« Guess The Author | Main | What Our Health Care System Is Doing »
October 11, 2007
An Answer!
Michelle Malkin replies to my challenge for a debate about S-CHIP. Her answer? Of course not. She's afraid to debate policy on the merits. She has no interest in "a good-faith argument." She's here to swing the hatchet, and lacks either the interest or the aptitude to rise above that station.
Remember this next time Malkin pretends to be interested in serious argument. I gave her the opportunity for one, on a subject she claims to care mightily about, and she hid behind ad hominem attacks and bizarre rantings. "'Debate' Ezra Klein?" She wrote. "What a perverse distraction and a laughable waste of time that would be. And that’s what they really want, isn’t it? To distract and waste time so they can foist their agenda on the country unimpeded."
That's what she believes policy argument to be. "A perverse distraction and a laughable waste of time." And don't even try and parse her suggestion that a debate between bloggers would somehow waste enough time and tie up enough rightwing energy that my collectivist friends could tiptoe behind Malkin and sneakily institute single-payer health care during minute six.
The Right must be so proud.
Update: Jon Chait writes:
Yes, that was the plan. And now that she's on to it, I might as well confess our scheme: Dispatch Klein to tie up Malkin for an hour or so, and while she's distracted, push universal health insurance through Congress. Indeed, we've used similar tactics in the past, such as 1993, when we passed the Clinton tax hike after luring Rush Limbaugh to an all-you-can-eat buffet for much of the afternoon. Next time we'll have to be even smarter.
And thus health care reform is set back again.
October 11, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Hey Ezra
Did you see Clinton calling out the Republicans attacking the frosts?
Posted by: Phil | Oct 11, 2007 10:08:11 AM
Thank you so much, Ezra, for showcasing what should be the only acceptable strategy against the wingnuts: don't back down.
When we know we're right, we need not back down, and we need not make mealy-mouthed compromises. The best they can do, when faced with real, substantive resistance, is stammer, sputter, and generally look like idiots.
Good on you, Ezra.
Posted by: Fargus | Oct 11, 2007 10:15:41 AM
Just as O'Reilly won't have a representative from Media Matters on his show (even though he for years called people who didn't come on his show "cowards"), Malkin, his oft-guest host and lackey-ette, gives the same scaredy-pants response: run away from actual substantive debate, smearing all the way home. Bravo, right-wing stooges, bravo.
Posted by: Media Glutton | Oct 11, 2007 10:18:31 AM
I was at a Hillary event last night in Boston (which I will be writing about on my blog shortly). Yes, she took the Bush Admin. and the "Republican/right-wing attack machine" for going after the Frosts, who she described as more or less volunteering to speak up about their experience. I think the AP has the full quote, but it was something like, "Bush [et al.] should lay off Graeme Frost and all the children..."
No more "cowboy democracy!" she promised.
Posted by: Redstar | Oct 11, 2007 10:20:38 AM
maybe jesse malkin would debate you. or is that the same thing?
Posted by: cardozo | Oct 11, 2007 10:22:56 AM
Redstar, I get the impression, from what I've read, that Hillary Clinton took it very personally when the right buried the white house under an avalanche of subpoeanas and lawsuits, bankrupting a large number of young, low-level staffers who had the misfortune of becoming the target of the right-wing hate squads. She probably has a lot of empathy for the Frost family, and Clinton is just vindictive enough that I think she's going to take the opportunity, while she is president, to get back at these jerks.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 11, 2007 10:23:45 AM
I love how she says you've libeled her, but never decided to sue you. Incidentally, I hope she actually does try suing you- it'd be funnier than the Luskin-Atrios flap, or the frat guys who tried to sue Borat.
Posted by: Brad R. | Oct 11, 2007 10:26:21 AM
As I said in other threads, it's getting easier and easier to pick out which bits were written by Michelle, and which bits were written by Jesse.
Posted by: Seitz | Oct 11, 2007 10:32:01 AM
The comments section over at Camp Malkin is HILARIOUS.
I just had this exchange with Michelle:
On October 11th, 2007 at 10:26 am, nikkos said:
Absolutely pathetic. If Klein is the fool you make him out to be (he is not) then you should have no trouble debating him. What are you afraid of? Oh, right. FACTS.
On October 11th, 2007 at 10:28 am, Michelle Malkin said:
Yes, it’s the FACTS. I fear the FACTS!
Posted by: nikkos | Oct 11, 2007 10:35:15 AM
To be fair, she might have the aptitude.
Posted by: Roxanne | Oct 11, 2007 10:36:31 AM
Tyro, why do you suspect that Clinton is "vindictive"? Why does sticking up for an innocent child and family, and being angry about the treatment of young people who were almost ruined in the 1990s--and I've heard some of the first hand stories--imply vindictiveness? Is it because she's a woman and any woman who sticks up for something on principle is "vindictive"?
She's shown more restraint on the matter than I or anyone I know would be capable of. To say she is vindictive is just absurd and, ironically, a right-wing talking point that they invented to smear her.
Posted by: gqmartinez | Oct 11, 2007 10:36:52 AM
I read with interest Ms. Malkin's reasons for declining the debate: i.e., you are a "libtard" or whatever.
Good Lord. The woman can't even be substantive even when declining an offer for a serious substantive policy debate.
I leaves me wondering: Is there anything she can be substantive about? Is there a political subject -- ANY political subject -- in which she can refrain from making it all about her opponents' personalities?
I mean, sure -- we all engage in personal snark from time to time. But this little debate-challenge exercise has proven one thing: unlike most "online pundits" on both the left and right, Malkin is incapable of leaving the playground.
I wonder how long before that schtick wears thin, even among her "fans".
Posted by: Ken | Oct 11, 2007 10:38:20 AM
Redstar, I get the impression, from what I've read, that Hillary Clinton took it very personally when the right buried the white house under an avalanche of subpoeanas and lawsuits, bankrupting a large number of young, low-level staffers who had the misfortune of becoming the target of the right-wing hate squads. She probably has a lot of empathy for the Frost family, and Clinton is just vindictive enough that I think she's going to take the opportunity, while she is president, to get back at these jerks.
If she were to completely obliterate the Republicans once she got in office, I could go for that. Fully inestigate The Deicder and all his minions. The works.
Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience | Oct 11, 2007 10:38:58 AM
Ezra, please pursue this. Try to entice her to do it. Get Robert Wright to ask her to debate on Blogginheads.
Show her that Byron York and David Frum have both been on BHTV. Even her hero Glenn R. has been on!
You can do it!
Posted by: TimO | Oct 11, 2007 10:39:01 AM
Tyro, why do you suspect that Clinton is "vindictive"?
Hmm, I took that as "vindictive, but in a good way".
Posted by: Seitz | Oct 11, 2007 10:39:28 AM
I mean, sure -- we all engage in personal snark from time to time. But this little debate-challenge exercise has proven one thing: unlike most "online pundits" on both the left and right, Malkin is incapable of leaving the playground.
I wonder how long before that schtick wears thin, even among her "fans".
Who do you think her fans are? The are immature adults. If they have not grown up yet, they never will. Just wait till a Democrat gets elected President next year. Hell, O'Falafel has already started slamming John Edwards. The ugliness won't stop anytime soon, they will only become more unhinged.
Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience | Oct 11, 2007 10:41:41 AM
So anyone can challenge Ezra to a debate and call him a coward if he refuses?
Does this standard apply to Al Gore?
Al Gore Won't Debate
Posted by: Paul L. | Oct 11, 2007 10:43:10 AM
A priceless interchange from Malkin's comment section:
In the third comment, BerryG says:
Michelle, I think you should take him up on the challange. You, armed with the facts, might be able to sway some of those RINOs back to “right” side.
Michelle Malkin "replies":
Um, didn’t you read the Klein diatribe I excerpted?These people are unswayable. Facts will not sway them. Nothing will sway them.
But of course BerryG didn't say Malkin might sway you (or the "nutrooots" more generally). No one expects that in a debate Malkin would convince you to switch sides (or vice versa). But either of you might convince fence sitters and people who aren't firmly on one side. Which was BerryG's point. That's why he said "RINOs" not "nutroots".
Posted by: Crust | Oct 11, 2007 10:45:00 AM
Disgusting, really-- although, given Malkin, to be expected. Credit to you for treating her "as if" her claims of good faith were legitimate. I seem to recall treating the Soviet pronouncements of great respect for the rights of the workers as though they were made in good faith (And pointing out their numerous violations) was a useful propaganda tool in the cold war.
Posted by: Anthony Damiani | Oct 11, 2007 10:46:03 AM
And to top it all off, someone from State Dept. is reading Ezra. The came over after reading MM. Ewwww!!
Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience | Oct 11, 2007 10:47:26 AM
"So anyone can challenge Ezra to a debate and call him a coward if he refuses?"
It's the reason WHY she refused. Or better expressed, the non-reason.
As one Malkin-supporting commentor there correctly notes: "He’s [Ezra] already demonstrated that he’s willing to ignore anything Michelle says that doesn’t support his point..."
In other words, she won't debate someone who doesn't agree with her.
Running from a debate because your opponent won't agree with you? Because you have a personal distaste for your opponent? What the hell?
That's cowardly.
Posted by: Ken | Oct 11, 2007 10:49:19 AM
Paul L., the point you're missing is that Malkin arguably started the interchange by saying in reference specifically to Klein (and two others) that he "wouldn’t know a good-faith argument if it bit [him] in the lip."
Obviously, Malkin (and Klein and Gore and anyone else) are under no obligation to accept debate challenges from random people. But Malkin arguably asked for this one.
Posted by: Crust | Oct 11, 2007 10:50:42 AM
So anyone can challenge Ezra to a debate and call him a coward if he refuses?
Sure, it's up to the individual to decide how laughable each particular challenge is. Malkin- a certified lunatic- reading Ezra's post and suggesting that's he's the unhinged one is hilarious.
Posted by: August J. Pollak | Oct 11, 2007 10:51:32 AM
Her post is one long-winded and transparent evasion.
Posted by: John-Paul Pagano | Oct 11, 2007 10:52:00 AM
Nice job forcing malkin back into a corner.
And while I would have enjoyed the debate immensely at least you don't have to take the mandatory hydrogen peroxide shower after coming into contact with her.
Even digital contact.
ew.
Posted by: russell | Oct 11, 2007 10:52:47 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
