Yesterday, Michelle Malkin's Culture of Corruption was again on top of the New York Times best seller list.
(If you aren't sure what the book is about, here's a hint:
Never has an administration taken office with more inflated expectations of turning Washington around. Never have a media-anointed American Idol and his entourage fallen so fast and hard. In her latest investigative tour de force, New York Times bestselling author Michelle Malkin delivers a powerful, damning, and comprehensive indictment of the culture of corruption that surrounds Team Obama's brazen tax evaders, Wall Street cronies, petty crooks, slum lords, and business-as-usual influence peddlers.
Sounds as though the book was written in Malkin's usual understated way.)
Naturally, her former colleagues at the Seattle Times will be proud of her success, and will want to do at least one thoughtful review of Culture of Corruption. They may even be fighting — politely, of course — over who gets to do the review. So I thought we could help them choose a reviewer with this little poll:
(I didn't include Ryan Blethen because I don't believe that he was fortunate enough to work with Malkin.)
Details: Naturally, I would prefer that the members of the board not vote. I'll tell you my choice tomorrow morning. And, since I am feeling helpful, I'll volunteer to do the review if the Times does not have anyone on their editorial board who could do a competent and fair-minded review of this book. Oh, and there is an obvious choice for the Seattle PI reviewer — Joel Connelly.
Posted by Jim Miller at August 24, 2009 07:25 AM | Email ThisI dropped my Times subscription 7 years ago and don't miss it in the least.
Posted by: threeoddnumbers on August 24, 2009 07:50 AMBesides, print urnalism is so passe...
Check out this YouTube piece by Sonja Schmidt on O'Bummers friends
I'm really, really glad that everr since i popped into this site to point out that the torture convention specifically says in its plain as day wording that emergencies are no justification for torture, I haven't heard anyone who comments here come back and say "to hell with that law, the terrorist threat is an emergency that justified torture!" I'm really glad, in other words, you all seem to "get it" that the plain law of our nation is emergency doesn't justify torture. (while I say waterboarding is and some conservatives say it isn't torture, is another point....it's nice to hear implicitly that folks think it isn't torture, because in saying that folks are implicitly recognizing torture is illegal).
Anyway, I'm sure all the rightists commenting on this site, folks who uphold our traditional American values of limited government and the founding father's principles of resistance to an arbitrary and unlimited executive, not to mention the value of personal responsibility and law and order, will all join me in applauding AG Holder for releasing this information that says government agents were possibly acting illegally and this should be investigated.
Damn that government. You can't ever be on guard too much about intrusive expansive government, and how just holding power seems to corrupt the gummint, right?
Thank you in advance for your agreement. It's nice to know that conservatives share a basic respect for the rule of law and believe it should be applied equally to any administration.
Right?
Posted by: Torture Lawyer on August 24, 2009 09:59 AM2. Don't feed the trolls. If they are off topic, ignore them.
Posted by: Jim Miller on August 24, 2009 10:47 AMI'm so proud that Holder has the ethics to do what is right. By the way is this the same ethical Eric Holder that greased the skids for the last minute pardon of convicted fugutive and Clinton financial supporter Marc Rich?
Is this the same Eiic Holder that was also involved in Clinton's decision to reduce the criminal sentences of 16 members of the Boricua Popular Army, an organization that has been categorized by the FBI as a terrorist organization. The clemency request was initially opposed in 1996 by U.S. Pardons Attorney Margaret Love. When Holder was elevated to Deputy Attorney General in 1997, he was asked to reexamine the issue by three members of Congress. In July 1999, Holder recommended clemency to Clinton with a report from then U.S. Pardons Attorney Roger Adams that neither supported nor opposed clemency. A month later, Clinton granted the clemency. According to The Hartford Courant, the clemency was unusual because it was opposed by the FBI, the federal prosecutor and the victims. According to the newspaper, it was also unusual because, before the commutations, the Boricua Popular Army members were not required to repudiate their actions, and they were not asked to provide any information concerning the whereabouts of Victor Manuel Gerena, a co-conspirator and one of the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, or the millions of dollars stolen by the group in a 1983 robbery of Wells Fargo in West Hartford, Connecticut.
It appears that AG Holder has an obsession or a real gift for recommending clemency for rich campaign contributing international fugitives and domestic terrorists; while becoming a real bulldog when going after career CIA officers who are trying to do their job of interrogating terrorist who's only goal is to destroy and attack or country.
However, I am not shocked at Holder's latest attack on our CIA, as he did serve under the likes Bill "What! Me Lie" Clinton, Janet "Waco" "Elian Gonzalez" Reno; and now under Barack "The Kingfish" Obama.
Posted by: Jon E. B. Goode on August 24, 2009 01:35 PMSince I never signed up for this group, I strongly suspect that when I communicated with the Whitehouse snitch line (to tell them what they were doing was objectionable), they must have forwarded my email to this leftwing group so they could collect email addresses and spam people, since Obama himself has said he's "a proponent of single-payer" (and we all know the current bill leads to single-payer by outlawing new private policies from being written). Can't think of any other way this group could have gotten my email.
Posted by: Michele on August 24, 2009 02:01 PMhttp://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19971104&slug=2570198
And her columns were filled with gross falsehoods and inaccuracies
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19981223&slug=2790469
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19990209&slug=2943220
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19990217&slug=2944620
She left there under a cloud of shame, and the only good thing to come of it was that she was replaced as a columnist by John Carlson who at least has some integrity.
Posted by: Mickel on August 24, 2009 02:34 PMMichele, are you insinuating that the TOTUS has a bladder control problem? Perhaps! Perhaps diarrhea of the mouth too. I enjoy your insightful posts.
Posted by: Fed Up on August 24, 2009 06:07 PMMr/ms Mickel
I admire your ability to have found all these links wiht issues about Malkin.
Wow for your work! But it alss makes me suspicious about who you really are? Hmm...
Anyway, let us give you the benefit of doubt and say you are an impartial researcher who found all these issues. Well I submit to you that this is proof of her competence/fairness rather than incompetence/bias.
There is not (and never was) a single journalist(meaningles word) at Seattle Times who did not have more fraud/erors/biases then she did. Most of what you right is clearly fabriacted/distorted.
Seattle Times loves the left becasue it lives off it...and as mark Twain said (paraphrasing) "it is har (if not impossible) for a man to see the truth when his paycheck depnds on it". Ring a bell?
Anyway, the fact that Seattle Times hired her (and did not openly discriminate against her during the hiring process) means that she was sophsiticated enough to trick the ultra-liberal gatekeepers (or she was a liberal and changed her views later). i bet I could find falsehhods in any article in Seattle times!
In any case that you can find 4-5 issues against a non-leftie at Seattle Times and throw in "when she left it was under a cloud..." means she was the only honest journmalist you ever saw. You just took longer to discrminate against her and execute on your liberal bigotry.
After all, the most offensive thing to a white liberal is a "non-white male" who dares diasgree.
BTW I am not even a republican (or conservative) ....just disgusted with Seattle Times and your "bigoted journalistic" ilk.
Thank god that Serattle P-I is gone.
Posted by: issaq trav on August 24, 2009 07:22 PMShe left there under a cloud of shame, and the only good thing to come of it was that she was replaced as a columnist by John Carlson who at least has some integrity.
You've got it exactly backward. Carlson left the Times in 1995, and was replaced by Malkin. The cloud of shame awaits.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on August 24, 2009 07:29 PMI understand because she is out to expose low lifes like you and your ilk. Who wants a quasi-totalitarian Federal government that we have now?
The new Dhimmicrat playbook - "Rules for Radicals" by Alinsky has been exposed and your game plan is circulating wildly.
Posted by: KDS on August 24, 2009 07:39 PMWho, you mean Hillary? Or are we speaking locally and you're referring to Gregoire?
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on August 24, 2009 08:25 PMThus promoted far beyond any remotely realistic estimate of her competence, Malkin suffered from the pitiable delusion that, since stuff she typed wound up in print, she was a reporter. Raging jealousy (or imagined rejection?) having caused her to attack Gary Locke over a "scandal" which existed only in the narrow, filthy, unlit space between Malkin's ears, a very cruel news editor at her place of employment assigned an actual news reporter, David Postman, to investigate the piles of rumor, innuendo, and lies which comprised the entirety of Malikn's "reportage".
A few milliseconds later, Postman had debunked all of her claims, and then some:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19971212&slug=2577642
Malkin, at her absolute classiest, gave this gracious (for her) response:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980331&slug=2742535
Cameron went on to write the editorial which commanded then-President Clinton to "Resign!" over the Lewinsky "scandal", leading to hundreds of soon-to-be-former readers (myself included) to send that suggestion to her instead.
With humiliating ease, Locke crushed first Ellen Craswell, then John Carlson. This illustrates the influence Ms. Malkin had here.
Posted by: tensor on August 24, 2009 09:00 PMOh, and thank you tensor for the stroll down memory lane. Lockjaw was dirty, Malkin reported on it, Postman confirmed the substance of it, and the PDC fined his campaign. He didn't get nearly what he deserved.
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on August 24, 2009 09:57 PMIt seems as if the only folks ascribing superhuman goals and expectations to Obama and his administration are conservatives. Assuming that this is any different from any other administration is absolutely absurd.
Let's see:
Obama has promised to cut the deficit in half; to end partisan politics; to unite the nation; to pull out of Iraq in 12 months; to not use lobbyists; to run a transparent Administration; to only increase taxes on the top 5% of people and it would only be an extra 3%.
He's not kept a single of those promises, and he made them all.
It's not ascribing superhuman goals and expectations to the man; it's holding him to his word. Which, so far, has been worth less than a Zimbabwean dollar.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 24, 2009 10:14 PMF- in reading comprehension. (And I even provided the links!)
Posted by: tensor on August 24, 2009 10:23 PMThere were enough disparities mentioned by Michelle in March of 1998 to cause anyone to believe in the cover up by the Democrats!!! Postman's article in 1997 was totally incomplete in answering those details.
Posted by: Tim on August 24, 2009 11:09 PMFace it, Useful Idiot... you're trying to move the goalposts.
Posted by: demo kid on August 24, 2009 11:32 PMBy golly, that is the perfect description of all the shrieking lefties for 8 years: "F__ck Bush! Cokemonkey! Bushishitler! Kill Bush!!!"
Glad you noticed your leftist brethren, mike. We did, too. It WAS vile.
Posted by: Michele on August 25, 2009 12:21 AMYou're projecting again,Demokid. It's always amusing to witness someone frothing at the mouth at a successfull cable news network while speaking of "whining and temper tantrums". Exhale, Demokid...It'll be fine = )
Those holding their breath, stomping their feet and calling those engaged in constitutional free speech and assembly before their elected representatives "Brownshirts", "nazi's" and carrying "Swastikas" is the very epitome of implosion. I guarantee that if the Democrat party continues down this path, it will be on the outside looking in for the next 2 elections cycles. Carry on Madame Speaker and Brian Baird- you are doing more to assure GOP victories in 2010 and 2012 than the party leadership.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 25, 2009 06:29 AMNo. You seem to be mistaking conservatives for the fools who voted for a nebulous promise of capital-C Change.
And as for @36 - are you serious? Re-read the string of excuses you just provided and tell me who is "moving the goalposts." "Gosh, he sure tried, but.. OMG BUSH!! CHENEY!!!" isn't going to cut it when the rabid far left loons turn on their New Messiah for not delivering on his impossible promises.
Posted by: RookieRick on August 25, 2009 06:38 AMEven the White House's projections of deficits confirm he will NOT cut the deficit in half. The last "Bush" deficit was $440 billion. Obama will never get the deficit down under $220 billion. Fact.
Ending partisan politics, he's not done anything to reach out to the GOP. In fact, he often talks of "I won", or "we won" and of going it alone. So much for bipartisanship. The GOP has a bill in the House, why isn't the President asking Pelosi to let it come forward to discuss?
Uniting the nation - his poll numbers are plunging, he's dividing the nation further by attacking conservatives. Tell me one move the man has made towards working with conservatives. Just one.
Pulling out of Iraq. It's a 16 month timeline (not 12 month) that was set by President Bush. So much for getting us out faster.
Too many lobbyists so he has staffing problems? Gee, you mean he made a promise he couldn't keep because it was an asinine promise, but sure sounded good on the campaign trail? Hey, how about nominating people who aren't proven and admitted tax cheats!
Transparent Administration? He claimed to run the most ethical, most transparent ever. I guess snitch lists are the start, eh?
Top 5% - already raised taxes on tobacco, will raise taxes on EVERYONE when the Bush tax cuts expire, when capital gains taxes expire (both of which he wants), when health care reform is pushed through, and more.
Face it, he's a liar, provably so. But he's your liar so you keep him on that pedestal!
Rick D.,
I guess the labels of brownshirts and nazis is to unite the country?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 25, 2009 06:59 AMIt's going to be fun watching the left continue to defend the indefensible.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 25, 2009 07:10 AMObama has no plan on Afghanistan. But he's their Hope and Change, so leave him alone to his well deserved vacation.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 25, 2009 08:28 AMSo it would be natural for him to review a book that charges the current administration with corruption.
Some commenters missed an important point: The review need not be positive. If the Seattle Times reviewer thinks that Malkin got her facts wrong on important points, or made fallacious arguments, then they can say so in the review. If they think she is partly right and partly wrong, then they can say that. (In my opinion, the mixed reviews are usually the most interesting.)
Finally, Kate Riley should be disappointed that she did not receive any votes. For the record, I think that, if she were to review the book, she would try hard to do it fairly.
Posted by: Jim Miller on August 25, 2009 08:43 AMhttp://www.dailytidings.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090822/OPINION02/908220303
Posted by: Fred on August 25, 2009 08:43 AM