[michelle malkin] an englishman comes to terms with her

First step were the photos. Maybe the one she used on her site was not so good. Yep, there actually are better photos and she’s a bit of a honey, all right. Next to look at some of her writing, firstly on liberals:

The divide between liberal MSM pooh-bahs and conservatives hasn't gone away, of course. But I think we are beginning to see the development of a new rift that is quite significant: bloggers (and a few media personalities who aren't ashamed to admit they read blogs) versus everyone else. This will make the upcoming battle between FEC and bloggers extremely interesting to watch.

Cautionary feel about this one, even if the general sentiments are not bad. Her choice of words though, they remind me of an Asian girl I knew in London and she was hard as nails and crude. I hope this one is not the same and sucha a sweet looking girl, so pretty. Now to the piece on Chris Matthews, TV presenter of Hardball, which tells you enough about Chris:

My evening with Caveman Matthews, by Michelle Malkin: So, my publicist arranges for me to go on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews on Thursday night to talk about my recent columns ... Despite the show's basement ratings, we figure it's a good opportunity to reach out to a new audience.

As I am seated at the table with Matthews, who I am meeting for the first time, he cracks a joke--and not in a well-meaning way--about how I look. "Are you sure you’re old enough to be on the show? What are you? 28?" I grit my teeth. He badgers me again with the same question. I politely answer his question and supply my age … Needless to say, things went downhill, fast and loud, from there.

On Kerry: "Well yeah. Why don't people ask him more specific questions about the shrapnel in his leg? There are legitimate questions about whether or not it was a self-inflicted wound."

Well, guess what? This foaming jerk Matthews, who called me irresponsible and kicked me off the show admitted that a) he himself had not read the damned book, b) he was not interested in asking Kerry about the specific doubts raised by vets about his wounds, and c) he had not and would not question Kerry about these specific allegations.

I am used to playing hardball. I expect it. I am used to ad hominem attacks. I get more in a day than most of these wussies have received in their lifetimes. But what happened last night was pure slimeball and the unfair, unbalanced, and unhinged purveyors of journalism, or whatever it is they call what they do at MSNBC, should be ashamed.

What I take away from all this is that the Democrat Party waterboys in the media are in full desperation mode. I have now witnessed firsthand and up close (Matthews' spittle nearly hit me in the face) how the pressure from alternative media sources--the blogosphere, conservative Internet forums, talk radio, Regnery Publishing, FOX News, etc. --is driving these people absolutely batty. Keep bringing it on.

Uh-huh. Here’s Vox Day on the woman:

Me So Michelle is making a few more of her usual fact-free assertions.... I don't even know what this latest deal is about since I pay so little attention to the airhead anymore: You posted the picture. You engaged in gratuitous insults. You had nothing better to write about. But how dare I respond.

Muller hardly "allied himself" with me, except in that we both found separate and serious historical inaccuracies in Malkin's ludicrous book, IN DEFENSE OF INTERNMENT. Given Malkin's penchant for slinging insults, however feebly, I find it hysterical that she still gets her panties in a bunch over incoming fire.

"Me small Asian woman. You no call me names. Me call you names, okay Joe?" As per usual, she offers no evidence that I am either "hate-filled" or a "nut", but then, what can you expect from a woman who can't count to six.

Malkin mentions at the bottom: "I think what drives a lot of the haters crazy is that despite their ceaseless sniping, they can't shut me up." Actually, I didn't find it difficult at all. In fact, her uncharacteristic silence on the subject was downright damning when compared to her usual volubility on matters relating to herself. She's rather a contemptible coward behind that faux bold front. But don't forget, this is a woman who couldn't think fast enough on her feet to handle Chris freaking Matthews.

I don’t know enough about the woman yet but I know I don’t like her. Nothing to do with her politics – it’s her offensive manner. Whoa! Stop! People like Devil’s Kitchen and Reactionary Snob are equally offensive so what is it with this chick? Then the pennies drop – she’s ungracious. No social skills of any kind. Gutter. Maybe I’m still misjudging the woman.

And the vitriol against her is astounding. One from someone called Wonky is as much in the gutter as Malkin could be accused of. So we’ll ignore it. I need another comment:

Can we just come out and say it? No matter how much Michelle Malkin's external form is pleasing to the eye. . . No matter how much any red blooded male [and female] human beings would love to mate with her from just a physical point of view. . .it's just not worth it. She is evil - pure and simple. She is a complete and utter asshole who deserves to be shunned as a pariah from every possible social function.

Right, so she riles the left, adopting, as she does, her ultra-right stance. What do her fellow conservatives say of her? Aaron Goldstein, at Intellectual Conservative:

There is certainly something to be said about a writer who stirs the pot. It does take some chutzpah to challenge conventional wisdom and try to persuade a critical mass of people who have thought about a certain subject in one way to look at it from an entirely different point of view. Sometimes germane information has been left out of the discourse (whether by omission or commission), thereby skewing a more complete understanding of the matter.

However, there are those who simply stir the pot for the sake of stirring the pot. Sure, attention may be attracted but it is done so for all the wrong reasons. Most of the time, this is done on the part of the stirrer to gain notoriety for oneself rather than raise public consciousness about our history and what, if anything, we can learn from it. Of course, the motives are not always sinister. But misguided premises (even if well intentioned) and specious conclusions are every bit as harmful as an ample dose of vanity.

That is the impression this reader was left with after having read Michelle Malkin’s In Defense of Internment: The Case for ‘Racial Profiling’ in World War II and the War on Terror.

Yes and still without adequate information, this is the impression I’m getting after reading excerpts from her book. I don’t know, she seems to be interested in ‘going against for the sake of it’, in shock value. She seems to be parodying the right in the very instant that she’s embracing them – it seems a caricature to me, in line with her opening comment on Chris Matthews about zero ratings.

We move on to [no link here, sorry]: Instapundit links to this site, which has a good analysis of the irrational fervor with which liberals, especially Asian liberals [Malkin is Asian], hate her: What is it about Michelle Malkin that so quickly works liberals into a frenzied state? All it takes is a television appearance, published column or radio interview to enrage so-called "progressives". Why, reserved for her, these particular heapings of vitriol? Certainly, ethnicity and gender must play a role, as liberal anti-Malkin hate closely resembles that of serial Condi-bashers. For non-conformity to leftist cultural expectations, both experience routine partisan media punishment. And as can be imagined, some of the meanest attacks come from liberal Asian-Americans, who seem to feel there is some ethnic mandate to follow Democrats off the cliff's edge.

I quickly look at some of these attacks:

# May G-d rest her soul.

# Uber-conservative Michelle Malkin was forced to apologize for actions unbecoming an American and human being.

# Malkin, an Ann Coulter wannabe who admittedly tries to be provocative to sell her book.

Then I find one which deals with one of her posts:

What is wrong with Malkin's post? 1.She has never taken Statistics 101 2. She is too stupid to have passed Statistics 101 with a satisfactory grade 3. She does not understand the concept of probability distribution, let alone its applications 4. All of the above

Very witty but still it doesn’t tell me much. I read how she had one view of internment, then saw her main chance and changed her view. So, how many aspiring politicians don’t do that? And yet she seems to do it in such a brazen and artless way.

In the end, I don’t know enough to condemn her but I find her coarse and ungracious and I sure don’t like her.

And I have absolutely no desire to make love to her, as some do.