Predictability and lack of intellectual assesment seem to go hand-in-hand with Michelle Malkin.
Even after the facts have come out about the Frost family, even after it's been shown that one of Mitch McConnell's staff members distributed false information to the media, even after her own pathetic blog/tantrums have been exposed as, well, pathetic tantrums, Malkin just can't seem to figure out that if you are proven wrong once and continue to voice the same thing; your're still wrong. But, she's still got the NYPost on her side.
More below the fold ------------->
Sitting at home and watching Kieth Olbermann's interview with Graeme Frost's parents the other night, I was thinking about a comment left on my blog earlier this week.
'Little' had this to say about Neo-Cons belief system:
It's a belief system based on against not for. She and so many of her kind, young and old, HATE what they percieve as Liberals, Democrats, progressives... There is no thing that they stand for - they only stand against, and in some ways so ridiculously that you'd think they'd see it.
Malkin may need an abortion some day. She really might, for medical reasons, and I hope she's able to get it. But she's against abortion, no because she's for "Life" or any such thing, she's against LIbs - and so must be against abortion, even if it may be to her own detriment.
It's true about health insurance, taxes, the UN, war, electoral politics... It's why they could do what they'd otherwise know was a monumentally stupid thing to do - vote for a really stupid person. They'd even do that - out of spite, and to the great detriment of the country, only because they HATE so strongly.
It's just a shitty, spiteful, cowardly way to exist.
Across the board, this is true. From the Right's attacks on Global Warming, to pushing for Suplimental War Spending, to Taxation, on down to Health Care, they will always be 'against' the Democratic party simply because they are the Democratic party.
Even though i'm not a person that likes to live my life through wild assumptions ( another trait of the neo-conservative movement ) but just imagine if the Democratic leadership began pushing for school vouchers. Even though this is an issue near to people like Hannity and O'Reilly, the far-right would start to rail against it if Nancy Pelosi was for it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malkin's Post 'article' reads in one part:
Bush-basher Keith Olbermann paraded the Frost parents on TV and coaxed them into displaying photos of their children in their hospital beds after a horrible car accident while they castigated conservatives for "distraction" techniques.
Evidently, Malkin didn't see the same interview that I did. Olbermann asked if they could show the photos. I didn't hear any 'coaxing'. But, that point aside, I didn't hear any outrage from the Republicans when Terry Schaivo was ALL OVER the television a few years ago. Malkin, like many others, is quite selective in her 'moral outrage'.
The one thing that Olbermann did that Malkin didn't do was talk to the parents. A pretty simple, and journalistic, approach to an issue like this, don't you think? When you'd like reliable information, why not go to the source.
Simply due to the fact that Olbermann doesn't 'toe the proverbial line' for the Bush administration, people like Malkin and O'Reilly rail and rail against him. And the main thrust of their statements are ALWAYS 'ratings'. Much like the 'context' defense, it's always a sure sign that you're losing when you think that since more people watch your show, that that means that you have the facts.
But, I digress
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malkin then asks this question in her lastest 'blog':
Are our questions and arguments "beneath the integrity of the debate?" Impossible. The "integrity of the debate" hit rock-bottom last night with Olbermann goading the Frost family to post photos of their children in their hospital beds after their horrible accident in order to score cheap political points.
And speaking of debate, there was Illinifan17's comment on my last blog:
· The problem is that they know they lose every debate once a real human face is put on it. When its health-care for this kid, and a new road so these people can get to their jobs, and pictures of individual flag-draped coffins, they have no chance. So, Malkin must attack those faces as illegitimate.
Well, to Malkin, I would ask: What 'debate' are you having?
There is no 'debate' with you or anyone that 'believes' as you do. Even then, it's not even a belief, it's a reflexive reaction to anything and everything that anyone with the slightest of Democratic tendencies says. And, as far as integrity, that is something that is born out of a debate based on facts, rational conclusions, actual 'journalism'; not just slapping down a few cool words you found in your thesaurus this morning, or creating a 'clever' catch-phrase, or even pretending to be a journalist. Sticking feathers up your but does not make you a chicken. And, pretending to be a journalists doesn't make you a journalist either.
Illinifan17's comment was spot on. An issue becomes far more personal when there is a 'face' to put with it. This is part of our societal structure. We are a visual culture. If we can see it, it is all the more real. Neo-Conservatives gain their power through feeding off the 'fear' of others; fear of the unknown. Rather than focusing on things that are relavent to an issue, they will favor speculation and hyperbole rather than facts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
And, evidently for people like Michelle Malkin, you can reprint proven falsehoods, attack Keith Olberman, lossely format it into paragraphs, and have your article printed in the New York Post.
Malkin did, however add this:
...a majority of Americans polled by USA Today/Gallup this week - 52 percent - agree with President Bush that most benefits should go to children in families earning less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level - about $41,000 for a family of four.
Now, here's something that I've never truly understood about 'polls'. How can you ask 500, or 1000, or even 2000 people the same question and think that they speak for the remaining 298,000,000+ Americans? It just doesn't make sense.
But, making sense doesn't matter to Malkin.
So, here's my question, how is it that a poll of 1008 people reflect the opinions of the entire United States? The answer is simple, it doesn't.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malkin goes further and states:
Never mind that Bush's veto doesn't affect families like the Frosts, who are covered by existing policies.
Within that little bit of spin is the one thing that people like Michelle Malkin are ignoring.
"Existing healthcare policies"
A persons individual existing policy may not be enough.
Furthermore -----
The healthcare industry is notorious for dropping people after horrific accidents.
Asset-testing will only make coverage more expensive.
They will constantly argue 'choices' are why people can't afford good healthcare.
There are so many variables in life that choice ( too often ) doesn't enter into it.
For someone that fancies herself intellectually superior, why is this so difficult for her to figure out?