterday. There’s certainly at least a “shred” of evidence.
Allahpundit on October 27, 2006 at 7:34 PM
How would everyone feel if the Webb books scandal had been brought to the forefront by the MSM instead of the Allen camp?
PattyAnn on October 27, 2006 at 7:36 PM
Where is there one iota of evidence that Hastert knew about the IM’s or emails other than the creepy “send me a picture” email? “Holding hearings” does not equate to “evidence Hastert knew” or of some grand coverup to keep Republicans in power as the left/media is asserting.
And what about the fact that there is plenty of evidence now that the operatives on the other side DID know about the IM’s/emails for quite some time and sat on them nonetheless? Does pointing that out now equate to “excusing Foley’s behavior” as asking questions apparently did then?
thirteen28 on October 27, 2006 at 7:40 PM
I am proud of everyone here for being able to voice their honest opinions without personally trashing/attacking another commenter.
I know all of us agree on nothing in this topic and I’m enjoying reading everyone’s thoughts.
PattyAnn on October 27, 2006 at 7:44 PM
What I would like to know is what should have been done in the case of Foley that wouldn’t have entailed legal risk? Seriously.
If I have a subordinate who people whisper to me that he seems to be inappropriately interested in male pages, what can I really do? Can I counsel him? With what? Rumors? If I put information in his counseling packet that accuses him of something like that, that I can’t substantiate with some sort of actual evidence, I’ll be the one who is going to be legally cruxified, not him.
Seriously, what sort of actions can you take, if all you have is rumors? We can say that it doesn’t matter, but unless I’m mistaken, it does. You gotta stay within the law, even if it sucks. Cops can’t just go arround busting people who the know are breaking the law, unless they have legal evidence they are breaking the law.
So I’m not trying to defend Foley, or even Hastert if he sat on evidence. But really, legally, what could Haster do?
EFG on October 27, 2006 at 7:46 PM
Thank you, EFG.
thirteen28 on October 27, 2006 at 7:48 PM
If Hastert had taken any public action based on vague “warnings” about a Gay Congressman who was overly friendly toward Pages he would have been crucified (along with the entire Republican party) for being reactionary, ignorant homophobes.
Now, if it ever comes out he was presented with any hard evidence and did nothing, he should be thrown out. To date, that does not appear to be the case.
TheBigOldDog on October 27, 2006 at 7:50 PM
Wow. I’m reading a bunch of posts from scared folks. Michelle is stating her opinion. She isn’t “playing into the left’s tactics”, or issuing “Democratic dhimmitude comments”.
As I see it MM cares about the conservative movement in this nation. As such, if she feels that the Republican party is making mistakes during a campaign she’ll say so, and she did. Her treatment of left and right is very different. She bashes the foolishness of the left, their disingenuous arguments, lack of logical alternatives, tautologies, non-facts, etc. She criticizes tactical errors on the right because she wants the right to stand for something real and positive, not just ANTI-LEFT.
Be wary of comparing actions and responses between this “smutgate” business and the Foley scandal. Congressman Foley actually communicated improperly with young men in his chain of authority, which is wrong no matter how you look at it. Webb wrote fiction that is crude, offensive, and disturbing to some sensibilities (including my own), but which is protected expression. Even if Foley is found to have broken no law, his actions and motives were ethically wrong and he needed to resign. Webb may find it was unwise to put himself in the public eye, where his writing is subject to negative exposure, but has done nothing wrong in a legal, ethical or political sense.
It really is a non-scandal, and in poor taste for the Allen campaign to use it, even as a counterattack against the Webb campaign’s own bad-faith tactics. I have other, better reasons besides “smutgate” why I would vote against Webb were I still in VA. This wouldn’t have altered my opinion in the least. Nor did the “gay hunting” alter my opinion of any Republican running for a seat.
As for Michelle saying that the anti-Ford ad made him seem like a cool guy, I’m sure she’s only referring to how it ends, with a blonde bimbo hoping she can hear from him again. An unintended consequence of trying to subtlely link him to immoral behavior is the inference that he’s desirable to a pretty girl.
Freelancer on October 27, 2006 at 7:50 PM
I’d say that about sums that up. “Staggeringly stupid,” indeed. And the fact that conservative partisans can guzzle the Kool-Aid as greedily as liberals shouldn’t surprise, I suppose. But it does.
Still … it does defy the imagination that some folks on my favorite blog can’t see the difference between Foley’s real-world sexual come-ons to minors and the behavior of Webb’s FICTIONAL characters. Might as well call Stephen Spielberg anti-Semitic for making a movie with characters that killed Jews. Precisely the same logic.
But whatever. I surrender to the Kool-Aid. It’s too strong.
I disagree with Michelle on one minor point, though: the Corker ad is *NOT* ineffective here in Middle TEnnessee, among its intended viewers. Trust me. Among the locals, it was effective.
Professor Blather on October 27, 2006 at 7:51 PM
Freelancer: very VERY good post.
What I see here today reminds me of the Polipundit implosion last Spring.
If I want a blog where no one - including the bloggers - are allowed independent thought, I’ll just head to DU.
But I’m taking Bethany with me.
Professor Blather on October 27, 2006 at 7:53 PM
Fiction is indeed fiction…and while the subject matter is disturbing, it is hardly a new phenomena.
Ugly on October 27, 2006 at 7:54 PM
In another comment elsewhere I addressed this. I think that it is possible that the ad might make him look cooler for the 18-25 year old singles crowd demographic. But I doubt any other demographic would feel the same.
EFG on October 27, 2006 at 7:58 PM
Michelle has missed the point regarding the way the “Call me” commercial is playing out. The revelation that Ford was at the party would have been nothing had not, the day before the ad aired, Ford done the Memphis Meltdown at the Corker presser, and then, the day after, got caught denying he was at the Playboy “Mansion” (which in and of itself is such a strained attempt to weasel out of it), only to, still later, state that yes, he was at the party. What people get out of this is not that he is a cool guy, but that he was too much of a chicken
shitheart to own up to it. Nerdy loser, loses by 8%.cms on October 27, 2006 at 7:59 PM
If you’re interested, go read ace of spade’s take on webb.
Scot on October 27, 2006 at 8:00 PM
This race hasn’t been about the issues, it’s been about who is the worse, more creepy guy- based on “testimony” about who allegedly said the N-word 20 years ago and other ethereal, stupid, and completely off-point topics, most recently the fictional characters written into Webb’s book by Webb.
Since the debate is not about how they plan to run the state but about who is more weird and creepy, I think the writings of one, fictional or not, and the spoken words of the other, fictional or not, are fair game.
Do I agree that this is what the debate should be about? Heck no!
But, this is what we, the taxpaying and voting public get served. Eat it up and ask for more…
See, this is why we don’t get great people running for office. Not many want to put up with the BS.
NTWR on October 27, 2006 at 8:02 PM
I suspect a lot of folks freaking out at the moment … don’t exactly read a lot.
If we removed every piece of fiction in which a character was explictly depicted engaged in violence or rape or sexual assualt or pedophilia … libraries and video stores would be rather small.
That’s why they’re called “bad guys.” Fictional characters. They do bad stuff. Then they get to be shot by Arnold in the last reel.
God forbid anybody here reads Stephen King’s “Dolores Claiborne” … or Alice Walker’s “The Color Purple” … or Grisham’s “A Time to Kill” …
Child rape in every one of them. I’m assuming none of the authors would be able to run for office now. They must be pedophiles.
Don’t get me started on Nabokov. Nobel prize be damned. Pervy bastard.
And whatever you do, don’t tell anybody how old Shakespeare’s Juliet really was. Heads will explode.
Allahpundit nailed this one: truly “staggeringly stupid.”
Professor Blather on October 27, 2006 at 8:03 PM
Webb’s fictional writings are relavant.
If George Allen told a Polish joke back in High School, the Webb campaign would have dragged it out into the MSM.
If I tell a nigger joke, am I racist?
Should that stop me from public service?
What about the fact that I’m black?
Most voters take the written word very seriously and therefore, whether it’s relavent to AllahPundit doesn’t matter as much as whether it’s relavent to the voters at large.
omnipotent on October 27, 2006 at 8:06 PM
Myself, I don’t like Congress wasting my taxpayer money and their time on endless weeks of hearings and investigations on anything be it Foley or steroids in baseball.
Allah, even if there’s evidence that some Congressmen knew about Foley, so what? Hastert said he did not and I believe him.
And no underage pages have come forward (and they’ve had the time, too) to attest to doing dirty deeds with Foley.
All we found were some inappropriate emails and Foley resigned and came out as a homosexual, but he stated firmly he didn’t have affairs with underage pages.
The point of the Foley flap was that in dirty elections, apparently, the written word matters.
So if Foley’s icky emails damned him, then turnabout’s fair play: Webb’s smutty books condemn him, too.
As they’d say in court, both attest to the men in question’s character or lack thereof.
Obviously, if the Dems are going to win this election big the way they keep saying they are, they have to win it “dirty” because they cannot run on where they stand on the issues.
The majority of the American people don’t like their stance on abortion, “gay” marriage, higher taxes, open borders and amnesty, no reform of Social Security and Medicare or cutting and running from Iraq, so they’re forced to rely on nasty “October surprises” like Foley, Macaca, and Michael J. Fox practically saying that Republican candidates are mean, evil people who want him to be sick.
I’m surprised that Webb’s smut can’t raise Michelle’s ire because you can tell from the way he treats his women characters in his books that he doesn’t think too highly of women.
BTW, Webb was one of the key playmakers in the whole Tailhook scandal, too which also dealt with men allegedly treating lady cadets in a nasty sexual way.
Jen the Neocon on October 27, 2006 at 8:07 PM
but not omniscient “relevant”
cms on October 27, 2006 at 8:08 PM
I was one of the first to say in in the initial thread, I think. It was stupid, and I am going to be SUPER-PISSED if we lose the seat because Allen decided to rock the boat in a race he was winning.
DaveS on October 27, 2006 at 8:12 PM
@AP
You should know the game by now. It’s perfectly acceptable in this weblog environment if readers insult you. But you, as a member of this enterprise, should better refrain from doing the same to your readers. Thus, the preceding is not really helpful, to put it mildy,
Some of you guys sound as nutty as the nutroots accusing her of that. (…) Honestly, sometimes I understand why the left has the stereotypes they have about the right.
So let me get this straight. We are surrounded by non-issues, but anyone who dare make some fancy book or some such an issue becomes (and I hope I understand Michelle and you correctly) a “nut”. Fine. The only conclusion to draw from that is that the “nuts” made an issue out of nothing, and that it’s best for Hot Air to point out that “the right” has some nutcases among them.
So effectively what you’re doing is that you drag a non-issue, i.e. the supposed nuttiness of parts of the right, into the spotlight. Shortly before an election.
I hope you’re aware of the fact that - in case the GOP loses one house or two - this reader here will be keeping track of your writing in the months and years to come, more precisely of the presumed posts lamenting the actual nuttiness of our times (P-e-l-o-s-i), and I will surely delight in pointing out to you over and over and over again that a great effort was made in this very blog to discredit the right, their voters, and their candidates, respectively.
No, I’m not implying that Hot Air brought about the downfall of the Republican majority. But you won’t have no one to blame but yourselves.
Niko on October 27, 2006 at 8:12 PM
Preview WOULD BE my friend……
omnipotent on October 27, 2006 at 8:12 PM
Craaaaappp. Now we have a spelling cop. Is this the DU or what?
I’m outta here. Enjoy your Halloween parties this weekend, you hell-bound Pagans!
NTWR on October 27, 2006 at 8:12 PM
Uh, Professor Blather, I’ve read all 3 of the books you cited and here’s the big difference from what Webb wrote: in Walker, Grisham and King, child rape was a bad thing, in fact it led to the virtual soul murder of the children in the story.
In Webb’s story, he talks about it as a good thing, as if what loving father wouldn’t fellate his son?
It’s smut and porn and truly sick-making.
Anyone reading Webb’s books isn’t doing it for the purpose of literary erudition or enlightment, I promise you.
Jen the Neocon on October 27, 2006 at 8:12 PM
BTW, neither candidate should be proud of how this campaign has been run…kinda reminds me of a Melrose Place episode.
omnipotent on October 27, 2006 at 8:13 PM
sorry, funny stuff on webb.
Scot on October 27, 2006 at 8:15 PM
Everybody keeps calling his book smutty. Is it true? Have any of you read it? I haven’t. The brief summary I’ve heard describes travellers seeing something weird, and being weirded out by it. That doesn’t sound smutty to me. But maybe it is. As I said, I haven’t read it. And neither have any of you, I’m guessing, which is why all this outrage seems a little overblown. It may raise questions but maybe we should answer those questions before freaking out and calling the guy a pedophile or a pervert.
sandberg on October 27, 2006 at 8:16 PM
Michelle are you getting a little to big for your own pants? Was it not you I heard a month or so ago complaining about Republicans speeking out against other Republicans during this election cycle.
Do you want us to win, Michelle or are you just faking it?
Think before you speek, you don’t care do you? So what if the dems take control gives you more to talk about and make money.
Thanks for showing your true colors!
kara26 on October 27, 2006 at 8:17 PM
Professor Blather on October 27, 2006 at 8:18 PM
Brilliant, kara.
Allahpundit on October 27, 2006 at 8:18 PM
Is all the debate here, preview of the Republican Primary? Suppose they have 3 candidates or so, can only imagine the debates. The Dems should be interesting to. No incumbents in the way. I know it is a change of topic, but reading all the arguments here, got me thinking what a Primary would be like in the future.
StuLongIsland on October 27, 2006 at 8:19 PM
NTWR
IT WAS FUNNY!
cms on October 27, 2006 at 8:19 PM
I love AllahPundit, Michelle and Bryan.
Keep up the great work!
Disagreements / arguements / discussions make this country f*cking great!!!
We don’t need to ALL tow the same line, do we folks?
Freedom of speech for all! (unless you have a penis in your mouth - sorry, couldn’t resist on a Friday afternoon.
omnipotent on October 27, 2006 at 8:20 PM
I’ve read it. Yes - you nailed it on the first try. The fictional character, traveling in backwater Southeast Asia, sees the described scene. It is indeed strange, he is indeed freaked out, and that is indeed the point.
The Kool-Aid’s strong for both sides, I guess.
But I sure wish people would at the very least quit insulting Michelle Malkin. I can’t even believe some of the stuff in this thread. She’s done more to help conservatism and Republicanism than a million message board commenters ever will. Sheesh.
Of course - she’s probably a pedophile? Right? After I all, I heard she read Lolita in college. Got a B+ on the book report, too. ;)
Professor Blather on October 27, 2006 at 8:22 PM
Its Ross Allahpundit and if she is not then argue the fact. I take your reply to be a little sarcastic.
Lets play ball for the team and then we can change the QB lets keep it in house, and she does not want to.
Ross
kara26 on October 27, 2006 at 8:24 PM
Is it just wrong to suggest people telling a brilliant published writer (and our kind hostess) to think before she “speeks” (sic) … should be heartily mocked for being unable to think through the word “speak?”
Fuhgeddaboutit. Who’s the libertarian candidate. A pox on both houses (oh, crap. That’s Shakespeare. Another well-known smut writer!).
I’m getting a beer. And I may just read a book, too. So there. Peace out.
Professor Blather on October 27, 2006 at 8:25 PM
kara26 on October 27, 2006 at 8:29 PM
No, I said it’s nuts to accuse Michelle of having given anything other than her honest opinion on Gibson’s show. Here’s the direct quote from my comment, which you conveniently abridged to make it sound like I was saying broader:
And yes, I stand by that. Criticism of me or Michelle is fine. Insulting me is fine too, provided it’s not unduly nasty or personal. But accusing her of being a liar by failing to give her honest take is not fine. There are plenty of places in the Net to smear her; there are whole websites devoted to it from what I understand. If anyone here wants to do so, please consult those sites instead.
Allahpundit on October 27, 2006 at 8:29 PM
And I sure wish people would at the very least quit insulting other commenters to start with.
Michelle may have done much “to help conservatism” (whatever that is meant to imply), but currently she’s using that prestige solely to weaken her own (and the GOP’s) base. So who does she expect to comfort her on election night? (Other than her hubby.)
Niko on October 27, 2006 at 8:32 PM
How are we insulting her? By questioning her on this and disagreeing with her take?
In both Webbgate and Foleygate, she chose to bash only Republicans. It was particularly disturbing in the former case because Foley was dealt with immediatly - bounced from his seat and put under investigation, and yet she equated any of us that questioned the timing of the scandal’s release with making excuses for Foley’s behavior, which was absolutlely wrong. And now, after months of the most vile mudslinging by Webb’s campaign, all the Jew-baiting and race baiting the the decades old (but completely unsubstantiated) allegations of his use of racial slurs, he finally throws some mud back … and now she chooses to speak up.
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.
If you think we’re insulting her by doing that, then perhaps you should stop referring to everybody that expresses a dissenting opinion as “kool-aid drinkers”, because it’s apparrent that you are doing the same, just from a different source.
thirteen28 on October 27, 2006 at 8:33 PM
Yeah, I would agree with that, and include AP in the list of people who are taking a lot of unnecessary crap.
Keep in mind this is their house, so it’s really freakin’ rude when a host invites you into his house and you promtly drink his beer, insult his intelligence, and call his wife fat and his kids ugly.
Seriously, tounge in cheek humor is OK and so is disagreement, but slagging the host(s) is crappy.
So when do I get my frickin’ megacommenter bonus card for all this suckin’ up? Seriously, how much a** does a guy have to kiss arround here to get a upgrade in commenter status? ;-)
EFG on October 27, 2006 at 8:33 PM
Professor Blather, I presume you’re addressing me.
It’s hard to tell because it was all in a quote box.
I haven’t read Webb’s book, but I read numerous passages posted on Drudge.
I’m a voracious reader, however and I don’t have to read the whole book to get the drift.
If I were reading a book and came across a passage like the ones under scrutiny, I would throw it in the trash with rubber gloves on as it is without literary merit, intellectual content or even entertainment value.
And even though I’ve read Grisham, King and Walker (who are not among the top tier of literary genii really), inter alia, I’m “staggeringly stupid?” How dare you! Who are you to defend Webb’s smut as “literature,” Larry Flynt?!
Webb’s stuff isn’t even worthy to share a shelf with Henry Miller, D. H. Lawrence or “Tom Jones” because it’s just plain icky.
Why is pedophilia and its “worth” such a PoMo phenomena? Thank God I don’t have children to worry about and protect.
Jen the Neocon on October 27, 2006 at 8:39 PM
I may not agree with Michelle but I think people are getting out of hand with the insults etc. I mean God forbid someone not keep in lockstep with everyone else.
EnochCain on October 27, 2006 at 8:41 PM
My last try to get through the guzzling. I need to guzzle a few beers.
Definition of Kool-Aid guzzling: turning your brain off because what you factually and logically know doesn’t agree with your political views.
Dissent is not Kool-Aid drinking; dissenting, for example, because you read on the Internet that George Bush planned 9/11 and you want to believe it - is Kool-Aid slurping.
Here, some of you are pretending desperately not to understand that fictional characters in fictional books do fictional things. You’re pretending not to understand it, because if you can avoid the obvious - you can use it for partisan gain.
In my favorite Tom Clancy book (Without Remorse), John Kelly/Clark’s girlfriend is brutally tortured and raped, all the details written graphically; later in the book, our hero cold-bloodedly murders the bad guys in wonderfully gruesome fashion.
To agree with you Kool-Aid drinkers … I have to truly believe that Tom Clancy at least fantasizes about torture, rape, and murder. And I certainly have to believe those passages in his book should be used against him, if ever ran for office.
That is, as Allah said, STAGGERINGLY stupid. You know this. I know you know this. But you are pretending not to know this, because you want to attack Webb.
That is not dissent, or opinion. It is partisan Kool-Aid guzzling at its finest. If a liberal did it, you’d laugh yourself silly.
No offense. Enjoy the Kool-Aid. I’ll enjoy my beer.
Professor Blather on October 27, 2006 at 8:42 PM
@AP
even your unabridged version of that paragraph does not occlude the fact that indeed you did insult your readers by a very broad brush. Oh, and I vividly remember the ambulance chronicles on this very blog where you repeatedly did the same, so there is already a pattern …
I’d much rather prefer if you chose a more precise brush next time.
As for Michelle giving her honest opinion - I don’t think that the majority of the critics have a problem with her doing that. The point is that she’s seemingly becoming inconsistent. As someone above pointed out, Michelle did in actual fact lament in previous weeks that us right-wingers repeatedly shot ourselves in the feet but fighting unnecessary turf wars over non-issues.
Thus this specific critique by her, while being well-intentioned and reasonable on its own merit, seems not dishonest but arbitrary. Which leads to the question: Why does she still believe that she represented a major stream of the right, as evidenced by much of her writing and tv/vlog appearances? Can’t have it both ways.
Niko on October 27, 2006 at 8:44 PM
As I read these post, there is more defence of Michelle than there is for Allen.
We need the Senate and the House. Michelle can’t vote on Iraq, she can’t vote on taxes, on judges, on the border, on gay marriage and she should know that.
Lets get people elected and then Michelle can through her OPINIONS around like candy.
kara26 on October 27, 2006 at 8:46 PM
One last thing.
Some of you better start taking some big drinks of Kool-Aid or your going to be drinking alot of Pepto.
Because the next couple of years will be sickening.
kara26 on October 27, 2006 at 8:48 PM
I just now realized that Ford was black. When I saw the Ford ad I could not understand what all the “racial” accusations were about. I just thought it was about one guy trying to out moral the other. Man all this back and forth is making my head spin. Will someone who’s not running just for the power please step forward?
Jeesh…how may more days until the last “I approve this message”???
journeyscarab on October 27, 2006 at 8:57 PM
The GOP and Conservatism is truly a big tent.
I don’t criticize either Michelle or AP for their opinion nor think any less of them.
I can think of several times when MM has gotten extremely upset about things that I didn’t think were that bad, but I respect her right to her own views as I hope she and AP would respect mine.
I don’t think she’s right about this, but doesn’t that show that we’re *not* “kool-aid drinkers?”
I don’t think that the GOP or George Allen should make a big issue about this, however, but now that the offensive stuff has been put out to the public, let the voters decide if Allen’s the better man.
(Funnily, all the Dem October surprises have been happening to GOP candidates whose reelection was thought not to be a problem until the Dems struck with their dirt. Isn’t that curious?)
I truly don’t think that the Dems will take the House and it’s a stretch to say that Webbgate will lead to that, so I really don’t think MM should be airing this kind of defeatism, especially on the MSM.
Rush spoke about this attitude in some GOP circles that we “deserve to lose the House…because we’re bad”–Why isn’t it the Dems who deserve to lose? They’re the ones who’ve aided and abetted the terrorists and stalled, filibustered and thwarted every important piece of legislation in the last 6 years!
One can scruple about Allen releasing this smut written by Webb, but to then say we’ll lose the House “just because?”
I’m not going there and wish you two wouldn’t either.
Jen the Neocon on October 27, 2006 at 8:58 PM
“even your unabridged version of that paragraph does not occlude the fact that indeed you did insult your readers by a very broad brush.”
Oh, for Christ’s sake grow up. Are you a conservative or a bitchy little liberal whose feelings are always getting hurt.
Grebrook on October 27, 2006 at 9:00 PM
Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t get why what Allen did is such a big deal. I mean, Webb’s book has been out for about 5 years now. Hell, my grandmother could have gone to Amazon.com and “broke this story”. It’s not like he “leaked” anything or released “private IM’s and emails”.
vcferlita on October 27, 2006 at 9:01 PM
I think it was a great move to out the book. The voters on the fence need to know if there’s donkey manure on the ground before they jump that way.
Mojave Mark on October 27, 2006 at 9:06 PM
Predictions mean nothing..glad to hear she thinks that but what really matters is the actual vote. Does one win a prize if they predict correctly? Kinda silly..as for Ford ad,couldn’t disagree more..The best part of the ad was the reaction, not from the candidates, but from the MSM…the only way the ad would have backfired is if it had bounced Ford in the lead, which it didn’t! The MSM and left tried to make it appear that there were racist undertones to it, which there were not..
Pam on October 27, 2006 at 9:09 PM
Geez guys…….ya’ll sound like the fellas over at RedState. Sure I want to win, sure I am gonna vote Red, but I am concerned that we might not. I appreciate all the drum beating and pompoms but if you think we Rep’s aren’t walking a tightrope then you need to wake the hell up. MM stated in her blog she is voting Red. Doesn’t mean we can’t be disappointed in the way this campaign has been handled.
(I know-I know…….shhhh….quiet….you might upset the base)…
Limerick on October 27, 2006 at 9:16 PM
…dirty political advertising?
* Jefferson was accused of getting jiggy with one of his slaves (maybe, but probably his brother)…
* Jackson’s wife was accused of bigamy for not having actually divorcing her first husband before marrying “Old Hick’ry” (legally true, an oversight?)…
* Cleveland was accused of having an “love child” as a young man in the 1884 election, where folks would go to his campaign stops and chant “Ma, Ma, where’s my Pa?” (he was evidently one of the kid’s mother’s “suitors”, but did pay child support)…
* McKinley was almost forbidden to even campaign by his staff (which didn’t bother him a bit)…
* Then there’s the Goldwater “Daisy Ad”….
Lousy, rotten campaign tactics are nothing new. The whole “Smutgate” thing *is* nasty, but so is digging up 30-year-old recollections of whether a sitting senator used the dreaded “n-word”…so is playing the race card whenever Republicans are in the lead, as in the Willie Horton case (who was a villain, then was black) and now in the Hal Ford Jr. campaign in response to what is first and last a damned clever, amusing ad.
…point? This is nothing new in American democracy, and, while it may offend ones sensibilities, is pretty much standard fare.
What is more, as in the case of Mike Steele, if you let inaccurate and exploitative ads go, “rising above it all”, you look like a welcome mat…and, like Mike Steele, if you can come back setting the record straight, meeting crap with dignity, you gain friends.
*NOBODY* in politics in America is “above it all”. You hold your nose and plow ahead, hopefully aligning as a voter with the guy who’ll do the public’s business as you would have it done.
…oh…will the Dems take either house? I think that, the closer we get to polling day, the more we’ll know. Predictions at this point are worthless…it’ll be close…and the stakes are high.
Go, Michelle…go, AP…go, Steele and Corker and Allen…hail Columbia!
Puritan1648 on October 27, 2006 at 9:26 PM
Ford tried to wiggle out of the Playboy Playmate *party* by saying he had never been to the Playboy Mansion - not that he had never attended a Playboy Playmate *party*. So the ad addresses his rebuttal, and reinforces the dramatic change that ushering in Democrat control of congress will bring us.
Neo on October 27, 2006 at 9:26 PM
I’ll never get through catching up in this thread, so forgive me if this has been said before:
The mistake that Allen is making is the mistake Republicans always make when they try this kind of political theater. You need to have the press on your side, so they can run with the story for you. If not,you will inject yourself in the story too much, and that will be that. We saw it with Clinton repeatedly. The Press would find some dirt on the Pres and it would sting. The Republicans would say “This could be the one!” and inject themselves into the debate so far, they became part of it.
With phone tapping of Newt, the story the press told was of the substance of what was said.With the outing of the Kennedy emails, or whatever, the story the press told was about the leaker. they control the volume, they control the horizontal, the vertical.
Allen seems clueless about the innernets and the way the news works. The story had its own legs without Allen jumping in. On the Right,that’s what Blogs are for. Allen could be the Hero who says (in a voice too loud to be ignored by the press) “It would be wrong to chastise this man, for the sick, twisted, perverted fiction he wrote.” Before every debate, he could say “First of all, I want you to know that I truly feel sorry for all the ugly criticisms you have received about that unfortunate bit of fiction you wrote. I understand, because I have been attacked unfairly, and in a gross and offensive manner repeatedly during this campaign myself.”
There is no doubt that, were the roles reversed, this would be a huge scandal. The Press would be all over the substance of the allegations. Now, they are simply able to question the motives of the messenger.
topmaker on October 27, 2006 at 9:38 PM
Most gracious Allah (Pundit) has added me to the fold so I thought I would add my .2 cents. I have been following Allen’s progress for about a year and have been saddened by these unnecessary and frustrating digressions in his quest for the Presidency. This seat should not even be in play, but unfortunately seems to be. Webb is a disturbing person to say the least and I do disagree with AP (Allah Pundit) and Malkin that Virginia should not have been informed of this. They had forwarded it to the MSM weeks ago but they chose to protect Webb, as to be expected. It is trash, but it does demonstrate that Webb is a bit bizarre, to say the least. He was a Republican until he decided to run for the Senate. He was an avid Clinton basher until a week ago when Bubba was raising money for him. (Changing your worldview over lunch is not a good sign.) Now we learn that he has a dark side that is expressed disturbingly in his novels. Sen. Allen has been running on low taxes, ending illegal immigration not “comprehensive reform” (read: amnesty for 20 million +), winning the war on terror and a solid litmus of other core Republican values and issues and what has he gotten for it? Two months of Macaca! My view of Sen. Allen’s character has not been degraded in this. If he is at a fist fight and his opponent pulls out a knife, he is going to pull out his knife. The biggest issue in all of this that is really the focus of my thoughts is who in the world are we planning on running against Hillary in two years? Ghoulish Giuliani wants to remove babies from mothers ten seconds from their birth and throw them in the trash can. Not exactly a “paint the map red” view is it? Abdulla Mohammed McCain wants to make sure Al Qaeda members stay in the Beverly Hilton while awaiting trial for genocidal crimes against Americans and force us to watch ACLU grandstanding on a daily basis while the laughable trials are underway. And we shouldn’t question him, of course, because he was a POW once (who signed every America condemning document the NVA handed him). Abdulla McCain also scoffs at us for not wanting to say the Pledge of Allegiance in Spanish with our 50 million new “undocumented workers” friends that will be flooding our neighborhoods after he signs his whopping A-M-N-E-S-T-Y bill as President. That would be the GOOD news in 08, because if Hillary wins she and Bill can sell the rest of our military and nuclear weapons system secrets to China, we can guarantee unmitigated disasters in foreign policy when Aunt Maddy returns to State for more champagne diplomacy and dictator coddling, and get ready for the scandal flood gates to re-open. I have been watching the field for a year and I see NO ONE with any substance other than Sen. Allen. The macaca thing was very stupid and the novel verses were a definite punch below the belt (you get fouled and you keep punching), but is it stupid enough to reach for Ghouliani or Abdulla McCain? They simply cannot win (or we will wish they hadn’t) and a blood bath in the primaries could prove fatal for our WH bid (read: good bye Supreme Court, good bye low taxes, and hola amigos). Another Clinton WH is not something to take lightly and make us attack our own people for bringing a knife to a knife fight.
revolution on October 27, 2006 at 10:02 PM
Revolution? Paragraphs, man. For something that size, they ain’t an option. Seriously.
Your prose started out good, but I couldn’t continue.
EFG on October 27, 2006 at 10:05 PM
Michelles starting to make serious money and has to show impartiality to get paid speaking gigs
This is where good people go bad…..
The focus on Webb is that with just a little research this has been a pattern steming back years and years and years.
Michelle knows this, we know it, but somehow Virginia Doesn’t know it.
Now they do.
EricPWJohnson on October 27, 2006 at 10:07 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »