 |
Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild by Michelle Malkin
Book Summary InformationAuthor: Michelle Malkin Edition: Hardcover Audio: English (Unknown); English (Original Language); English (Published) Published: 2005-10-01 ISBN: 0895260301 Number of pages: 231 Publisher: Regnery Publishing
Book Reviews of Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone WildBook Review: Liberals lying about books contents Summary: 5 Stars
"it appears Ms. Malkin has added a new variation to her repertoire: the extensive use of four-letter words."
All of which are attributed to liberals. She's quoting liberals.
"On to page two, where Michelle tells her first lie of many in the book: she claims she was kicked off the Chris Matthews " Hardball" program because she was defending Swift Boat Veterans. This is not true,"
It is true. Malkin was brought onto the show to talk about her new book. But hours before the program was to start, she was informed that they, Malkin included in the segment, would be talking about the Swift Boat Vets, and that they will talk with her about her book in the second half of the segment. She agreed to go along with it. Chris Matthews opened the show with an attack on the Swift Boat Vets, and Malkin was defending them.
"she was booted because she made absurd claims that John Kerry deliberately shot himself so he could earn medals."
False. Malkin made NO such claim. It was another guest, Willie Brown, who brought up the subject of Kerry and his wounds: "There are questions about the shrapnel wounds. So what else is there? How much he got shot? How deep? How much shrapnel does he have?
Malkin answered: "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."
The transcript is available online. Just google it.
More from Malkin:
"Matthews frantically stuffed words down my mouth when I raised these allegations made in Unfit for Command that Kerry's wounds might have been self-inflicted. In his ill-informed and ideologically warped mind, this transmogrified into me accusing Kerry of "shooting himself on purpose" to get an award. I repeated that the allegations involved whether the injuries were "self inflicted wounds." I DID NOT SAY HE SHOT HIMSELF ON PURPOSE and Chris Matthews knows it. Only someone who had not read Unfit for Command would interpret what I was saying the way Matthews did."
"She had multiple opportunites to recant, but stuck with her contention, so Matthews bounced her, lest she denigrate more war veterans."
This is not what the transcript shows.
"She keeps grinding the axe with Matthews in later segments too."
What later segments? She was kicked off.
"From there it is 172 more pages of every vulgarity she can muster. Did she just learn these words, so is now practicing them in a book?"
Um, the book is about unhinged liberals. And she is quoting those foul mouthed unhinged liberals. She isn't mustering vulgarity. Her liberal sources are.
"She also enters the Sean Penn- Bill O'Reilly controversy, and delivers her usual sample of distortions. Arguing that Sean Penn was an ingrate and abusive"
She does not argue any such thing. She makes no such statement. She points out that Sean Penn said the following: "I'd like to trade O'Reilly for Bin Laden"
"despite the praise he received from O'Reilly,"
The only praise that O'Reilly gave to Penn (that Malkin mentions), is that in response to Penn's trade quip, O'Reilly continually praises Penn's acting performance in the movie, Mystic River.
"she neglects to mention that O'Reilly had ripped Penn for months, and predicted " Penn's career was over.""
Irrelevant.
"Another stop on the Malkin hate tour is her ridicule of author Sarah Vowell. Malkin is furious that Vowell receives good reviews,"
Yes, for a lousy book. In the chapter titled "Assasination fascination" (the point of the chapter is to highlight those unhinged liberals who seem obsessed with the hope that President Bush will be assassinated). Vowell authored a book about the assasination of three Republican Presidents and comments on the subkect a little too frequently for comfort.
"and that Vowell admired Abe Lincoln more than George Bush."
False. Malkin makes no such inference that Vowell prefers Lincoln over Bush, much less shows any sign that she cares who Vowell likes more.
"Nevertheless, this is a new variation for Malkin. She has branched out with a book of profanities, and is proud many of them are included in her emails."
False. In liberal hate emails SENT TO HER.
"She did make this false statement on page nine of her book:
"the truth is that it's conservatives themselves who blow the whistle on their bad boys and go after real extremism on their side of the aisle."
That claim is not true no matter how much Ms. Malkin wants to believe it."
That claim IS true. Conservatives do often call their fellow Conservatives on the carpet for going too far.
"1. G Gordon Liddy calling for the shooting of Federal Agents after they had a conflict with the Branch Davidians in 1994."
G. Gordon Liddy had his head handed to him by conservatives, and quite a few stations dumped his program.
"He was condemned even by most of the American right in 1994 when he advised his listeners to deal with agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (a strange, obsessive focus of hate on the American right) with "head shots, head shots" - "G Gordon Liddy: Voice of unreason" by Johann Hari, Nov. 22 2004, The Independent
"2. Ann Coulter statement: On Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."
Ann Coulter recanted her statement only seconds after making it. ""You're right, after 9/11 I shouldn't say that," she said, spotting a cab and grabbing it." -New York Observer
"3. Bill Bennett on his radio show last November 2005 that the crime rate would go down if you aborted black babies, and when confronted about that view he claimed it came from the book freakanomics."
It did come from the book freakonomics, and Bennet was denouncing that view, not supporting it:
BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both - you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well -
CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could - if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
"The Author of the book made a statement denying that what Bennett said came from his book."
False. The author made no such statement. Thanks to the negative publicity that shined on his book, the author attempted to distance himself from Bennett's statement, but nowhere did he deny the info that Bennett talked about came from his book:
"Race is not an important part of the abortion-crime argument that John Donohue and I have made in academic papers and that Dubner and I discuss in Freakonomics. It is true that, on average, crime involvement in the U.S. is higher among blacks than whites. Importantly, however, once you control for income, the likelihood of growing up in a female-headed household, having a teenage mother, and how urban the environment is, the importance of race disappears for all crimes except homicide. (The homicide gap is partly explained by crack markets)." -Steven Levitt.
Note Levitt did not deny what Bennett said came from his book. He only claimed that "race" is "not an important part" of his abortion-crime argument.
"4. Glen beck's hate based comments made May, 2005 on his radio show where he talks about killing Michael Moore."
Glenn Beck is not a conservative. Not even a registered Republican. He is a libertarian, and his comments were made sarcastically (It was a comedy bit relating to Dave Chappelle)
Beck never "threatened" Michael Moore. Only someone who takes quotes out of context would believe that he was "threatening" anyone.
"5. Swit boat author, Jerome Corsi, comments from free republic"
Corsi was a guest On the Fox News program, Hanity and Colmes, he admitted the comments and apologized, claiming he was joking,"
He admitted the comments and apologized, but he never claimed that he was joking:
"I don't stand by any of those comments and I apologize if they offended anybody," Corsi said. (Jennifer Kerr of the AP)
So there you have it. Examples of "conservatives themselves who blow the whistle on their bad boys and go after real extremism on their side of the aisle." just as Malkin claimed.
"but none of these unhinged statements made Ms. Malkin's book."
Irrelevant. Where is it written that books about liberal misbehavior, and authored by conservatives, must be equally balanced with complaints about conservatives? Are you making the same complaint about Al Frankens books, or Michael Moore's? Didnt think so. Malkin does admit that Conservatives can be "unhinged", but as she points out, they are called onto the carpet by their fellow conservatives. True she didnt use your cherry picked comments as examples, but she DOES acknowledge that such behavior isnt limited to the left.
"Unfortunately (and this is a big flaw) Malkin glosses over the other side's excesses. The far right is just as intolerant as the far left. Let's take just a few examples- I could certainly find more. In the 1990s many right wingers fell into obsessive Clinton-hatred. How about, for one, Rush Limbaugh's vicious attacks on Clinton and the Democrats-e.g. Chelsea was the White House "dog," "
Which didnt happen. The transcript for that particular Limbaugh show is available on Lexis-Nexis.
LIMBAUGH: Thank you. This show's era of dominant influence is just beginning. We are now the sole voice of sanity, the sole voice of reason. We are the sole voice of opposition on all television. This is the only place you can tune to to get the truth of the opposition of the one-party dictatorial government that now will soon run America. Oh, I mean, we are only beginning to enjoy dominance and prosperity. Most of these things on the in-out list are not even funny, but a couple of them--one of them in particular is.
David Hinckley of--of the New York Daily News wrote this, and what he has--he's got--it's very strange. He says, In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.' Could--could we see the cute kid? Let's take a look at--see who is the cute kid in the White House.
(A picture is shown of Millie the dog)
LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) No, no, no. That's not the kid.
(Picture shown of Chelsea Clinton)
LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) That's--that's the kid. We're trying to...
Why is it that when liberals choose an example of a conservative gone wild, they choose something that didnt happen except in liberal fantasy land circles?
Summary of Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone WildMalkin offers a hilarious proof of the utter hypocrisy of Democrats who fashion themselves as role models of tolerance and civility.
|
 |