See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Bloodthirsty Liberal » Michelle Malkin Dope-Slaps The New Yorker
2. Rhymes With Right
3. Baltimore Sun Profiles Michelle Malkin : Conservative247
4. Villa Julie College Republican’s-Blog » Michelle Malkin in The Baltimore Sun
5. Michelle Malkin » The thanks you get for helping out left-wing journalists
6. Michelle Malkin » Newsflash: Liberal blogger gets a “scoop!”– by ripping off e-mails printed on this blog

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #1
   On March 9th, 2008 at 11:25 am, sharinlite said:

   Michelle, I would have handled it a little differently…I might, might have sat for the interview with the following conditions: a video record of it as well as a regular recording. The interviewer and their “boss” would be aware that such was the way of the interview and sign a written notarized waiver giving unconditional permission for viewing by all. Heh!!

2. #2
   On March 9th, 2008 at 11:25 am, brooklyn red said:

   So I guess the NY Times is out too?

3. #3
   On March 9th, 2008 at 11:33 am, old trooper said:

   Michelle, you are greatly respected in my house for your keen insight, integrity and sharp wit.

   Giving interviews is like allowing strangers into your house. It is entirely up to your discretion and best judgement.

   If you expect mischief, don’t play into anyones hands. Stout fences make good neighbors and a loaded shotgun kept by the door keeps rascals at bay and out of the house.

   There are a god’s plenty of “journalists” out there that have a track record of spinning quotes and taking statements out of context, as you well know.

   Not to worry!

   BTW, We neither subscribe to the NYT or the New Yawker here. If you did submit to their request for an interview, we would not read it in their “waste paper” publications anyway!

4. #4
   On March 9th, 2008 at 11:38 am, bloghooligan said:

   Michelle, that’s a very flattering article. The great thing about the blogosphere is that as a minority, you learn you’re not alone. Your site, more than any other, has helped my coming out process.

5. #5
   On March 9th, 2008 at 11:40 am, ajmontana said:

   play ape…..rofl!

6. #6
   On March 9th, 2008 at 11:43 am, Alaskan said:

   I agree with bloghooligan. That is an almost sweet article that makes you sound as all American as apple pie and chocolate milk. I hope it somehow is of benefit for you and your work. But I wish it showed what comments the paper is getting about it. That would be verrry interesting.

7. #7
   On March 9th, 2008 at 11:44 am, zorro said:

   Great job by the Baltimore Sun’s Jonathan Pitts. The close of the article is fitting.

   “… I love my life. I love my family. I love this country.”

   And your previous employer Rick Newcombe’s opinion of you speaks volumes.

   “Malkin reminds him of no less an eminence than William F. Buckley, who passed away last month, but even Buckley might have envied Malkin’s reach. She connects with millions without ever leaving home.”

   Maybe the New Yorker can get Geraldo to play ape for them. He does a hellava cave man imitation.

8. #8
   On March 9th, 2008 at 11:47 am, The Raging Republican said:

   Michelle Malkin: Beauty and brains!

9. #9
   On March 9th, 2008 at 12:00 pm, katieanne said:

   I thought it was a very good article and also fair. Very surprised. Maybe there are a few good journalists out there.

   I loved your response to The New Yorker. Excellent.

10. #10
    On March 9th, 2008 at 12:03 pm, fourstringfuror said:

    Pitts showed rare intellectual curiosity and wasn’t out to do the same old tired right-winger-as-Neanderthal profile.

    Poor guy never stood a chance. Wonder when he gets fired.

    Seriously, though, I think he did a fantastic job. It’s a shame that most interviews with conservatives are nothing but glorified hit jobs.

11. #11
    On March 9th, 2008 at 12:04 pm, trailortrash said:

    very nice read, keep up teh good fight MM :salute:

12. #12
    On March 9th, 2008 at 12:09 pm, Irish Rose said:

    Hah!

    Next time I see you blogging the debates Michelle, I’m going to think about you huddled in front of a TV screen and laptop in the back of your closet between the coats and the sweaters ;).

    I raised three kids.. I get the closet thing. Oh yeah.

13. #13
    On March 9th, 2008 at 12:13 pm, puhiawa said:

    Great article. Loved it. don’t you just love the way that guy at Liberal Oasis goes immediately to name calling? Ah….which side is throwing bombs?

14. #14
    On March 9th, 2008 at 12:17 pm, a12iggymom said:

    Good for you! I for one am proud that you kept up your moral code and didn’t faun over the “new yorker”(small letters show no respect) “reporter” (ditto).

15. #15
    On March 9th, 2008 at 12:25 pm, Jewels said:

    Just out of curiosity, Michelle, what was it about the way the NYorker contacted you that made you turn them down?

16. #16
    On March 9th, 2008 at 12:26 pm, gayle said:

    I am still trying to absorb the fact that Michelle is a size 0.

    After babies too?????? You go girl!

17. #17
    On March 9th, 2008 at 12:34 pm, d1carter said:

    Thanks for doing what you do. I have enjoyed your writings now for years. All the best, Michelle.

18. #18
    On March 9th, 2008 at 12:37 pm, meatpieandtatters said:

    Live by the media, die by the media. It’s a fine line to walk to be sure. When you’re the one crafting the lines it’s a much broader perspective one allows. When it’s someone else, weariness arises. The moral of the story: editorial prerogative.

19. #19
    On March 9th, 2008 at 12:42 pm, brooklyn red said:

    Just checked the Sun’s site… 8 out of 8 positive comments (OK one was mine) 36 readers rated the article & the average rating 5 stars… Pump it up!

20. #20
    On March 9th, 2008 at 12:44 pm, CS said:

    Miss Michelle, I hope you don’t mind my saying, but I have never thought of you as a minority, a woman yes, but minority just doesn’t crossed my mind…perhaps I’m just your average white guy or naive? I guess it was a surprise to me that you think of yourself as a minority.

    At any rate I thought the interview was interesting, fair and done without a negative agenda.

    CS

21. #21
    On March 9th, 2008 at 12:48 pm, meatpieandtatters said:

    #19…Pump it up? Truth in media is always very, very subjective and heavily influenced by special interests.

    

22. #22
    On March 9th, 2008 at 12:56 pm, brooklyn red said:

    Meatpie, fyi I work in advertising… Pump it up!

23. #23
    On March 9th, 2008 at 1:06 pm, ammo john said:

    but I have neither the time nor inclination to sit down with your staff Jane Goodall and serve as an anthropological specimen for The New Yorker’s readership. If I want to play ape for amusement, I’ll do it for my kids.

    That’s funnier than anything Larry the Cable Guy could’ve responded with! What an awesome response, Michelle!

24. #24
    On March 9th, 2008 at 1:17 pm, see-dubya said:

    That interview’s certainly an improvement over this one.

    As for the “flamethrower” charge: when the enemy’s entrenched and fortified, a flamethrower’s exactly what you need.

25. #25
    On March 9th, 2008 at 1:25 pm, xplodeit said:

    Nice profile.

26. #26
    On March 9th, 2008 at 1:28 pm, SirKnob said:

    Great article on Ms Malkin. Mr Pitts deserves credit for being fair and balanced when so few are these days.

    As for the New Yucker, they should stick with those artistic covers and leave the rest of us alone.

    Well deserved recognition Ms Malkin, you are one of my favorites:-)

    Have a great day everyone:-)

27. #27
    On March 9th, 2008 at 1:31 pm, brooklyn red said:

    By the way, people don’t actually read the New Yorker (well maybe the restaurant part)… they leave it out for others to see… kinda like a secret handshake.

28. #28
    On March 9th, 2008 at 1:40 pm, cngerms said:

    I am not entirely sure Pitts had Michelle’s best interest in mind in authoring her profile. Being somewhat aware of the security issues which surround her person, family, and work, I can’t help but believe there was too much information in her Sun profile. Obviously, as an adult Michelle can choose what information she wishes to disclose, but as far as a “need-to-know” profile goes, too much new information was disclosed. Please be safe, Michelle!!! The leftist moonbats can’t be trusted with the tiniest bit of your personal information.

29. #29
    On March 9th, 2008 at 1:44 pm, rightisright said:

    The article was very good IMHO, touched on your personal life, showing the warmth and love in the home along with your dedication to show all who want to see what the truth is in this confused world. I thoroughly enjoyed the article, will pass on my appreciation to the writer.
    As always MM, thank you for all you do, no star shines brighter.

30. #30
    On March 9th, 2008 at 1:47 pm, mom24ks said:

    I guess Mr. Remnick should have stopped at “Thanks”. I wonder how long it took him to catch his breath after that gut punch! Way to go, Michelle.

31. #31
    On March 9th, 2008 at 1:54 pm, beenthere said:

    “I can’t say her contributions are enriching the public dialogue. She favors a ‘Shoot first, ask questions later’ strategy, popular among conservative bloggers,” said Bill Scher of the Liberal Oasis blog.

    This is so typical of liberals. If Scher thinks this, would it be too much to ask for him to give one example? Please. And why didn’t Mr. Pitts ask for one? No doubt he would have replied that “Well, we just didn’t have enough space to get into this.” Yes, by the standards of the media this is a very good interview, but it left me unsatisfied and a little unsettled. Why all the emphasis on her location being secret? Why this, “what’s it like being in her house” stuff? In short: what possible relevance does any of this have to her ideas?

    I suppose one has to take what one can get.

    I wonder if maybe, just maybe, it would have been better to have gone with the New Yorker. I say that because having been around my liberal superiors for many a year (living as I do a catapult’s throw away from King County, it’s very easy to meet them), they have in addition to the usual revulsion and astonishment, an absolute fascination with anyone who dares disagree with them. These people are blind to irony, utterly deaf to sarcasm, you can say anything to them and they will eat it up — provided it is over the top. Give a reasoned critique against minimum-wage laws and you will be in danger of being physically attacked. Announce you are for establishing a home exclusive to the white race, and they won’t know what to do. In short they are easy to have fun with and we could all use more than that.

32. #32
    On March 9th, 2008 at 2:01 pm, see-dubya said:

    beenthere–

    Compared to the WaPo profile I linked in comment #24, I thought this liberal’s comments were more restrained than those of the “conservative” (Andrew Sullivan) they asked about Michelle to “balance” the nasty comments of the liberals.

33. #33
    On March 9th, 2008 at 2:05 pm, brooklyn red said:

    Re; cngerms #28. “… a menace out of proportion…”

    Menace to whom? You have a point… I remember when the MSM was all too happy to blab about Rumsfeld’s home security. I am sure they had his best interests in mind…

34. #34
    On March 9th, 2008 at 2:06 pm, cngerms said:

    Yes, by the standards of the media this is a very good interview, but it left me unsatisfied and a little unsettled. Why all the emphasis on her location being secret? Why this, “what’s it like being in her house” stuff? In short: what possible relevance does any of this have to her ideas?

    Amen, beenthere!!!! I smelled the same rat!

35. #35
    On March 9th, 2008 at 2:11 pm, sausage said:

    Pitts showed rare intellectual curiosity

    I laughed out loud at that one! How utterly pompous!

    Still, the picture of Michelle in that article…. boy, she is a darn fine looking lady. All is forgiven.

36. #36
    On March 9th, 2008 at 2:12 pm, rooster said:

    Michelle,

    You earned my respect for the way you stood your ground on with that disgusting racist, Malik Shaabaz when you guest hosted the “No Spin Zone”.

    One of the very few things I give O’reilly respect for, was his banning Shaabaz for the way he treated you.

    Keep up the great work!

37. #37
    On March 9th, 2008 at 2:23 pm, Wade said:

    Michelle, you are my hero… brown skin, uterus and all.

38. #38
    On March 9th, 2008 at 2:36 pm, graysonret said:

    The loudest cheerleaders for tolerance are the most intolerant of all.”

    How very true! The reason is because they don’t have the facts/evidence to back up what they are saying; emotion is the only way they communicate. When they finally get frustrated, they resort to name-calling and violence, especially when you ask questions, like “why?” That was a very good profile, Michelle. I enjoyed it. Forget the NYT or New Yorker. There isn’t anything to gain with them. You’ll only feed into their slanted views.

39. #39
    On March 9th, 2008 at 2:43 pm, allrsn said:

    On March 9th, 2008 at 12:42 pm, brooklyn red said:
    Just checked the Sun’s site… 8 out of 8 positive comments (OK one was mine) 36 readers rated the article & the average rating 5 stars… Pump it up!

    I was just there and theere is now one closed minded leftie comment.

    He believes the immagration debate is about ending all immagration. FOFLMAO

    Do you see the two flagrant errors in the above belief?

40. #40
    On March 9th, 2008 at 2:48 pm, cf said:

    He might get in trouble. The Baltimore Sun is part of the Chicago Tribune company, and bad as the Tribune was, it has been getting worse, especially under Sam Zell. Hopefully things will work out OK for him & other reporters will be encouraged to do similar pieces.

41. #41
    On March 9th, 2008 at 2:51 pm, DBNinKY said:

    MM, that was a dandy response to the New Yorker - a straight-up slap-down that they had coming, and a wise decision on your part!

    Odds are the profile hit piece they had in mind for you was probably the same old form-letter styled composition they use against all conservatives - replete with Dem talking points and ungrounded accusations - and they only needed to get a few direct quotes from you to drop into it for minimal credibility and c.y.a. purposes!

42. #42
    On March 9th, 2008 at 2:56 pm, Speakup said:

    You’re a Conservative!? Really? I’ll have to keep that in mind when I comment.

43. #43
    On March 9th, 2008 at 2:57 pm, DesertLover said:

    Thanks for sharing Michelle … you made a good choice of someone to give an interview to … it was much better than what usually comes from the MSM … keep up the good work …

44. #44
    On March 9th, 2008 at 3:01 pm, Ron said:

    You know what I like about The New Yorker? The cartoons. Aside from that, not much there there.

45. #45
    On March 9th, 2008 at 3:02 pm, Michelle Malkin said:

    That interview’s certainly an improvement over this one.

    I know, see-dubya. Learned my lesson.

46. #46
    On March 9th, 2008 at 3:14 pm, Tantor said:

    I got a kick out of Scher’s comment that it is conservative bloggers who shoot first and ask questions later. Sheesh! The lefty blogs shoot first and never ask questions later. When did any lefty blogs ever question the “General Betray-Us” nonsense? The whole lefty strategy is to make wild accusations and slander, then move on to the next target before the truth catches up to them.

    Now I understand what all those references to Baltimore were about. I don’t know what’s so attractive about liberal Maryland when you could be a heroine here in conservative Northern Virginia. I picture you and family in one of those lakeside homes in Reston rather than some lonely hilltop in Baltimore.

    And maybe I’m just being a guy but you really spend a half hour in makeup before a TV appearance? I’m not saying I’m not gonna watch because I’m gonna, but that does destroy some of my illusions.

47. #47
    On March 9th, 2008 at 3:22 pm, USMCgramma said:

    Michelle, you’re a girl after my own heart: A wife, a mom and a woman who says what she means and doesn’t back down! God bless you and yours. I was proud to write Mr. Pitts that you have a big fan in this great-grandmother.

48. #48
    On March 9th, 2008 at 3:54 pm, ArmoredCAV said:

    All

    I know Jonathan Pitts and I assure you that he is perfectly acceptable…

    Jon, If you are reading this, you missed the chance to embed; I am almost done here!

49. #49
    On March 9th, 2008 at 3:56 pm, Sergeant Tim said:

    Why [you] talked to the Baltimore Sun and not the New Yorker: brains, good taste, never ever even been on a turnip truck…

50. #50
    On March 9th, 2008 at 4:15 pm, lgm said:

    With all due respect, there is a reason the thinking press is frustrated with MM. There is a reason conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan gives out the Malkin award for incoherent nuts on the right.

51. #51
    On March 9th, 2008 at 4:17 pm, mtngrandpa said:

    I believe that the New York Times referred to Michelle once as a “Firecracker”, great well deserved title. Michelle is the best!

    Never let the moonbats put out your fuse.

52. #52
    On March 9th, 2008 at 4:18 pm, leepro said:

    Fantastic piece!!!

    It’s as if Jonathan has known her for years …you know, like us!

    

53. #53
    On March 9th, 2008 at 4:48 pm, Michelle Malkin said:

    And maybe I’m just being a guy but you really spend a half hour in makeup before a TV appearance?

    It’s more because I like talking to the make-up lady than because it takes that long to put on the make-up!

    She’s a great lady, btw.

    If you ever need a mobile make-up artist, check her site out here.

54. #54
    On March 9th, 2008 at 4:59 pm, almeehan said:

    In the Sun feedback Ben said: I hadn’t realized how close to the immigration issue she was in her family and it makes her views appear more as a case of “hey, we got our citizenship, so everyone else need not apply”.
    

    I fired one back at this disjointed bias blinded man. How about it Ben maybe it is they worked hard doing it the legal way and for the sake of the country and the self respect of the immigrants, all applicants should do it legally too!
    Now about the article: Michelle I practically worship you–but when he said MAC…oh my! Ok I can live with that. I was born in your now town of abode. Sorry you have to live among so many never die liberals. About the makeup sight? there are some pictures there that my wife would frown at me for looking at them! Neat though. I’ve seen you in photos & videos with no makeup on and believe me it is still very beautiful. Best wishes for you, your family and your fabulous career.

55. #55
    On March 9th, 2008 at 5:54 pm, nbarry said:

    A great article about a classy lady.

56. #56
    On March 9th, 2008 at 6:04 pm, Republican (By Default) said:

    My guess, they’re just looking for more conservatives who don’t like McCain. Part of the coming smear campaign against the very candidate that the MSM helped get the nomination.

    Who knows, they might have portrayed Michelle in a positive light so they could make McCain look bad. Yeah, I laughed at that idea, too. Never mind.

57. #57
    On March 9th, 2008 at 7:16 pm, 24Klady said:

    I’m still fixited on the size 0 and Dunkin Donuts…I’d die happy after having pounded down a dozen! Haven’t had one in 4 yrs.:(

    Thought the article was very well done and appreciated them profiling you so that your websites and news articles will generate more readers, much less add to your already long resume. Many times I’ll forward one of your articles to my online friends when I find one on another website. People need to see how well distributed you are, not just here or HA.

    Many good wishes for continued success, your personal safety, and your wonderful family from your adoring champions at MM.com

58. #58
    On March 9th, 2008 at 7:19 pm, Just A Grunt said:

    15 million hits a month? Remind me again who is the Mainstream Media nowadays, it sounds like a change is happening, even though most liberal sites get picked up by the aggregator sites more often then the conservative ones which is sort of disappointing.
    It was a nice piece though.

59. #59
    On March 9th, 2008 at 7:31 pm, BadIdeaGuy said:

    That was a nice read in the Baltimore Sun.

    Thanks for not letting yourself be put in the “conservative petting zoo” that some people allow themselves to be put in just to be liked.

60. #60
    On March 9th, 2008 at 7:33 pm, fourstringfuror said:

    With all due respect

    This is like the “no offense” qualifier everyone likes to throw out before insulting someone. Nice try.

61. #61
    On March 9th, 2008 at 8:48 pm, Innismir said:

    Michelle likes Dunkies?

    Man, she just keeps getting cooler and cooler.

    *raises a Great one, light, one sugar to MM*

62. #62
    On March 9th, 2008 at 9:02 pm, gatewaypundit said:

    Great article, Michelle.
    Congratulations on your success and don’t ever stop!

63. #63
    On March 9th, 2008 at 9:04 pm, Thomas said:

    Beautiful.

64. #64
    On March 9th, 2008 at 9:35 pm, jimC said:

    Hey lgm,

    let me guess… that would be because they are liberal fruitcakes and aren’t really “thinking”? Oh, that’s not what you meant. I… ahh, never mind. I keep forgetting the rule; don’t feed the trolls.

    By the way Michelle. I sent the Baltimore sun reporter an email thanking him for the article.

    Jim C

65. #65
    On March 9th, 2008 at 9:59 pm, DaMav said:

    That was a good article and I had already written a thank you note to Pitts before I showed up here. How refreshing to find something in the MSM that doesn’t try to run down a conservative thinker. I thought the part about how you and Jesse met was fascinating.

    Thanks Michelle, for being you, and making us proud of how you live and what you do for us every day.

66. #66
    On March 10th, 2008 at 12:01 am, Hollowpoint said:

    Interesting how the New Yorker cited McCain in their desire to profile you, Michelle. Sounds to me like they were just looking to get some anti-McCain red meat quotes from a high profile conservative.

67. #67
    On March 10th, 2008 at 12:05 am, Mojamaiko said:

    Michelle, I’m of the minority view here, I guess, who strongly believes you should have taken on the New Yorker profile challenge, but with a tape recorder conspicuously also taping the interview for your back-up benefit. I have faith that with your instinctual awareness and sharp intellect, you could have significantly shaped the discussion battlefield in your favor.

    Likewise, I think it regrettable that you acceded to the wuss Geraldo’s drive to shunt you off O’Reilly platform and diminish your effective presence on that network.

    We have too little visibility as it is in the mainstream of public consciousness, the conservative voice of America being deliberately suppressed by and in the establishment bastions of the progressive elites in public multimedia, academia, entertainment and all segments of art.

    Like the Marines, I think conservatives should train to run towards fights whenever the prospect of hot contact comes into view.

    I’m not saying you’re not feisty; your commentary on favorable venues proves its.

    However, I think we can’t shy away from hostile battlegrounds, because let’s face it, those arenas are where the enemy are mainly gathered and where they must be confronted.

    You won’t win all the fights, but your clarion call in bitter venues might reach those who are yet in the sidelines, mulling the options.

68. #68
    On March 10th, 2008 at 1:06 am, Straight_Talk_Luigi said:

    Likewise, I think it regrettable that you acceded to the wuss Geraldo’s drive to shunt you off O’Reilly platform and diminish your effective presence on that network

    Well, I love the FOX network, but I can understand Michelle’s position. Really, Moja, that’s pretty low to say that you’ll spit on someone, and it’s behavior that I expect from the likes of Mike Wallace or Keith Olbermann.

    Geraldo is foolhardy to let his passions rule him, especially on immigration issues. Let’s face it, if it were about German or Filipino immigrants, he wouldn’t care what Michelle would’ve said.

69. #69
    On March 10th, 2008 at 7:16 am, Michelle Admirer said:

    Michelle did precisely the right thing.

    My grandparents took The New Yorker, as did my parents, as did I up until 2004. I suffered though (ignored, actually) its dyspeptic liberal nonsense for the sake of interesting reviews and excellent essays. But the derangement of the magazine became so great prior to and immediately after the last presidential election that I could no longer in good conscience countenance continue to allow into my house such a hateful, misleading, and biased screed.

    After I left, and ever since, I have continued to receive earnest entreaties to renew my subscription at fire-sale discounts. Apparently, losing readers from families who have followed The New Yorker as far back as its Golden Era upsets whomever it is there who still pays vague attention to the bottom line. I’ve written letters explaining the reasons for my defection, but I doubt they’ve ever been read.

    When it upsets them enough to stop behaving like unpaid flunkies of the left, maybe I’ll be back. Alas, I think they’ll be dead and gone long before that day ever arrives.

70. #70
    On March 10th, 2008 at 7:26 am, gridlock said:

    In a better world, The New Yorker would learn that by being respectful, they could gain access to subjects and write interesting and informative articles that people want to read.

    I must admit I read the Baltimore Sun piece with great interest. They really scored a major coup, simply by being willing to treat you with respect. Hopefully other publications will learn the lesson.

71. #71
    On March 10th, 2008 at 7:32 am, Barry F. said:

    Jonathan Pitts wrote a very good article, IMHO, about you Michelle. I like how he injected the Bill Scher quotes from comedic relief.

    By the way, someone needs to let him know that you aren’t a “flame-thrower”, your’e a “fire cracker”.

72. #72
    On March 10th, 2008 at 7:46 am, Barry F. said:

    I shared my favorable view of the article on the message board following the article, as it appears that quite a few others did.

    I have to say, I was quite shocked to see such a favorable article in the MSM about you Michelle.

    As I said in the message board for the Sun article by Pitts, as long as you keep writing, I will, in all likelihood, keep reading. Oh! And, providing my two cents from time to time.

73. #73
    On March 10th, 2008 at 7:57 am, tre said:

    Great article. I learned a lot about you. Surprising, it wasn’t a hit-job, but actually an informative article.

    But, YOU used to be a LIBERAL! Oh well, Ronald Reagan, Charlton Heston, John Stossel, and a few other influential conservatives used to be liberal, too. So you’re in good company.

74. #74
    On March 10th, 2008 at 8:01 am, Tantor said:

    lgm: “With all due respect, there is a reason the thinking press is frustrated with MM. There is a reason conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan gives out the Malkin award for incoherent nuts on the right.”

    Yes, we know what the reason is: Lefty media types like Andrew Sullivan are irritated by dissenting voices and wish to suppress them through mockery. That’s why he doesn’t have a Helen Thomas Award or a Maureen Dowd Award or an Eleanor Clift Award. Their commentary appeals to his political prejudice while Michelle’s does not.

    And the mainstream media is anything but the thinking press, not when they simply moo whatever the rest of the liberal herd moos. Andrew Sullivan is a perfect example of a brilliant guy who lets his personal biases run away with him. He chooses not to think. But for a year or two right after Sep 11, the lefty clouds parted for him, he saw it all clearly, and was right on the money. Now he’s lost his seriousness and moral compass.

75. #75
    On March 10th, 2008 at 8:27 am, Regulus said:

    Given that the writer was still a prisoner of her own political misconceptions - e.g., her description of “moonbattery” was off the mark - she did a fair and occasionally flattering job.

    It’s always nice to get a small glimpse of just who it is that’s eclipsed the “alphabet” networks and the local paper as my go-to source of credible news about what’s going on in the world.

76. #76
    On March 10th, 2008 at 9:51 am, Larraby said:

    Not cooperating with the New Yorker was a wise idea. Back in the 1990s, the New Yorker did a hit piece on Israel’s then Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. The left hates nothing more than an Israeli conservative. Yes, the New Yorker and others dislike American conservatives but nothing like the scorn that the left and everyone at the New Yorker has for an Israeli conservative like Netanyahu. Bibi was smart enough not to give the New Yorker an interviewer. The article that The New Yorker published called Bibi a liar and blamed him for not agreeing to everything the moderate Arafat asked for. Not satisfied with that, the New Yorker engaged in all sorts of psychobabble about Bibi and his father. Bibi’s father, who then in his 80s, was portrayed as an apocalyptic fanatic. The conclusion of the New Yorker piece was that Bibi was a rightwing nutcase, an obstacle to peace and a Dr. Strangelove. I have no doubt that if the New Yorker did a piece on Michelle Malkin the magazine would do the same thing that it did to Bibi: Talk only to people who hated Bibi, sugarcoat Arafat and make conservatives look like Billy Sunday. Granted, the New Yorker had a special loathing for Bibi, but the magazine would do it to anybody who is not a McGovern liberal.

77. #77
    On March 10th, 2008 at 11:15 am, Offhanded said:

    ……so……has, The New Yorker, or one of it’s agents , responded to your e-mail?

78. #78
    On March 10th, 2008 at 11:40 am, Dimsdale said:

    Michelle Malkin may seem like any mild-mannered blogger in her Baltimore-area home, but she’s reviled by liberals like almost no one else online

    That single statement alone is the reason that I first go to your page in the morning. EVERY morning. The comments you receive are so demonstrative of the mindset of liberals, and you put them on display for all to see. Beautiful!!

    My only criticism is that you are an Apple person! Oh well, nobody is perfect!

79. #79
    On March 10th, 2008 at 12:03 pm, Outlander said:

    The Baltimore Sun did a nice write-up on you, although I join some of your other commenters in asking why they emphasized the “secrecy” surrounding your location. I hope the reporter’s characterization of your secrecy requirements is an exageration - I couldn’t imagine having to hide in my own house.

    Anyway, when are you going to be back on Fox in prime time? I can never catch you during the day shifts you now seem to cover. Any way you can get on H&C???

80. #80
    On March 10th, 2008 at 12:39 pm, Barry F. said:

    On March 10th, 2008 at 12:03 pm, Outlander said:

    Anyway, when are you going to be back on Fox in prime time? I can never catch you during the day shifts you now seem to cover. Any way you can get on H&C???

    Ditto!

    I missing getting to hear your commentary, Michelle. I can’t catch it during the daytime hours. I like seeing you opposite someone like Kirsten Powers who isn’t the typical screaming pundit that just tries to yell over you.

81. #81
    On March 10th, 2008 at 12:46 pm, Barry F. said:

    missing

82. #82
    On March 10th, 2008 at 2:13 pm, emjem24 said:

    Michelle:

    I loved this article. It really brought to mind what I’ve gone through as a woman and a conservative from my college days to my 30’s. I too, used to embrace liberal “ideals” until I witnessed the antics that certain left-minded groups went through to promote their “dogma.” I wanted no part of that.

    One question: how do you juggle it all? I know that “working from home” gives you a lot of flexibility but with two kids it can’t be easy either. I look at your experience and know that it is possible (my mother did it).

    I applaud your decision to give the Baltimore Sun this interview. Personally, I despise the New Yorker, having been forced to subscribe to it for a semester for an undergraduate course required for my writing minor. While it has some great cartoons and essays, its viewpoint is of the left persuasion.

    I do not buy the argument of the Liberal Oasis blogger either. Since when did liberals asked questions before launching their ad-hominem attacks? At least you ask the questions that others refuse to. Thank you for choosing the difficult path while others in the media business would rather go for the “soft” approach.

83. #83
    On March 11th, 2008 at 10:30 am, David Segal said:

    Oh boy! You sure told them!!!!

84. #84
    On March 11th, 2008 at 2:24 pm, shooter said:

    commenters in asking why they emphasized the “secrecy” surrounding your location.

    some here have asked about this…
    I see it as “the left are so venomous and crazed that Michelle and family had to move and keep it secret”.
    It’s a hit on the liberal left more than anything. When a size 0 (with donuts) has to keep secret her own home location solely BECAUSE of the LEFTIES??? Well that says a lot about liberals, their hatred and what they’re capable of doing. Deranged and dangerous comes to mind.
    I’m glad he wrote the secrecy needed, it tells a part of her struggles, yet she does overcome.
    Congrats MM and Jesse and the little ones!
    And thx to Jon!

85. #85
    On April 1st, 2008 at 12:26 pm, scooter56 said:

    puff piece………

86. #86
    On April 15th, 2008 at 6:24 pm, JHSII said:

    I guess that to scooter anything that isn’t a standard-issue liberal hit piece is just another puff piece…