Ode to tha ho

Dennis the Peasant is obviously crazy jealous… or is that smitten? I can never keep remember which one is the only reason to ever criticize Ms Malkin:

But as bad as cable is, what passes as news and political commentary on CNN, MSNBC and Fox on a nightly basis is simply beyond ghastly. And it doesn’t really matter whether your bent is Conservative or Liberal… It is all unbelievably bad. It’s as though every programming chief at every network vies to find the most obviously unsuitable politico in the entire 50 states and hand them their own hour-long show….

Working off the theory that most present-day Conservatives aren’t really looking for a place to think things though, and having seen the work of Surnow, no doubt Roger Ailes is simply to the point of demanding that Fox stock up on eye candy if real talent isn’t available. This, of course, explains why the passably pretty but absolutely batshit crazy Rachel Marsden was given a chance on Red Eye. After watching her only twice, I’m pretty sure she didn’t get the gig because either her intellect or her sense of humor overwhelmed everyone at Fox.

So now the only question is whether they’re going to be stupid enough to give Michelle Malkin her own show. You’d think someone over at Fox would have sat down and read In Defense of Internment and realized just about any guest on any given night could overmatch Michelle, but evidently that is not the case. I’ve watched her more than once over the past several weeks, and in a perverse way, I’d like to see her get a shot at her own show. Then again, I’m the sort of person who reads the obituaries for fun. The reason I think she’d be the Titanic of the airwaves is simple; television diminishes her strengths (such that they are) and magnifies her weaknesses. It would be a marriage made in Heaven… And genuinely hilarious television.

From what I’ve seen so far, here’s how Malkin’s dry run on O’Reilly’s show is shaking out:

First of all, Michelle Malkin is utterly humorless. As in devoid of all humor. Although this became pretty clear when she dressed up as a cheerleader and did the “Defeatocrats Cheer” on YouTube, the depth of her humorlessness doesn’t really come across in her blog. And her sense of self-importance is to the point of being painful… It’s so bad as to be almost Kerry-esque.

Second, the woman cannot think on her feet. In my own opinion, this is because she isn’t particularly bright. For all the trumpeting about her as an A-list Conservative blogger, there really isn’t a whole lot of “there” there on her blog. Her lack of any sort of grounding in the history, policy and political options in most major issues is both obvious and limiting… Especially when she’s face to face with people who are on top of things.

I truly, madly, deeply hope Me So Michelle will get her own show on Fox. If she does, I might even consider watching Fox for the first time in years, because it will certainly be more amusing than the average TV comedy.

And you wonder why I’d rather write books in obscurity than perform as a Washington lapdog for the visually-oriented pseudo-intellectual mini-masses.

The Republican reflex

When doubted, deny. When caught, lie:

Just two days after President Bush slammed critics of his immigration policy, the Republican National Committee has reportedly fired all 65 of its telephone solicitors, as donors are said to be furious over the president’s stance to give legal status to millions of illegal aliens.

“Every donor in 50 states we reached has been angry, especially in the last month and a half, and for 99 percent of them immigration is the No. 1 issue,” a fired phone-bank employee told the Washington Times.

Ousted staff members told the paper Anne Hathaway, the committee’s chief of staff, summoned the solicitors and told them they were out of work, effective immediately. They claim the reasons they were given were an estimated 40 percent plunge in small-donor contributions, as well as aging phone-bank equipment the RNC said would cost too much to modernize.

The committee, however, is denying any drop-off in the influx of cash. “Any assertion that overall donations have gone down is patently false,” RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt told the Times via e-mail. “We continue to out-raise our Democrat counterpart by a substantive amount (nearly double).”

Always parse a politician’s words very carefully. Of course the “overall donations” haven’t gone down, it’s the rate of new donations coming in that has declined. As for the comparative fund-raising, how can the RNC possibly know how much the DNC has raised in the last three days? Is there some sort of nightly report?

Of course, they’re probably counting on everyone forgetting about this by the time the next quarterly report or whatever has to be filed. But even if the equipment has to be modernized, how does it make any sense to fire all of its experienced solicitors? Have they replaced them with an entirely automated system or are their former employees simply incapable of working with a newer system?

“We write these comments up from each call, and give them to a supervisor who passes them on to the finance director or the national chairman,” he said. “But when I talked with the White House, the people there told me they got nothing but positive comments on the president’s immigration stand.”

Yeah, so how’s that pragmatism thing working these days?

Breaking with Bush

This is why the leading Republican candidates must be rejected:

What political conservatives and on-the-ground Republicans must understand at this point is that they are not breaking with the White House on immigration. They are not resisting, fighting and thereby setting down a historical marker–“At this point the break became final.” That’s not what’s happening. What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future.

The White House doesn’t need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don’t even much like the base. Desperate straits have left them liberated, and they are acting out their disdain. Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place.

For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don’t like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don’t like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.

But on immigration it has changed from “Too bad” to “You’re bad.”

They think you’re stupid. They think you’re bad. They think you want what is wrong for America. Why do you support them? Why do you reject someone like Ron Paul, who actually believes in the principles you claim to hold?

Electability means nothing but “acceptable to the party leadership”.

And stand up, all of you who told me that I was wrong back in the lead-up to the 2004 election, who insisted that Bush was a good man with a double-secret conservative plan, that the prescription drug entitlement and Patriot Act and massive increase in social spending were merely necessary concessions to the Left and national security. I haven’t noticed a single one of you Three Monkeys publicly admit that you were completely and utterly wrong.

Be patient, grasshopper

Al apparently hasn’t read through the column archive:

So for you to brag about how you’d kick ass in a debate with someone on the “other side” is greeted with cheers from your squirrels, and derision from those who think your position is merely another subjective opinion.

That’s because those on the other side haven’t read through my case yet. What you have seen written in my columns and on the blog is far from the substantive case I am making against Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens. That’s merely the starting point from which I began my research and I’ve since learned that the empirical evidence is even stronger against them than I had hoped.

You can be as skeptical as you want, but I note that Sam Harris has already ignored the invitation of the Northern Alliance guys to debate me on their radio show. Given how poorly Hitchens faired against Wilson’s logical assault, he has absolutely no chance whatsoever against my primarily empirical and historical approach. Harris is a hopeless case, as my atheist editor said after reading the chapter devoted to him, “okay, you got him.”

Dawkins, being surprisingly evasive in his language, is a little harder to effectively destroy.

There’s something going on here that very, very few of you realize; I doubt one in a thousand of the Christians and atheists interested in this subject even understands the underlying purpose of these attacks on religious faith in general and Christianity in general.

In fact, I have no doubt that there will be more than a few atheists, perhaps even a majority, who will find themselves in much stronger agreement with my general position than with Harris despite my theism and their atheism.

If you doubt me, then by all means encourage Mr. Harris, Mr. Dawkins or Mr. Hitchens to debate me, whether it’s now or after the book comes out. I’d be perfectly content to have fair-minded atheists in the mode of Brent Rasmussen judge who won; I somehow doubt the New Atheists would be as comfortable in having an evangelical Christian do the same.