All posts in Michelle Malkin

HANNITY PANEL EXPLODES OVER DISCUSSION OF PRESIDENT‘S ECONOMIC ’SUCCESSES’

by Admin on April 22, 2012 in Barrack Obama, Michelle Malkin, Mitt Romney, Sean Hannity with No comments

“I am going to be working so hard. We have an amazing story to tell. This President has brought us out of the dark and into the light,” First Lady Michelle Obama said while stumping for her husband.

These comments, and the possible “return of Obamamania,” became a hot topic of a debate on Sean Hannity’s Fox show on Wednesday.

“Michelle Obama can tell all the amazing stories she wants but she’s not going to be able to rewrite the sordid history of these last four years,” conservative authoress Michelle Malkin said.

Hannity Panel Explodes Over Discussion of Presidents Economic SuccessesFox News contributor Tamara Holder, Sean Hannity, and Michelle Malkin

“There seems to be here,” host Sean Hannity said to Fox News contributor Tamara Holder, “a disconnect because the president … he lectured George Bush about $4 trillion in eight years. We now passed the $5 trillion in debt mark.”

“Do you think this deserves comparisons to Jesus?” Hannity asked, referring to the First Lady’s biblical-esque claim that her husband has “brought us out of the dark and into the light.”

“I think that’s a little bit of a stretch in your own right Sean,” Holder responded.

“What’s a stretch?”

“The stretch is that the average person does not really understand that the large enormous debt that you continue to talk about really doesn’t hit the person at home …”

“Five trillion, we just passed the five trillion in 39 months!” Hannity interjected.

“Which is because the Republicans, they wanted to go to this war, or I’m sorry, two wars to go find somebody,” Holder snarked.

Steering the conversation back on point, Hannity said: “It seems to me that on every measure the President fails and on every account those that are deeply, almost hypnotically, entranced by Obama, they go back to some excuse.”

At that moment, Malkin jumped in: “One of the main talking points they use is the one that Tamara just invoked which is that ‘average, ordinary people just don’t understand.’”

“Really the average person isn’t so excited about Mitt Romney. The average person knows that they are actually coming back to work, they’re getting jobs,” Holder said, “their foreclosure rates are down. There are certain things that people are seeing, the person next door, nobody understands five trillion.”

Malkin unloaded:

Conservatives online are not accepting these fables that have been shoved down our throat. The idea that Obama has brought us out of the light when he’s plunged us deeper into the sinkhole of debt, that somehow Obama has opened up Washington D.C. to make it as transparent and open as possible, when they’ve done all of these deals and subverted the rule of law behind closed doors.

That somehow Obama is more likeable than any Republican and somehow he’s a nice guy. I hate hearing this from Mitt Romney. He’s got to get this talking point out of his mouth. Barack Obama is not a nice guy.

At this point, Hannity himself felt compelled to challenge Holder and asked her to name at least one economic success the president can claim as his own.

Holder tried to use  unemployment as an example but, as could be expected on the Hannity program, she didn’t get very far.

“No unemployment is higher … You’re wrong,” Hannity said.

Apparently, the combination of being challenged on the president’s economic “successes” and having to do battle with Michelle Malkin proved too much for Holder.

“I don’t understand why you have me on the show and you don’t have to like what I say but you’re fine with Michelle and everybody talking about their conservative flowery talking points and you don’t want me to finish my position,” Holder huffed.

She then turned the conversation away from a defense of the president’s economic record and instead chose to focus on the presumed Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.

“The guy [Romney] is borderline brain-dead,” Holder said, demonstrating for all to see that “new civility” we’ve heard so much about.

Video via Fox News Insider.

This article has been updated.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Malkin To Romney: Stop Saying Obama Is A Nice Guy, He Is Not

by Admin on April 19, 2012 in Michelle Malkin, Obama Propaganda, Obama's Economy, Obama's Radical Ideology with No comments

Michelle Malkin: The thing that has changed phenomenally between 2008 and 2012, is that we don’t have to rely on Barack and Michelle Obama and their Alinskyite storytellers in the mainstream media and all of their operatives to set the tone and the storyline for this election. That is what underscores all of the victories that we’ve seen over the last four years on the right.

 

 

Conservatives online are not accepting these fables that have been shoved down our throat, the idea that Obama has brought us out of the light when he has plunged us deeper into the sinkhole of debt. That somehow Obama has opened up Washington, D.C. to make it as transparent and open as possible when they’ve done all of these deals and subverted the rule of law, behind closed doors.

That somehow Obama is more likable than any Republican and somehow he is a nice guy — I hate hearing this from Mitt Romney. He’s got to get this talking point out of his mouth. Barack Obama is not a nice guy. He has dealt brutally with the right, with people like Paul Ryan and brave Republicans who have been calling him to the carpet on all of the disgusting culture of corruption that has reigned and that’s the darkness that we have to get out of in November.

Enhanced by Zemanta

For Santorum

by Admin on January 30, 2012 in GOP Primary Election, Michelle Malkin, Rick Santorum with No comments

Via: MichelleMalkin.com, By Michelle Malkin

Rick Santorum opposed TARP.

He didn’t cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008. He didn’t follow the pro-bailout GOP crowd — including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — and he didn’t have to obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did. He also opposed the auto bailout, Freddie and Fannie bailout, and porkulus bills.

Santorum opposed individual health care mandates — clearly and forcefully — as far back as his 1994 U.S. Senate run. He has launched the most cogent, forceful fusillade against both Romney and Gingrich for their muddied, pro-individual health care mandate waters.

He voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted yes to drilling in ANWR, and unlike Romney and Gingrich, Santorum has never dabbled with eco-radicals like John Holdren, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. He hasn’t written any “Contracts with the Earth.”

Santorum is strong on border security, national security, and defense. Mitt the Flip-Flopper and Open Borders-Pandering Newt have been far less trustworthy on immigration enforcement.

Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has been savaged and ridiculed by leftist elites for upholding traditional family values — not just in word, but in deed.

He won Iowa through hard work and competent campaign management. Santorum has improved in every GOP debate and gave his strongest performance last week in Florida, wherein he both dismantled Romneycare and popped the Newt bubble by directly challenging the front-runners’ character and candor without resorting to their petty tactics.

He rose above the fray by sticking to issues.

Most commendably, he refused to join Gingrich and Perry in indulging in the contemptible Occupier rhetoric against Romney. Character and honor matter. Santorum has it.

Of course, Santorum is not perfect. As I’ve said all along, every election cycle is a Pageant of the Imperfects. He lost his Senate re-election bid in 2006, an abysmal year for conservatives. He was a go-along, get-along Big Government Republican in the Bush era. He supported No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit entitlement, steel tariffs, and earmarks and outraged us movement conservatives by endorsing RINO Arlen Specter over stalwart conservative Pat Toomey.

I have no illusions about Rick Santorum. I wish he were as rock-solid on core economic issues as Ron Paul.

And I wish Ron Paul was not the far-out, Alex Jones-panderer on foreign policy, defense, and national security that he is.

If Ron Paul talked more like his son, Rand Paul, about the need for common-sense profiling of jihadists at our State Department consular offices overseas and if he talked more about the need for strengthened visa screening and airport security scrutiny of international flight manifests, I might have more than a kernel of confidence that he would take post-9/11 precautions to guard against jihadi threats and protect us from our enemies foreign and domestic. But he doesn’t, so I can’t support Ron Paul.

Mitt Romney has the backing of many solid conservatives whom I will always hold in high esteem — including Kansas Secretary of State and immigration enforcement stalwart Kris Kobach, former U.N. ambassacor John Bolton, and GOP Govs. Nikki Haley and Bob McDonnell. With such conservative advisers in his camp, Romney would be better than Obama. And a GOP Congress with a staunch Tea Party-backed contingent of fresh-blood leaders in the House and Senate will help keep any GOP president in line. Romney’s private-sector experience and achievements are the best things he’s got going. Only recently has he risen to defend himself effectively. But between his health care debacle, eco-nitwittery, and expedient and unconvincing political metamorphosis, Mitt Romney had way too much ideological baggage for me in 2008 to earn an endorsement — and it still hasn’t changed for me in 2012.

Then there’s Newt, who has long made a career out of trashing progressive Saul Alinsky while employing his tactics at every turn. I’ve been making this point for years and have chronicled his dalliances with leftists as long as anyone in the conservative blogosphere.

Many grass-roots conservatives were awakened to Newt’s double-talk and double-dealing during the NY-23 race. Inconvenient truth: Newt’s transgressions are not from decades ago. It’s not ancient history. It’s here and now. Readers of this blog know the truth: It’s not just “the GOP establishment” that’s repulsed by Gingrich’s combination of moral baggage and K Street/Beltway culture of corruption. It’s the very grass-roots that Gingrich’s cheerleaders purport to represent.

Remember October 2009?

From reader Barnaby, who sent back his crossed-out Republican solicitation forms with a “NO RINOS” sticky note for Newt Gingrich:

Remember the rebuke in Dubuque? May 11, 2011:

Guy: Speaker Gingrich, what you just did to Paul Ryan is unforgivable.
Gingrich: I didn’t do anything to Paul Ryan!
Guy: Yes, you did. You undercut him and his allies in the house.
Gingrich: No, I…
Guy: You’re an embarrassment to our party.
Gingrich: I’m sorry you feel that way.
Guy: Why don’t you get out before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

Lest we forget, this election is not about choosing a showboat candidate to run against John King or Juan Williams or Wolf Blitzer.

It’s not about “raging against” some arbitrarily defined GOP “machine.”

For many grass-roots conservatives across the country, Romney and Gingrich are the machine.

And at this point in the game, Rick Santorum represents the most conservative candidate still standing who can articulate both fiscal and social conservative values — and live them.

***

Side note: Unlike many bloggers and pundits weighing in on GOP 2012, I have zero connections to any of the final four GOP candidates’ campaigns. I have neither received a single penny from, nor donated a single penny, to any of their campaigns.

have not served as any kind of consultant or adviser to any of the campaigns. I have not written any speeches or talking points or briefing papers for any of their campaigns. I have not organized any blogger calls or social media efforts for any of their campaigns. I have not spoken to Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich since interviewing them for Hot Air at CPAC in 2006, and as far as I can recall, I have not communicated directly with either Santorum or Paul. My first and only contact with Santorum’s campaign came last week when a spokesman called to assure me that Santorum was not withdrawing from the Florida primary or the race in general and was in it for the long haul.

So much for my “establishment” credentials, eh?

***
Santorum is headed to Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nevada.

“The Rick Santorum for President Campaign will expand nationally this week with campaign stops in Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nevada in the coming days,” a spokesman MAtt Beynon said in a statement.

Santorum is slated to make several stops in battleground states over the next few days, but did not appear to be heading back to Florida, where Republicans go to the polls on Tuesday.

Santorum is expected be in Las Vegas, Nevada on Tuesday when the Florida results are known.

After winning Iowa — the first state to chose which Republican they want to face Obama in November — Santorum’s campaign has struggled to catch fire.

In Florida — a winner-takes-all race — the former senator has not appeared much and is barely avoiding a vote share in single digits according to polls, putting him in third place behing Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.

Nevada will vote just four days after Florida, while Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri all vote on February 7th.
Santorum had put campaigning in Florida on hold Sunday, as his daughter, Bella, was hospitalized just days before a key primary vote.

Two days before Florida’s winner-takes-all primary, Santorum spent the day in Pennsylvania, where his three year-old was admitted to a Philadelphia children’s hospital.

***

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

E-mail of the day: Media Matters coordinates with Capitol Hill “allies” on Keystone XL; Plus: 20,000 jobs “is not that many”

by Admin on January 25, 2012 in Media Bias, Media Corruption, Michelle Malkin with No comments

Via: Michelle Malkin

A flack for Media Matters for America, the Soros-backed one-trick GOP-bashing pony, sent an e-mail peddling the group’s latest anti-Keystone XL “study” to the Senate Democrats’ communications director at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Mary Kerr.

For some reason, Senate Republican EPW communications director Matt Dempsey with GOP Sen. James Inhofe’s office also ended up cc’ed on the e-mail.

Ooops.

Their mistake is our gained insight (or rather, confirmation of what we already assumed).

Read on:

From: Emilee Pierce [mailto:epierce@mediamatters.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 09:11 PM
To: Kerr, Mary (EPW); Dempsey, Matt (EPW)
Subject: Heads up – MMFA study on media coverage of KXL out tomorrow

Mary and Matt,

I wanted to flag that MMFA will be putting out a major, quantitative report on media coverage of KXL tomorrow morning.

The study will be similar to our EPA counting study (http://mediamatters.org/research/201106070010) — and will drill home the point the media bought right into Big Oil’s desired frame on KXL, focusing largely on the (inflated) number of jobs that could be created, without paying due attention to the many other important issues at stake. (Ranchers’ land, spills, climate change, etc.)

We are hoping for a big media splash, but – more importantly – we’re hoping that allies will be able to leverage it to gain favorable coverage.

I’ve pasted a very brief summary below – and will be sure to send along the final study as soon as it’s up. If you have any questions, please let me know.

All the best,

Emilee

STUDY: The Press And The Pipeline

A Media Matters analysis shows that as a whole, news coverage of the Keystone XL pipeline between August 1 and December 31 favored pipeline proponents. Although the project would create few long-term employment opportunities, the pipeline was primarily portrayed as a jobs issue. Pro-pipeline voices were quoted more frequently than those opposed, and dubious industry estimates of job creation were uncritically repeated 5 times more often than they were questioned. Meanwhile, concerns about the State Department’s review process and potential environmental consequences were often overlooked, particularly by television outlets.

–
————————————–
Emilee Pierce
External Affairs Director for Climate and Environment
Media Matters for America

Matt Dempsey e-mails: “It’s not often that Senator Inhofe’s office receives emails of a heads up to promote the Media Matters agenda! So I will do my part and share with you tonight to help them get the ‘favorable coverage’ they want from their ‘allies’ on Capitol Hill.”

We know at least one Democrat recycling the Media Matters talking points: Chicago Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Ill.), who tried arguing today that 20,000 jobs “is not that many.”

Chicago Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Ill.) drew fire from Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) on Wednesday when she dismissed the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, suggesting the 20,000 jobs it could create were relatively insignificant in the scheme of the greater economy.

“Twenty thousand jobs is really not that many jobs, and investing in green technologies will produce that and more,” she said on Chicago’s WLS Radio Don Wade and Roma Show on Wednesday morning. “But I’ll tell you what, you know it seems to me that the Republicans would rather have an issue than a pipeline.”

Coats, a vocal proponent of the project, which would transport oil from Alberta, Canada, to America’s Gulf Coast, swiftly responded in a separate interview on the same show later on Wednesday morning, suggesting Schakowsky has spoken insensitively.

“Tell that to the 20,000 people that woke up this morning and didn’t have a job to go to,” said Coats. “ ‘Well, these don’t really matter’ — I mean, this not only is jobs, this is less dependence on Middle East oil.”

“And here we have, you know, the president talking about becoming energy independent, but he turns down the easiest way to do that,” the freshman senator continued.

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle’s e-mail list ~
Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Malkin: White House silence on OWS crisis is complicity

by Admin on November 16, 2011 in Michelle Malkin, Obama Propaganda, Sean Hannity with No comments

Posted by 

 Michelle Malkin weighed in on the MSM ignoring everything Obama, whether it be his gaffes or his corruption – the latter of which is most important. She also made a strong statement at the end about the potential OWS violence that may happen tomorrow and says if the White House remains silent on what’s going on, then that silence equals complicity.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta