A Virginia Reader Decries Malkin's "Invective" Against Jimmy Carter, Prefers Paul Craig Roberts
Print Friendly and PDF

NOTE: PLEASE say if you DON'T want your name and/or email address published when sending VDARE email.

05/12/08 - A Reader In Ireland Notes Similarities Between "Bogus Language Institutions" In Her Country And Ours

From: Jim Church: (e-mail him)

Re: The Democrats' Jimmy Carter Problem, by Michelle Malkin

I take exception to Malkin's tone and her column's content.

Malkin has unwittingly provided a good example of why she's called shrill and why she is such a popular talking head in the conservative mainstream media. 

I'm not sure if you meant to post her piece alongside Paul Craig Roberts' accurate explanation for the current war in Iraq, but the contraposition could hardly be more ironic. [Read Roberts' column here.]

Malkin would do well to read a recent editorial from the daily Israeli newspaper Haaretz that provides sound perspective on Carter's achievements dating from when Malkin was in about the fifth grade.[Our Debt to Jimmy Carter, Editorial, Haaretz, April 15,2008]

But I have a suspicion that rather than address the issues, Malkin prefers to obscure them.  Better for her to proceed with the ad hominem attacks and invective. 

At least Malkin did not call Carter an anti-Semite.  She can save that for slur for people with the audacity to oppose the coming war with Iran.

Joe Guzzardi comments: Michelle Malkin's columns generate a lot of mail.

Breaking it down, readers support syndicated columnist Malkin 100 percent when she writes critically about illegal immigration and other immigration-related disasters. But when Michelle writes supportively of President Bush's foreign policy or about other non-immigration related topics, readers are split down the middle in their analysis of her opinions. For a mirror-image controversy over Paul Craig Roberts, see here.

Print Friendly and PDF