About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Surprise! Michelle Malkin's attacking little kids again

August 12, 2009 8:29 am ET by Eric Boehlert

Wasn't Malkin's infamous, and creepy, 2007 Baltimore drive-by* bad enough? I guess not, because now Malkin's zeroing in on a young Massachusetts school girl. Why? Because she got to ask president Obama a question at a town hall forum. Bad idea! (She was an "in-the-tank questioner.") The girl may as well have painted a bull's eye on her back because Malkin and her online detective pals are takin' that kid down!!

Stay classy, Michelle.

And how much hate mail and how many angry phone calls to the house from wingnuts do you think the little girls' family is now going to receive thanks to Malkin's vilification? And all because the youngster participated in a town hall forum. 

Malkin's larger point seemed to be that the Obama town hall wasn't diverse enough, and that too many Obama fans were in attendance. (i.e. It was all staged.) As HotAirPundit complained, "During the Town Hall at the end of Obama's speech nearly everyone gave Obama a standing ovation, on their feet clapping. This is propaganda 101."

Here's the friendly wager: If any reader can find a single example of Malkin or HotAirPundit ever leveling similarly pointed criticism of President Bush's town hall forums during his 2005 push to privatize Social Security -- town hall forums where Democrats were purposefully shut out or were even physically removed on the suspicion that they might disagree with the president -- then I'll send that reader a complimentary Media Matters bumper sticker.

But I'm not concerned about losing the wager because Malkin and HotAirPundit specialize in advertising their hypocrisy.

*I'm not using the "drive-by" phrase metaphorically the way Rush Limbaugh does. I'm using it literally. In 2007, Malkin drove all the way to Baltimore and cruised by the row house of a working class family -- she practically peered in their windows -- in an effort to undermine their public support for a federal insurance program designed to help poor kids.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by cuardai (August 12, 2009 8:45 am ET)
      5 2
      And you are surprised by Malkin's behavior why?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (August 12, 2009 9:45 am ET)
        5 2
        My personal definition of ideologue is someone who puts their "principles" before the real-life needs of real people. Of course Malkin will attack children if it furthers her ideology, especially if she knows in advance that the media will not make the slightest peep at an attack that doesn't fall very short of outright child abuse. Anything goes when fighting the socialist fascist communist atheist liberals...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (August 12, 2009 10:57 am ET)
        1 2
        I didn't detect surprise in Eric's piece, but I guess it's subject to interpretation.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by The Lonewacko Blog (August 12, 2009 4:33 pm ET)
        2  
        I don't know about surprise, but Boehlert is engaging in fallacious reasoning, what's called a "TuQuoque". I don't know whether Malkin spoke out against Bush's staged townhalls, but even if she didn't that doesn't mean it's invalid for her to do so about BHO's staged events (another example of such an event here). Assuming for the moment that Malkin didn't speak out against staged events, that doesn't make staged events acceptable (except to MMFA).

        [http://www.iisg.nl/landsberger/images/vil01.jpg]
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jjcomet514 (August 12, 2009 4:52 pm ET)
          2 2
          Well it does make her a hypocrite, but that doesn't seem to bother conservatives much these days...
          Report Abuse
        • Author by pbg (August 12, 2009 6:26 pm ET)
          2  
          That's not a Tu Quoque fallacy. Tu Quoque means 'you also' in Latin. and it's a name for the all-too-common 'you do it too" justification. This is not the case here: Eric's pointing out that she didn't object to the process when Republicans did it.
          To be sure, that criticism doesn't prove that the event wasn't staged, or that staged events aren't bad.

          It's a simple and straightforward accusation of using a double standard, or, in Latin, IOKIYAR.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Bad News (August 12, 2009 8:53 am ET)
      3 3
      Michelle Malkin will do or say anything to sell her Book.
      As an alleged Political Prostitute i hope she won't Hook.
      Now she attacks Magan McCain to highten her Fame.
      If only her Mother had taught her some since of Shame.

      Speak truth to power.


      Mr. News
      Report Abuse
      • Author by manofmystique (August 12, 2009 11:49 am ET)
        3 2
        Milkin is a Prostitute for Fox,propaganda,News.Milkin abandoned her culture and common sense in order to please her master.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by pros2pros2940 (August 12, 2009 9:00 am ET)
      4 3
      Malkin is an asian Ann Coulter and is clearly prostituting herself and is nothing but a progandist who has all the RW talking points and dog whistle buzz words down pat.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by kth (August 12, 2009 11:14 am ET)
        4 2
        Malkin is a piece of human garbage, but her gender and ethnicity don't enter into it.

        I'll confess to sometimes being more surprised when a woman is evil, like Betsy McCaughey, than I would if the same lies came from a man. That's because I'm relatively old, in my mid-40s. But it's a wrong way to think, it puts women on a pedestal. One of the consequences of full equality for women is that someday women will be running concentration camps and leading death squads. Such women will likely have souls similar to Malkin's. But placing women outside the pale of the world's horrors ultimately is belittling to them.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by newzhound (August 12, 2009 9:23 am ET)
      4 2
      The political operatives in the Bush Admnistrations went much further than that. Not only did they use the United States military as props - which is so wrong on so many levels - it was reported they screened which service personnel were allowed to attend.

      Then they fed them questions. And denied they did it when they got caught.

      This Faux Outrage is just another textbook case of "CP" - Conservative Projection.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (August 12, 2009 9:43 am ET)
        3 2
        I was thinking much the same thing as I watched the presentation; that the cons would immediately shriek that the whole thing was staged. Well, after eight years of organizing such staged events, perhaps they think that's the only way a President would run one an event. Well, that or the projection thing you pointed out, nh...
        Report Abuse
    • Author by mk3872 (August 12, 2009 9:46 am ET)
      3 2
      She's sick. She is the boots-on-the-ground part of the Rush & O'Reilly wing of ring wing bully tactics.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mk3872 (August 12, 2009 9:50 am ET)
      6 2
      Oh, yeah, I get it now! All Tea Party mobs and town hall disrupters are honest, hard-working NON POLITICALLY AFFILIATED patriots. Any supporter of progressive policies must be a political plant ... Malkin is BRILLIANT, BRILLIANT I tells ya!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by epkklk851 (August 12, 2009 9:59 am ET)
      4 2
      If you go and see the President speak, there will be security checks. You will have to give your name and your social security number and prove who you are. The Bush Administration was even pickier about who they let in to see the President, so why should it surprise anyone that the Obama Administration would favor a friendly audience. But for Michelle Malkin to attack a child for asking a question is outrageous. Aren't you supposed to be able to ask questions? If the girl had been there to boo the President, I am quite sure that she would have applauded the girl, but since it was a positive question, she deserves to be intimidated and shamed because her mother is an Obama backer. So much for freedom of speech and association.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by eddiebear2 (August 12, 2009 10:41 am ET)
      1 4
      So, suddenly, targeting and "vetting" children and "average citizens" is bad again.

      Good to know
      Report Abuse
    • Author by eddiebear2 (August 12, 2009 10:42 am ET)
      4 7
      Well, at least Bush didn't bring in union thugs to beat up people.
      Of course, that was back when dissent was patriotic.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Leftym0m79 (August 12, 2009 11:02 am ET)
      1 1
      "During the Town Hall at the end of Obama's speech nearly everyone gave Obama a standing ovation, on their feet clapping. This is propaganda 101."


      But when it was W it was patriotic and if the crown hadn't given W a standing ovation they would have been vilified and called unamerican or worse.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wookie (August 12, 2009 11:08 am ET)
      1 1
      A representative quote from the gatewaypundit link above.

      >>'no plants here'

      A new lie everyday from this
      beer swillin' honky hating
      Kenya resident.
      Flotilla Labarge | 08.11.09 - 9:19 pm | #>>
      Report Abuse
    • Author by craig98607271 (August 12, 2009 12:20 pm ET)
      3 3
      no doubt malkin is a coulter type. smear lie spin. but lets face it, the left OWNES the bringing in protestors who scream throw thing and shout down the other side. not fun when its the other side is it?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Booklearninboy (August 12, 2009 1:20 pm ET)
        1 1
        >> lets face it, the left OWNES

        EPIC WRONG. See: construction-worker attacks on war protesters in 1970s; police riot, Chicago 1968; repression of anti-McCarthyites, 1950 - 1954; Legionnaires' riot, Peekskill, NY, 1949 ...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Tbone Slickens (August 13, 2009 9:13 am ET)
          3 1
          Chicago 1968


          Now that there is funny...I don't care who you are!

          Better go do some Googl'n on this one. It was left wing malcontents who stormed the dem convention in '68. Hoffman and the hippies, CSN&Y wrote a song for it "Chicago/We Can Change The World", and all the ruffians storming the streets and fighting the cops.

          No the LEFT owns Chicago '68!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Capt. Fogg (August 13, 2009 11:48 am ET)
              2
            Yeah, Tbone, Google, because you were born yesterday and don't have a clue that wasn't stuffed in your ear by some propagandist. I was there, you weren't. The convention wasn't stormed at all, people were beaten up by the hundreds in Grant Park many miles away. Dan Rather was beaten up by cops, A photographer I know was beaten up right on the convention floor - I was there. People were arrested all over town for carrying anti-war signs, people were dragged off buses for having long hair. Cops were shooting out tires in North Side neighborhoods from moving squad cars, just for sport. I saw Dick Gregory get arrested a long way from the convention, just for walking down the street. I ran like hell, he didn't, you weren't there. Ruffians my ass. Cops were using batons to knock people on bicycle paths off their bikes and tossing them in the Lincoln Park Lagoon. A group of photos showing the cops grabbing a woman off her bike and dropping her off an overpass - it was front page stuff, but you weren't there, were you? Go look on a map and see where Lincoln Park and Grant Park and the Conrad Hilton Hotel are and tell me all about how being there was "storming the convention" you arrogant propaganda sucking Googlebrained twit. Malcontents? Are you even old enough to remember that over 70% of the country opposed that war by '68?

            Now calling Mayor Daley a leftist is amusing, calling the Chicago PD "the left" is hilarious, but calling a mechanized police charge into a peaceful crowd on the other side of town, cracking heads and running people over "ruffians fighting the cops" is an affront to history and honesty. You don't have a clue at all and you can go google yourself until your palms are raw, but you still don't have a clue.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by anyfreedomleft (August 13, 2009 8:50 am ET)
        2
      Apparently, the right-wing have found someone they feel they might be able to take in a fair fight ...

      if she were in a wheelchair and restrained ...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bettheright (August 14, 2009 8:30 am ET)
         
      Wow to funny. The liberals plant a girl to do there bidding, then get exposed and attack the messenger. Hypocrisy on the left just gets better and better.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by monstep (August 14, 2009 9:11 am ET)
         
      Tell the entire story please---The little girl, one Julia Hall, was none other than the daughter of an Obama campaign worker and donor Kathleen Manning Hall. Julia's mother even has pictures of her arm-in-arm with Obama on her web page.


      Report Abuse
    • Author by Thogwummpy (August 14, 2009 10:50 am ET)
         
      This column is infuriating. NOT for the reason most members think; but the fact that it totally lies thru omission. Malkin's column was about the girl being a plant (many times the Obama clan has been caught red-handed seeding questions they want asked by putting them in the hands of operatives made to look "objective"). Media Matters doesn't tell you the little girl, who was allegedly randomly chosen (notes in her tiny hand to read), is Julia Hall, the daughter of Obama campaign official Kathleen Manning Hall----little Julia even has a photo of herself arm in arm with Obama posted on her website. Randomly chosen? NOT IF YOU'VE GOT A GRAIN OF STREET SMARTS.
      So here's the point. If Media Matters pretends to be a watchdog over media....why so dishonest in this column today. For check the facts; MM didn't write the whole truth here did they!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MLJ1728 (August 14, 2009 11:13 am ET)
         
      Funny how you fail to mention the fact that the little girls mother (and the firm she works for) is a contributor to Obama and that the mother has pictures of herself posted on her facebook account of her and Pres. Obama and Michelle and her children. But I'm sure that he didn't know her in any way. How convenient that her question was written down and that her mother was mouthing some of the words with her daughter. How Convienient.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Zandarus (August 14, 2009 12:20 pm ET)
         
      I am trying to be fair minded on this matter. I understand your position Eric, but you failed to discount what Malkin has said about the girl's ultimate relation to the President through her mothers various interactions. I would think that a question from someone not associated at all would have been better. Both sides ofthe coin have been guilty at times of having "plants" in the audience of their respective "town hall" meetings. If I were the Presidents staff I sure as heck would not want anyone there that would make me look back, regardless of what party they were from. It comes down to this Eric, if you are going to attack the attacker, you must first discount. You failed to do that. Thank you for you time
      Report Abuse
    • Author by whydoucare (August 14, 2009 1:16 pm ET)
         
      OOOOHHH< i get it. it is OK for a lack luster president to have a plant in the audience and you let that go. BUT, if someone on the other side does, you go ape?
      Besides Michele is not attacking the girl (like the dems attacking the Pres Bush's twins, or Gov Palin's girls, or etc), the messenger, but the one who wrote the message! you imbecile! how can you call yourself a writer and say such moronic things? i am angry that he (PBO) cant even do a "townhall" wihtout plants tossing him softball questions that he know will be asked! you have got to get your head examined to think that Michele Maulkin is the bad one here, when you did the SAME THING last year! do go F##K yourself!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by welcome54beautiful (August 14, 2009 3:00 pm ET)
         
      it's fine if you agree with the writer's view or to just plain dislike what is essentially just the conservative version of any of a number of liberal female talking heads BUT doesn't anyone care to know the WHY? The writer completely ignored Malkin's point which was the girl was the daughter of a big time obama supporter and that the question was staged. You can disagree with her conclusions but to rage against makin while completely ignoring her point causes you to lose all credibility and integrity in my book.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pau5548 (August 14, 2009 4:55 pm ET)
      1  
      How dare she point out that she's that daughter of an Obama supporter!

      Next, they'll look into their tax records and see if she is truly enrolled as a student and then ridicule and mock her as an idiot, a la Joe the Plumber.

      Doesn't she know that she may already qualify for the SCHIPs program?
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

About the Blog

Feed Icon
  • County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.

Weekly Columns

Feed Icon