September 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Position open | Main | DarkTimes: Krugman »

Nov 21, 2005


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Lasst evening Michelle was our guest on Pundit review and we discussed this post. According to Michelle, this was the last time she would be discussing it. Thanks.

Eric Muller

Good job, Ed, in getting the clip up. Here's the thing, though: it's missing the money quote, in which Malkin *thanks* Brad for asking her the question and says she's "glad" he did.

Danny Wright

My question is this: Did Brad Krantz ask Michelle Malkin a question regarding her Asian heritage or perhaps insinuate that she was "deficient" as a pundit because she was of Asian heritage?

I would imagine that the answer to this is "No" and that Malkin has become the ultimate conservative hypocrite: She has played the race card in an effort to express her feelings of victimization. At least that's the way I interpret her blog entry.

It's amazing how the conservatives -- in just about every respect -- are coming so unglued right now. What's even more amazing is that Howard Dean, as leader of the DNC, doesn't seem to have a plan (or at least one he is willing to share) to take advantage of the situation.

The incompetence factor in American politics is growing ever larger by the day on both sides of the aisle. Maybe Peggy Noonan wasn't so off-the-mark after all.

And I have just totally strayed off-topic . . . Me bads.

David Boyd

DW, I don't know how you interpret it that way. Here's what she says:

During one of countless book-related radio interviews this week, a liberal radio host insultingly asked me whether I write my own column. His question was prompted by vicious anonymous bloggers who portray me as a greedy Asian whore/dupe/brainwashing victim who simply parrots what my white slavemasters program into my empty little head.

A quick Google search on Malkin will lead you to all the speculation and insults about her you could wish. One of the themes these folks continually return to is that she doesn't do her own work.

Ed Cone

DB, what is the connection between the completely out-of-bounds racist slurs, and the completely legitimate questions about authorship, other than the fact that some jerks employing the former may also be asking the latter?

The way she tells it, Asian women are subject to unusual scrutiny about authorship of their work. I'm not familiar with that stereotype, and I don't see any indication that Brad made that leap, either.

I have no idea who writes Malkin's stuff. Frankly, I'd be eager to distance myself from some of it...

Ed Cone

The clip includes Malkin saying, "I'm glad that you asked about it."

David Boyd

As you say, the question of who writes her stuff is peddled by a lot of the same folks calling her names. It's all speculative as far as I know and thus meant to discredit her. I haven't seen any evidence that she doesn't write her columns which is what Brad asked her. So why even bring it up? To give her a chance to set the record straight as Brad says? Please. She reaches more people on her blog than he does on his radio show. If she wants to set the record straight, she has ample opportunity.

Why do you say you have no idea who writes Malkin's stuff? Couldn't I say the same about your column or articles? Why even put it out there unless you have evidence? This is a serious charge. If true, it would destroy her career.

Ed Cone

Perhaps I could have phrased that better, I meant I have not followed the alleged controversy very closely, and don't know much about it. As noted, she says in the clip she's "glad" Brad asked.

She is not a writer I take particularly seriously, mostly when I've paid attention to her it's when she's veered outside her normal bandwidth (eg, the dangerous and dishonest internment book, which also had the NC angle of getting absolutely destroyed by UNC prof Muller) or visited Brad's show.

The Liberal Avenger

Might I chime in?

Here is where we report on the Michelle and Jesse Malkin juggernaut - a story we called Ghost Blogging.

Read it.

It says that there have been times where work written by Michelle's husband Jesse has been presented as her own. That's it.

It doesn't say anything else. It doesn't say that the reason for this is because she's a "dirty asian whore" or that minority women shouldn't be conservatives or that every little lady needs a white man to run the show behind the scenes. None of that.

I was co-author of Ghost Blogging and I stand behind it.

In Michelle's "Unhinged" post from yesterday she effectively concedes our allegations. Of course her husband helps her with her work! There you have it. The only difference between what we allege and what she concedes is a matter of degree, something that she deliberately leaves vague.

Conflating our legitimate criticism of her work with the nasty race/sex based attacks that she receives is dishonest. The blogging careers of Auguste at and are open books. "Michelle the Asian Tool" as a meme would never fly with us. Indeed I am bothered deeply by a great deal of Malkin's own racially charged rhetoric.

There are people out there saying terrible things about Michelle based on her race and her sex and that is unacceptable. She has every right to be upset about those types of attacks.

The "Ghost Blogging" story is what it is.

And that's the truth!


Also, at least one of us forgets to close tags.

Anna Haynes

ok, I'm coming at this knowing nothing, so maybe this has been covered, but -
could someone (who'd get answers) ask Michelle
a) if she would consider it unethical for one person to claim credit for another (consenting) person's work
b) if so, how badly should it damage the claimer's credibility?

Anna Haynes

Just visited her blog for I think the first time. Yikes.

She says her husband has "helped me with a handful of blog posts out of the estimated 3,000 I've written since June 2004"; maybe it's time to get to specifics as to which ones, and what constitutes help.

I didn't see a "weblog ethics" page on her site; did I overlook it?


When a blogger needs hits, she creates a controversy where there is none. She had a polite conversation on the radio and turned it into a rant through which she could gain some sort of neocon points based on victim-hood. This is typical bad journalism (if it's journalism) and simply a way to get her re-invited to O'R's show to spew against whatever she's defined liberals to be.

Giving her credence is our mistake. She needs to be ignored, like a cranky spoiled child. Let's give her a time-out, shall we?

David Boyd

I think there's a lot to that Sue. She needs content. This was 'good' content for her. Playing the victim netted 70+ trackbacks which seems to be high for her posts.

I've been somewhat disappointed with her constant whining about folks calling her names. Be tougher. These are probably thirteen year old kids. Don't give them the satisfaction of a response.

On the other hand, regardless of her saying she was glad Brad asked about the accusations that her husband writes her column (she obviously wasn't after she'd had time to think about it, else she wouldn't have written the post), Brad shouldn't have brought it up without evidence. It was pointless other than as a slight. Other than that, they had a good exchange with Brad challenging her on the way out tactics of the left (the subject of the book, btw) with the way out tactics of the right during the Clinton years.

Danny Wright

"neocon points based on victimhood."

If that's the case, then I know the world has now, officially, turned upside-down.

Think of it -- Michelle Malkin -- from victimizer to victim. For some odd reason, my tear ducts don't seem to work.

And she considers herself an effective mouthpiece for the can-do, get-tough faction of American conservatives.

Yikes. Actually, meow.

The comments to this entry are closed.