Too Smart for Us

Michelle Malkin said that liberals who disagree with her about SCHIP "wouldn't know a good-faith argument if it bit them in the lip." So Ezra Klein said he'd be willing to step up and argue the SCHIP policy merits with Malkin. So she said: "'Debate' Ezra Klein? 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." Which is a long-winded set-up for Jon Chait's joke:

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.

It's a little-known fact, but the entire New Deal was passed into law because the conservative coalition in congress was distracted by Will Rogers cracking a bunch of jokes.

Comments

would there be a way to distract the racists and bigots at TNR long enough to implement a sane (or at least more rational) Middle East foreign policy among leading Democrats, or is that asking for too much?

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | October 11, 2007 11:45 AM

You guys should write for the staid campaigns of Clinton et al. This is the best way to deal with the wingnuts. It will drive them crazy.

Posted by gregor | October 11, 2007 11:55 AM

This is an amazing, if too-obvious, admission by Malkin. She bascially admits that policy debates are a distraction the important work of slinging ad hominem as vigorously as possible.

Posted by blatherskite | October 11, 2007 11:59 AM

Michelle Malkin is a piece of garbage, and the only sensible rejoinder to her is to say just that, without variation, each and every time.

Posted by Rich | October 11, 2007 12:01 PM

Well, Michelle Malkin's an idiot, of course. But perhaps arguing that your opponents are motivated by a hatred of cute children really is a bad-faith argument. Just maybe.

Posted by too many steves | October 11, 2007 12:01 PM

Well, Michelle Malkin's an idiot, of course. But perhaps arguing that your opponents are motivated by a hatred of cute children really is a bad-faith argument. Just maybe.

I agree. After all, said opponents have been working tirelessly for years to get rid of the estate tax, which is obviously very good for cute children of incredibly wealthy families.

Posted by strannix | October 11, 2007 12:05 PM

i just read the whole malkin piece: she makes her case pretty well, actually, even though i disagree with her on S-CHIP. the para matt excerpted is obviously asinine, but it would be a terrible thing if we all were judged on our weakest moments.

why do people hate her so much? more than say, the powerline boys etc? is it just a tiny little bit because she's a she?

Posted by lucretius | October 11, 2007 12:13 PM

When you're trying to insure more children, and your opponents are trying to block you, it is not disingenuous to say that your opponents are trying to keep you from insuring more children. It's a literal, practical argument.

Posted by SDM | October 11, 2007 12:14 PM

"This is an amazing, if too-obvious, admission by Malkin. She bascially admits that policy debates are a distraction the important work of slinging ad hominem as vigorously as possible."

Youre making the classic rookie mistake of assuming that yglesias is honestly summarising someone's position.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | October 11, 2007 12:14 PM

I don't think they hate children, they just don't really care if they have proper medical care.

Posted by mad6798j | October 11, 2007 12:16 PM

[I] just read the whole malkin piece: she makes her case pretty well, actually, even though i disagree with her on S-CHIP.

The case for why expanding S-CHIP is a bad idea, or the case for why she doesn't want to debate Ezra Klein? Because, having read both of the linked posts, I have to say neither one presents any kind of coherent argument--in the first, she can't seem to decide whether the problem is S-CHIP itself or the Democrats' selection of a child to present their position; in the second, she's railing against, I guess, the "liberal media" ("I’d just as soon share a stage, physical or virtual, with Respectable Liberal Blogger Ezra Klein as I would with...an overflowing vat of liquid radioactive waste.")--it's sort of hard to tell, actually.

So, in good faith, Lucretius--please summarize Malkin's well-made case for me. I'm totally missing it.

Posted by James Gary | October 11, 2007 12:28 PM

You're right, Pimp Hand. Malkin does not actually admit that she prefers ad hominems to policy debates. It's the obvious subtext of her post, which is filled with ad hominems and contains very little fact-based discussion of health care policy. It's easily identified as Malkin's position by anyone who does not make the rookie mistake of believing that Malkin is honestly explaining that she is unwilling to debate Klein for some reason other than the fact he knows far more about the subject than she does.

But you're right-- she does not come right out and admit it.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | October 11, 2007 12:31 PM

james gary

no, her case for not debating ezra klein is exceptionally weak. her case that she has not been inconsistent in her views on health insurance is strong. her views on the frost case are weirdly emotionally charged, but at heart not that out of whack: i think political parties using children to make their arguments is rather distasteful. her views on the merits of S-CHIP are relatively coherent, but i disagree with them.

that's enough defending malkin - i feel slightly soiled.

Posted by lucretius | October 11, 2007 12:34 PM

"Youre making the classic rookie mistake of assuming that yglesias is honestly summarising someone's position."

yes, what an error to make. Because Yglesias did not, in fact, make effort to "summarize" Malkin's position, nor did he claim to do so - rather, he simply directly quoted her. Which was, of course, deeply dishonest of him. Much like Charles Barkley and Terrell Owens, Malkin can apparently be misquoted in her own writings.

Why I am responding to someone self-identified as "pimp hand strikes"? Note to self: save breath next time.

Posted by The Navigator | October 11, 2007 1:04 PM

It is pretty clear that Klein quoted out of context parts of Malkin's original 2004 post, however.

Posted by James Kabala | October 11, 2007 1:10 PM

Out of context? With links right there? Go read it for goodness sake. Anyway, it's like if a dog craps all over the house, you only have to show someone a little bit of it for them to get the general idea.

Posted by BlueStreak | October 11, 2007 1:27 PM

The way I understand blogging etiquette you quote a paragraph or so and link to the full piece, which is exactly what Ezra did.

If he had quoted the entire piece Malkin would probably be attacking him for that.

Posted by Eric K | October 11, 2007 1:32 PM

why do people hate her so much? more than say, the powerline boys etc? is it just a tiny little bit because she's a she?

Well, um, no. That's ridiculous. It's because she's a truly Bad Person. She's taking more hits on this than the Powerline idiots because she's rushed to the front of the lynch mob.

In fact, it's kind of sexist to imply that opposition to MM is sexist. She should get a free pass because she has a vagina?

Posted by Woody Bombay | October 11, 2007 2:07 PM

Ha! You think that's funny? Try visiting SlimeMachine.com.

Posted by Aw, C'mon | October 11, 2007 2:21 PM

woody bombay

it's always fun when the PC thought police show up. please explain to me the reason why it's sexist to suggest that malkin might get more heat because she's a woman. what i mean is EXPLAIN to me, don't just state it as revealed truth.

also, brush up on the reading and comprehension skills: i didn't say that she should get a free pass, i asked why people hate her quite so much.

come on WB - just give us one clear, interesting thought.

Posted by lucretius | October 11, 2007 3:12 PM

They don't hate all children, they just hate poor and middle class children.

Billionaires who die, they love their children so much that they want those children to get every single one of those billions of dollars.

Posted by bob | October 11, 2007 3:12 PM

If you don't know why people think Michelle Malkin debases American politics, you just aren't paying attention and don't know how to use the Google.

The extract actually captures what she says in the full post PERFECTLY.

Posted by bob | October 11, 2007 3:21 PM

lucretius,

It's already been stated: by myself, by bob directly above me, etc.: MM is a 'truly Bad Person' who 'debases American politics.' That is why people 'hate' her. Do you really think she gets more heat than her equally shrill, intellectually dishonest male counterparts? If you do, you're wrong. She's getting more heat on SCHIP because, again, she took the lead on this particular Case of the Century.

People who know me will get a big laugh over my being called "the PC thought police," so thanks for that. But you're the one who suggested that MM's status as a female is the reason why people 'hate' her. Thanks in advance for ceasing to project your PC hang-ups on to me.

I'll hold off on commenting in the Ann Coulter thread until you make a ruling on whether it's sexist to be appalled by her.

Posted by Woody Bombay | October 11, 2007 3:36 PM

God she's maddeningly full of shit. When you expose her attacking 12-year old children and their parents, she complains that you are attacking her. When you say you want to debate the issues instead of focusing on her ad hominem distractions, she says you are trying to distract.

Posted by bobbo | October 11, 2007 3:37 PM

lucretius:

People hate Malkin more than some other wingnut bloggers because she chooses to interject her own (odious) personality into her blog more than others. She also creates embarassing vlogs of herself.

Guys like Assrocket and Glenn Reynolds only make inane posts. I don't even know what Assrocket looks like. But Malkin tries to cultivate a cult of personality with her little band of wingnut sycophants.

That's the reason. Your unsubstantiated suggestion that a basis of the anti-Malkin feeling is sexism only makes you look foolish.

Posted by space | October 11, 2007 3:43 PM

she said she'd debate anyone anytime anywhere, then when challenged backed down. she knew he'd make her look like more of a fool than she already does. she's a coward like all frightwingers.

Posted by merlallen | October 12, 2007 3:59 AM

"i just read the whole malkin piece: she makes her case pretty well, actually, even though i disagree with her on S-CHIP. the para matt excerpted is obviously asinine, but it would be a terrible thing if we all were judged on our weakest moments.

why do people hate her so much? more than say, the powerline boys etc? is it just a tiny little bit because she's a she?

Posted by lucretius | October 11, 2007 12:13 PM"

She tells her minions to go harass people she disagrees with and gives out their phone numbers and addresses on her blog. She doesn't believe in engaging other people's ideas. She's just a bully.

Posted by Reality Man | October 12, 2007 5:28 AM