Wednesday, April 27, 2005

When Conservatives Turn to Populism

One particularly unpleasant social behavior of prominent commentators is the tendency to topple from from their coherent ideological perch into crass populism when public opinion seems to smack them in the mouth. Michelle Malkin, still stewing over the lack of sensitive, probing media attention given to Terri Schiavo (whoever that is) was irate yesterday over an ABC news polling question which to her mind was worded so deceptively and inscrutably (in Democrats' favor) that no intelligent person could answer with their actual position on the issue of the filibuster. Read this very, VERY carefully, then pop a few Advil:

"Would you support or oppose changing Senate rules to make it easier for Republicans to confirm President Bush's judicial nominees?"

Full disclosure: as a primetime cable news-banter junkie and having read her latest book, I have heard enough of Michelle Malkin to be mystified as to why, with all the true brilliance there is in this world, I have heard of Michelle Malkin at all. Now that that's out of the way - she goes on, bemoaning the fact that "[N]ot surprisingly, given the wording of the poll, a huge majority of respondents said they oppose the Republicans." Huh? 'Given the wording of the polling'? Try this on: 'Not surprisingly, a majority of respondents said that they are against changing Senate rules to make it easier for Republicans to confirm President Bush's judicial nominees.' It's pretty obvious that Malkin doesn't really believe her own speciously anti-bias line when you read the question she would rather have been asked: ""Do you support a minority of Democrats preventing Bush's judicial nominees from being voted on, when a majority of senators have indicated their support for those nominees?" Not only is this a completely different question touching on a completely different issue, the wording of this question vaults past 'bias', and verges on the Michael Moore-esque as compared to the one ABC put to its respondent pool. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Michelle Malkin has no ethical qualm with media bias, so long as it doesn't flatter liberals.


At 8:32 AM, Blogger Michael Horner said...

Firstly, I think that's a pretty robust and safe limb your're on, that is until the rest of us join you out there. But hey, Malkin can't be all bad - she supports racial profiling for homeland defense (I think). And didn't she just call Hillary a border dominatrix? Gotta love that (takes one to know). Keep your friends close, your enemies closer, and your enemies' enemies closer still.

At 1:56 PM, Blogger Jon said...

Well...yeah, Michelle Malkin can be all bad. She doesn't merely support "racial profiling" for homeland defense (I'm not even sure if that's even the same thing as "racial profiling" at all). She supports a penumbra of internment and police powers that would make Alberto Gonzales wet his pants. The middle chapters of her book have some of the most bizarrely reactionary, fascist recommendations I've seen set to paper since 9/11. Yes, I said fascist.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home