Malkin Gets It Wrong Again

Michelle Malkin gripes about the bad press she is getting because one of her loyal followers ("I worship Michelle Malkin") sent fake anthrax letters to prominent comedians and pundits he didn't agree with. Her claim is that someone that worships her and then goes and commits terrorism is old hat and not her fault. The crux of her argument rests on the incident where Keith Olbermann made a joke in poor taste that in order to beat Bill O'Reilly in dancing with the stars he would have to cut O'Reilly's hamstring and promptly apologized, then apologized again saying "But...it's beyond the pale. You shouldn't, you can't joke about physical stuff no matter what you think of somebody politically, broadcasting-wise, reputationally. It's just beyond the pale. I apologize. You know, we gotta draw the line somewhere and the line is: You wanna criticize, be critical, be humorous, be sarcastic, yell stuff, great. But physical stuff is out of bounds. Even joking about it."

Of course, no where in her complaining about Olbermann does she apologize for inciting such hatred in her worshipper. Keep in mind that Bill O'Reilly's hamstring is still intact. Instead of owning up to the fact that she has a history of inciting violence, she blames liberals and their attacks as old hat. (Ironically her piece is called "Pot Meet Kettle".)

When a Chancellor at UC-Santa Cruz committed suicide soon after Malkin placed the Chancellor's contact information on Malkin's blog, Michelle still refused to admit that perhaps doing so was in bad taste. No stranger to irony, even after the Chancellor's suicide Michelle still had the audacity to call her an anti-war "thug". In Malkin's response to calls for her to apologize for posting personal information about this lady, Malkin mocked critics saying "Weigel attacks me for not saying anything about Denton's suicide... Weigel wants me to "apologize"".

What a classy lady.

Why she still is paid to write is a mystery to me. Her responses don't reflect the issue at hand, merely resorting to character attacks on her critics so that she doesn't have to ever face responsibility. The fact that readers connected with her have a history of harassment and terrorism is obscene and refusal to acknowledge this is disgusting.

To further show she wasn't in the wrong about one of her faithful being a terrorist, she points to a deranged individual sending an anthrax hoax to President Bush. Despite what Malkin is trying to insinuate, this man did not publish anything saying he worshipped Keith Olbermann. There are nutjobs out there, which is why Olbermann was quick to point out that threats of physical violence are uncalled for.

Nowhere in her post does she denounce what her worshipper did. She mentions the incident at the beginning of her unfocused tirade but never refers to it negatively nor does she try to assure her readers that she does not promote violence. That is the heart of the argument and which she just doesn't get. She is supposed to be one of the centers of the neocon movement as a popular apologist and attack dog.

The fact is that the man who is accussed of domestic terrorism named her as a pundit he worshipped. The fact is that she has yet to denounce this type of violence. Instead of owning up to these facts she characteristically points to the left to say that they are the ones to blame so stop blaming her.

Another one of the right's intellectuals. She is yet another example of why the neocon movement is flawed and wrong.