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

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #1
   On November 19th, 2008 at 2:08 pm, letget said:

   Thanks for the heads up Michelle. I always watch Neil.
   L

2. #2
   On November 19th, 2008 at 2:14 pm, TheOtherSide said:

   Conservatism 2.0 needs to address the shrinking Republican base.

3. #3
   On November 19th, 2008 at 2:15 pm, flmom said:

   Neil Cavuto and Michelle Malkin, my favorite TV combination. I never miss Neil, he’s great.

4. #4
   On November 19th, 2008 at 2:16 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

   Michelle, I hope that at Conservatism 2.0 you really get to know Mike Huckabee.

5. #5
   On November 19th, 2008 at 2:18 pm, flmom said:

   Conservatism 2.0 needs to address the shrinking Republican base.

   As long as there is common sense around, there will always be a Conservative base.

6. #6
   On November 19th, 2008 at 2:21 pm, sonofdy said:

   Conservatism 2.0 needs to address the shrinking Republican base.

   There is a difference between conservatives and republicans. Something most liberals never figure out.

7. #7
   On November 19th, 2008 at 2:29 pm, sandyb said:

   TheOtherSide said:

   Larry Sabato is a lib masquerading as a non-partisan political scientist. He fails miserably at both, and I mute the tube as soon as I see his mug.

8. #8
   On November 19th, 2008 at 3:19 pm, Paul Revere said:

   It’s like we’re the Continental Army as conservatives battling the Loyalists and regally outfitted British Army as the “moderates” and “more refined” and “better educated” in our own party.

9. #9
   On November 19th, 2008 at 4:20 pm, steveegg said:

   On November 19th, 2008 at 3:19 pm, Paul Revere said:

   The Comment of the Day™

10. #10
    On November 19th, 2008 at 4:27 pm, Joy said:

    Redpill - I got to know the Huckster all I care to during the Primary debates. His attacks on Romney based SOLEY on his Church affiliation was/is disgusting.

    I will not go along with ANYONE who seeks to SHUT-UP other Conservatives based on their choice of Church affiliation.

    Conservatism should be about upholding and defending the Constitution, which holds sacred a person’s freedom of religion.

11. #11
    On November 19th, 2008 at 4:29 pm, dlabedz said:

    Michelle,

    Like your column and blogs the last few days, you have nailed the hatemonger moonbats of the gay movement.

    If only your, and our message, would be picked up the MSM. Alas the MSM paints the gays as the victims of Prop 8s passage.

    God bless you Michelle, keep the truth rolling!

12. #12
    On November 19th, 2008 at 4:33 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

    Have I already missed it for today?

    The one day I have the TV off…

13. #13
    On November 19th, 2008 at 5:15 pm, Dave Turson said:

    at 2:14 pm, TheOtherSide said:
    Conservatism 2.0 needs to address the shrinking Republican base.

    In the Bible, people are often referred to as grass in that they temporarily exist, as compared to God’s glory and power (See: Ps 37:2;103: 15; Isa 40:8; 51:12; James 1:10). In the end times, people with evil intent were foretold to grow in such great numbers that they would cover the ground like the vegetation or grass (See: Ps 92:7). Being somewhat religious, I take comfort in this biblical fact–it helps me keep my sanity when members of The Other Side chime in.

14. #14
    On November 19th, 2008 at 5:41 pm, zorro said:

    Rats! I missed you. Hope Ed or Allah at Hot Air will post the video…

15. #15
    On November 19th, 2008 at 5:51 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Joy,

    I am well aware of the friction between Evangelicals and Latter-Day Saints (LDS). Honest observers recognize that there is “bigotry” displayed by some members of each group toward the other.

    My take on this is that while we certainly have differences in our theological beliefs, when we focus our attention on social, economic, and political issues, we are usually on the same side.

    Any two people (even a husband and wife) will have things on which they agree and things on which they disagree. We have a choice of where we place our focus.

    Since this is primarily a political blog, I primarily choose to focus on the political issues (where we usually agree), social issues (where we agree on things like Proposition 8), and the faith issues where we can agree (like Creation).

    On the political front, the presence of both an Evangelical (Huckabee) and a LDS (Romney) was bound to bring the areas of Evangelical/LDS friction to the forefront.

    Huckabee made a mistake bringing up theological differences between Evangelical/LDS in a political campaign. He acknowledged his mistake, and apologized to Romney face-to-face, as a man of integrity.

    If you choose to look at “[Huckabee's] attacks on Romney”, you must be honest and look at Romney’s attacks on Huckabee. I’ve covered some of that at times on my personal blog (which covers more than just political issues) rather than here at MM (which is more focused on political issues).

    I guarantee you that Huckabee does not “seek to SHUT-UP other Conservatives based on their choice of Church affiliation”.

    Conservatism should be about upholding and defending the Constitution, which holds sacred a person’s freedom of religion.

    I agree with you on that 100%.

16. #16
    On November 19th, 2008 at 6:07 pm, steveegg said:

    On November 19th, 2008 at 5:41 pm, zorro said:

    Rats! I missed you. Hope Ed or Allah at Hot Air will post the video…

    Ask and ye shall receive.

    Paging the Squirrel. Paging RabbidSquirrel. Please pick up the maroon courtesy thread for the video.

17. #17
    On November 19th, 2008 at 6:08 pm, Joy said:

    Redpill - The difference is Huckabee crossed that line. Mitt Romney never once took a swipe at Huckabee’s beliefs.

    I could never trust Huckabee. His whole conduct in the Primaries disgusted me.

18. #18
    On November 19th, 2008 at 6:15 pm, Joy said:

    Redpill- I will add that Huckabee’s message was that Mitt was unqualified to be POTUS based SOLEY on his relious affiliation.

19. #19
    On November 19th, 2008 at 6:46 pm, Jet Jaguar said:

    On November 19th, 2008 at 2:14 pm, TheOtherSide said:

    Conservatism 2.0 needs to address the shrinking Republican growing conservative base.

20. #20
    On November 19th, 2008 at 6:48 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

    Paging the Squirrel. Paging RabbidSquirrel. Please pick up the maroon courtesy thread for the video.

    Hello?… Hello?……is this thing on?

    How do I… oh there it is…. uh no

    Hello??? Wait… no… uh, HELLOO???

    hmmmmmm. OK, got it. GO! Thanks!

21. #21
    On November 19th, 2008 at 6:52 pm, djj said:

    Joy - I totally agree regarding Huckabee. He wined because Romney had more money than he did.

    He and McCain cheated in one of the east coast caucus states on super Tuesday. His workers told the media all about it. Then I heard him on Rush telling a different story.

    I also believe he is fiscally liberal. I could never support him.

    I am, however, attending a Fairtax rally being held at one of his book signing events this weekend. That is one thing he and I agree on.

22. #22
    On November 19th, 2008 at 7:17 pm, happy2behere said:

    I think Other Side is a professional interloper or close to it.

23. #23
    On November 19th, 2008 at 7:36 pm, zorro said:

    Just watched your video over at Hot Air.

    Excellent as usual.

    The wacko leftist protesters prancing around like spoiled children are a site to see. Mean, hateful, enraged and completely wrong. May God forgive them.

24. #24
    On November 19th, 2008 at 7:38 pm, zorro said:

    …are a site to see.

    Should be “sight”!

25. #25
    On November 19th, 2008 at 7:43 pm, zorro said:

    Thanks Steve! Just caught your comment. Now, PJTV… video not available yet.

26. #26
    On November 19th, 2008 at 8:08 pm, Joy said:

    AHEM… Itooktheredpill

    *cough* What were you saying about Huckabee?

    Pfffft… Is there anyone he’s not shooting in his new book? Nails in his coffin anyone?

27. #27
    On November 19th, 2008 at 9:07 pm, zorro said:

    Just watched your comments at PJTV. Very good.

    We’ll have to bat around the idea of a “conservative” convention sometime next year. My fear is that something like that would draw too many pretenders like McCain who would just serve to gum up the discussions.

28. #28
    On November 19th, 2008 at 9:07 pm, Jean said:

    Awesome

    1. Bought Unhinged by Michelle Malkin

    2. Planning to buy Defending Internment by Michlle Malkin

    3. Watching TV News that features Michelle Malkin

    Michelle what are you doing to me lol

    nah but seriously we love you… keep up the great work

29. #29
    On November 19th, 2008 at 9:38 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Joy,

    You claimed:

    Huckabee’s message was that Mitt was unqualified to be POTUS based SOLEY on his relious affiliation.

    Then you linked to a page that said:

    Mitt Romney, Huckabee’s principle rival in Iowa, comes in for the roughest treatment. Huckabee writes that the former Massachusetts Governor’s record was “anything but conservative until he changed the light bulbs in his chandelier in time to run for president.” He notes that Romney declined to make a phone call of congratulations after Huckabee beat the oddsmakers to win the Iowa caucuses, “which we took as a sign of total disrespect.” He mocks Romney for suggesting, during one debate, more investment in high-yield stocks as a solution to economic woes. “Let them eat stocks!” Huckabee jokes.

    1) Huckabee is right that Romney’s record was anything but conservative before he decided to run for President.

    2) Romney was wrong to not call Huckabee the night Huckabee won Iowa.

    3) Huckabee is right to call Romney out on that. Huckabee is right that it was extremely disrespectful.

    4) All of the above combined with mocking Romney for his suggested solution to economic woes has NOTHING to do with Romney’s relious affiliation.

    So your claim about Huckabee’s message is patently false.

30. #30
    On November 19th, 2008 at 9:56 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Joy,

    As a values voter, I do not trust any of the four Presidential candidates who chose, of their own free will, to disrespect conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly and values voters like you and me by refusing to attend the Values Voter Debate.

    If you would read Schlafly’s 1964 book A Choice Not an Echo: The inside story of how American Presidents are chosen, you would understand the Machiavellian moves that are the defacto behind the scenes activity, and were performed in this election to make John McCain be the nominee and lead the Republican Party to its slaughter (by supporting the bailout).

    I believe the four men who refused to attend the Values Voter Debate all played a huge part in that.

    I wish Romney had kept his word and continued his campaign all the way to the convention.

    It was Romney who decided to break his promise two days after he made it and quit the race for dishonest reasons (didn’t want his campaign to “aid a surrender to terror”). It was Romney who a week later “released” his delegates to McCain in a move designed to try to make Huckabee quit.

    Romney wasn’t fighting against McCain, he was actively helping McCain.

    Oh, and that caucus in West Virginia had nothing to do with Huckabee…it was John McCain who instructed his own people to vote for Huckabee.

    I’ve written pleny about this on my blog. Look it up if you care.

31. #31
    On November 19th, 2008 at 10:04 pm, Joy said:

    Nothing false about what I said.

    But we have one thing in common, neither one of us can spell religious.

32. #32
    On November 19th, 2008 at 10:18 pm, Joy said:

    Huckabee was the one that guaranteed McLoser as our candidate… wise up.

33. #33
    On November 19th, 2008 at 10:53 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Joy,

    John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul were the only three Republican candidates who “went the distance”.

    Of those three only Huckabee and Paul cared about Values Voters.

    Huckabee and Paul were not the problem.
    Either one of them would have been vastly better than McCain.

    What guaranteed McCain as our nominee?
    A combination of:

    1) Fred Thompson (McCain’s stalking horse in SC to ensure McCain, not Huckabee, won)

    2) Media, who started calling John McCain the “presumptive nominee” soon after he won SC (less than three weeks after his 4th place Iowa finish!)

    3) Rudy Giuliani (McCain’s stalking horse in FL to ensure McCain, not Romney, won)

    4) Democrats in FL (where exit polls showed 20% of those voting in the Republican Primary were not Republicans)

    5) RNC, joining the MSM to prematurely declare McCain the “presumptive nominee” less than four weeks after after his 4th place Iowa finish, and pressuring Republicans:

    It is time to unite behind John McCain to be the nominee of our party.

    Chuck Yob
    Vice Chairman, Republican National Committee
    January 30, 2008

    6) Mitt Romney. Read more here.

34. #34
    On November 19th, 2008 at 11:20 pm, Joy said:

    Blah blah blah…

    FACT - Huckabee joined the race late SOLEY to counter Romney.

    Huckabee was the spoiler. Over… end of story. And Huckabee wouldn’t have won either.

35. #35
    On November 19th, 2008 at 11:42 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Joy,

    Your “FACT” is “FICTION”. If you were right, then why didn’t Huckabee quit the race at CPAC after Romney quit?

    Here’s what another LDS had to say about Romney:

    I don’t know why anyone would support Mitt for dog catcher let alone anything else. He is disingenuous at best and a pathological liar at worst. Please let me provide a specific example that was very revealing for me.

    As members of the LDS faith we believe in a modern day prophet who directs the Church as he is inspired and directed by God. We have the same regard for “modern” prophets as we do for prophets of the Old Testament. In fact, the words of a modern prophet are given precedence over prior prophets since they relate directly to what is going on now. Mitt either lied to the members of his congregation when he sustained President Gordon B. Hinckley as the prophet, seer and revelator of the LDS church or he lied in his on camera interview when he rejected the idea that God speaks to people today.

    I must stress that this is not a matter of him not being religious enough. It is more fundamental than that because it speaks to his integrity. He lied to one group for his own reasons. That is fine. Maybe he doesn’t believe anything. But the fact is that if he will lie about something that is a key element of what it means to be LDS then it should say something about his character. He claims membership in the church so it is a key issue.

    I don’t want someone in a leadership position that denies the tenets of his faith because he is embarrassed by them. I also don’t want someone pretending to believe in something they don’t. I would have more respect if he simply rejected the ideas. I have said this before because I believe that he is dangerous because he is a man without a core set of values.

    Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 10:15 PM

    “a man without a core set of values”…

    February 5th, 2008: Mitt Romney adamantly insisted that his campaign was going on all the way to the convention:

    “Ann came to me, and she said, ‘You know, the one thing that’s clear tonight is that nothing’s clear,’” Romney said to hundreds of cheering supporters in Boston. “But I think she’s wrong. One thing that’s clear is this campaign’s going on!”

    “I think there’s some people who thought it was all going to be done tonight, but it’s not all done tonight,” Romney said. “We’re gonna keep on battling. We’re gonna go all the way to the convention. We’re gonna win this thing, and we’re gonna get in the White House.”

    A mere two days later, Mitt Romney was not good for his word
    and broke his promise…

    February 7th, 2008:

    Now if I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention — (cheers, applause). I want you to know I’ve given this a lot of thought. I’d forestall the launch of a national campaign and, frankly, I’d be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win.

    AUDIENCE MEMBERS: No! Boo!

    MR. ROMNEY: Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror. (Cheers, applause.)

36. #36
    On November 19th, 2008 at 11:43 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Mitt Romney’s father was also “a man without a core set of values”…

    Did you know that Mitt Romney’s father ran for President (in 1968) when he was not Constitutionally eligible?

    George Wilcken Romney was born in Mexico and was not a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States of America.

    Did that stop him from running for President? No.

    Now, with all that said…

    Can’t we all just get along?
    Yes.

37. #37
    On November 19th, 2008 at 11:45 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    I applaud the integrity and courage of Mormon Doc.

38. #38
    On November 20th, 2008 at 6:44 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Or you can catch me on PJTV later today talking about “Conservatism 2.0″ with Instapundit Glenn Reynolds.

    Michelle Malkin,
    I watched this PJTV program, and you were truly unfair to Mike Huckabee. You mocked him as being against companies making profits, but he had already made it perfectly clear (earlier in the program) that that is not true and a misrepresentation.

    Please go back, watch Huckabee’s segment, and ask yourself if you were fair or whether an apology to Mike Huckabee is in order.

    You know that I love you and appreciate all you do. But when I believe you are out of line, I will raise the issue.

    Thanks,
    Red Pill