Malkin: Too Self-Absorbed To Be Fair To Ben?
By smagar Posted in User Blogs — Comments (68) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I hesitated to write this diary, because so much has been said about Ben's trials over the past week. (Editors, feel free to delete it if you don't want this on the site.)
Many of us were angered by Michelle Malkin's dismissive treatment of Ben Domenich as the "troubles" of the past few weeks unfolded. Many of us thought Michelle should have waited to hear Ben's side of the story. Especially since she knew Ben. To me (and, I suspect, others), it seemed that Michelle was an opportunist here. As I've said before, it seems to me that part of Michelle's schtick is to hunt witches. To be one of the first in the conservative blogosphere to point at an "offender", yell "J'accuse"--and then, later on, sit back and say "See, I was the first to call for his/her head." In Michelle's initial reaction to Ben's situation, I sensed opportunism and a desire to polish her own lamp--all at the expense of a colleague and friend who had at least earned the temporary benefit of the doubt--a benefit Michelle denied to Ben.
As most of you know, many on this site unloaded on Michelle. I was waiting to see her response, once she'd returned from her Crusade To Expose Reconquista.
We now have her "last word" on the situation.
Actually, she outsourced her "last word" to another blog. And, I presume, adopted its respectful and thoughtful treatment of a longtime conservative activist and worker as reflective of her views.
Michelle Malkin has been made fully aware of the anger much of Redstate feels at her treatment of Ben. She must have know that many of us wanted to hear a thoughtful response to our anger and concerns. In that response, I'd hoped she would explain why she seemingly pitched Ben over the side in a flash, apparently without interest in his side of the story. I'd hoped that there was another side of the story of Michelle's handling of this issue. Maybe there were details I hadn't heard yet. I was willing to listen.
Instead, she has chosen this as her response, her "last word". And, this last word isn't a thoughtful exploration of the issue. It's a too-cute poem that pokes fun at Ben and those who supported (and still support) him.
Fine. Malkin has spoken. She has, IMO, placed herself on record. Bill Ardoino's words should be viewed as her own. I suppose she is too busy going on talk shows, battling Reconquista, to give a few minutes of her time to this issue. Or, more to the point, a fair amount of consideration to Ben, a former colleague and a decent person.
Redstaters, IMO, in the end, it's all about Michele. She apparently considers friends and colleagues disposable. The only one's "six" she watches is her own. (c17wife will explain). What a shame.
But now we know
the only example of this sort of thing with Ms. Malkin.
How many Michelle Malkin diaries do we need, especially ones that take a fourteen-word throwaway link to something lighthearted, and use it as an excuse to launch a 480-word attack?
And why is it that Michelle Malkin is the only person in the universe who is personally responsible for every word ever written by every person she ever links to for any reason?
Yeah, this whole ordeal has taught us plenty, but not just about Michelle Malkin.
that it sort of Malkinizes the issue.
I like some of Malkin's muckraking, but her general tactic is to deflect attention from the meat of an issue by focussing entirely on one crazy person's take on it. She then paints an entire group (lefties, muslims, etc.) as being in lock step with the crazy person or people. I understand her approach, but it's often misleading at sometimes dishonest.
Focussing on her behavior here is a similar tack, though.
Let's posit for a moment that Malkin is wrong (not my take, but so be it). Isn't focussing the attention on your perception that Malkin was wrong sort of deflecting attention from the core issues? That is, who cares if Malkin is wrong?
Might concern about increasing the number of slices of the commercial Conservatives' economic pie be a contributing cause ? Capitalist competition for the Public Media dollar and perks can shrink the size of each Conservative journalist's slice. In every occupation, the "haves" defend their turf from new-comers they disparage as "rookies", "greenhorns" and "novices" who should enter the occupation at the bottom and not the top. Envy is a likely suspect for resentment towards a "newbie" to the occupation starting at the top.
watching your back or having your back. My guess is that "having your six" means much the same. Hubby is in the Died though, so I can't ask him right now. And yeah, real friends will do that publically and then take you to task privately.
Malkin is nothing more than an opportunist. Fergawdsakes, the woman linked to a cutesy little poem as the "last word". No, "hey Ben, I'm glad you came clean." Nothing of the sort. With that final comment, I'm joining Thomas. She is dead to me. Michelle who?
"Malkinize?" Hang on to it if you did; I'm surprised I haven't heard it much before.
Whatever else may be true of this episode, I don't think we should allow any dishonesty from anyone to get past us.
Redstaters, IMO, in the end, it's all about Michele. She apparently considers friends and colleagues disposable.
Did you miss the irony in this post?
It certainly appears that it's actually "all about Red State"--that anyone who doesn't support the idea of a plagiarist getting a plum spot at the Washington Post is a "traitor" (yes, that bizarre euphemism was used by others) and "no friend to us," because Ben is a Red Stater.
Get over it. I can't believe anyone is still talking about it. Did it occur to you that maybe Ben D. would want you to just DROP IT, unless he's completely shameless?
Signed,
A "traitor" who, like a LOT of others on the right, called for BD to leave the WaPo long before Malkin did.
Malkin's use of the "Last Word" may not be the exact term, it looks like she found a neat effort by another blogger and wanted to publicize it.
As I've said before, I never understood the bile that was directed at Ms Malkin on this. The accusations were pretty really came down to the not waiting to hear Ben's side of the story. That would mean something if she turned out to be wrong. But she wasn't.
Malkin played almost no role in this drama. Much more important were magazine sites like Slate and NRO. They were satisfied that things weren't on the up and up and let it be known. All Malkin did was repeat some wisdom that was quickly becoming conventional. Seems a thin reed to villify so heartily.
I'm glad that Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and many other conservatives I have seen disparaged on this site are on my side.
I wish we had more. If we eat too many of our own, how are we ever going to take over the MSM?
This sort of griping doesn't make Redstate look very good. Malkin didn't destroy Domenech; Domenech did. I can't evaluate her friendship with Domenech prior to the incident, but given that her interpretation of his actions was substantially correct, it was arguably more friendly, in the true sense, for her to tell the truth as she saw it sooner rather than later. Domenech was not helped, and is not being helped, by the circling of the wagons, or by his initial attempts at obfuscation. We should all just let it rest, and let Mr. Domenech get on with rebuilding his professional life.
...who paint too jaundiced a picture of the world.
Don't get me wrong, I look at her page -- more than once a day. But I just feel like it's one of those things that isn't safe for people who don't balance their reading a bit. I like to think I can read Malkin safely because I can put my own filters on what she says.
Same with Coulter. They share the basic "Gee, aren't all of those liberals stupid" mentality. Their upside is that in doing so, they frequently highlight where liberals actually are stupid. However, they paint too many people with too broad a brush.
So, to get back to your question: I wouldn't coin Malkinizing because I don't find the phenomenon particularly unique. There are lots of red meat types out there -- on both sides of the debate.
It's not Malkin's self-absorption, but Ben's, that worsened the problem. Suppose she had waited until after his "Red America Ends" explanation/denial. Suppose he hadn't written this
To my friends: thank you for your support. To my enemies: I take enormous solace in the fact that you spent this week bashing me, instead of America.
, which, while not comparing himself to Jesus, is nothing if not self-absorbed.
Suppose Malkin's had taken Ben at his word, for the few short hours before he went back on it? Then she, like many of us, would have been taken for a ride.
I may get banned for this, but I like Malkin's writing, and don't fault her for acting like a journalist when recognizing a plagarist.
I may get banned for this, but I like Malkin's writing, and don't fault her for acting like a journalist when recognizing a plagarist.
It was interesting that all the local gods seemed to back away from this issue at about the same time. Lots of bans the threats of bans, then silence.
I think folks determined that some who usually have lots to say were too close to this issue. A realization dawned that the internecine warfare was starting to look bad to the outside world.
So that's a long way of saying that I think you're safe. The proprietors here want nothing more than for this issue to go away, and angry, ill tempered responses are the best way to keep it going indefinitely.
It was interesting that all the local gods seemed to back away from this issue at about the same time. Lots of bans the threats of bans, then silence.
(1) We made a collective decision to let the matter drop.
(2) We left front-page material to that effect.
(3) We didn't warn anyone. You've made a habit of seeing what's not there.
(4) The commenter to whom you're responding couldn't take the hint. This local god was content to let the dog lie as long as he was sleeping. The dog woke up and needed a kick.
I think folks determined that some who usually have lots to say were too close to this issue. A realization dawned that the internecine warfare was starting to look bad to the outside world.
What's amazing is that (1) this is disparate from reality and (2) is identical to what you predicted before. Funny how the world always fits your view, even when it doesn't.
So that's a long way of saying that I think you're safe.
This is as correct as everything else you've said.
It's best not to keep shooting.
Toodles.
...and the double super-secret mailing list; and if there was any sort of consensus to consciously limit the discussion on the grounds of eliminating the public spectre of internecine warfare, I missed it completely. I know that is going to be hard to believe, but we mostly play this site by ear. :)
What actually happened, I think, was that the immigration demonstrations managed to more or less suck out all of the rhetorical oxygen in the room. That probably did have some impetus from Ben's situation (which, I note, started well before the plagiarism revelations), and God knows that we were massively ticked off at the end of it - but we were all quite happy to have internecine warfare later on wrt immigration issues, and that's arguably a larger long-term problem for the GOP.
Moe
PS: Buckland, don't take this personally, but in the future please don't speak for any of us unless you're asked to.
PPS: Some of us are starting to get tired of the "Ban me if you must, but" bits coming from people. If one of you thinks that your comment will result in your being thrown out, and you really don't want that to happen, then don't make the comment. It's either a whine, which we don't particularly care about, or a legitimate complaint, which is more properly handled by going here, and/or a violation, which will simply result in us tossing you and going on with our lives.
And if you don't think that we will listen to legitimate complaints, perhaps you would be happier posting to a different weblog.
Shouldn't you be over at Strata's place agreeing that we're all fascists?
...dichotemy is back. Or however it's spelled. :)
Moe
I'll have the salad, please.
Good point, Right Again. If we're going to eat red meat, let it not be our own.
The accusations were pretty really came down to the not waiting to hear Ben's side of the story. That would mean something if she turned out to be wrong. But she wasn't.
Is that similar to "you're only guilty if you're caught"? Are you seriously saying that so long as you're right in the end, it doesn't matter what you did or said about it, how you handled it?
This is not a one-time thing. On its own, it DOES look like overreacting. The point is that for many this was "the straw that broke the camel's back".
If this was the first time Michelle had ever done something to make people reconsider her spot on their blogrolls, her name would probably never have come up. It's the fact that her tone, her methods, etc have been sliding in this general direction for some time. I personally wondered to a friend about 2 weeks before this all blew up whether Michelle was starting to be 'infected' by the very moonbat behavior she had so openly documented.
As for the reasons she was mentioned louder than others: When you are among the leaders of the pack, you draw attention. That can be a very good thing, or it can be a very bad thing. That's the risk you take when you step out there. Those who cannot accept that risk should stay back.
Mad-drunk with power, I was. Actually, I still am, only now I am cruel with it, as a cat is cruel.
the MSM?"
A simple process. First, we get several hundred thousand bright young minds to go to journalism schools across the country, but to ignore the left-wing hogwash they will be taught by their radical professors.
Then, they pretend to be left-wing idealogues in order to be hired at their respective newpapers, magazine and television stations. Twenty years of pretending to believe the party line should get them into positions of power within their respective organizations...and then they can turn around the MSM!
OR, they can just be bloggers!
I was going to post this story, but let it go in the name of letting sleeping matters lie. But now that you've mentioned it, I'll just add this. All of the above commentary misses the point, IMHO: if Malkin is/was a friend of Domenech's (as she claimed to be), she would not have linked to that poem.
If Malkin's defenders are okay with friends treating each other this way, then fine. I'm not. With friends like these, you truly don't need enemies (and I'm writing this as a fan of Malkin's).
out in so many words upthread. But I guess I missed the boat.
No worries though. It still stands-she's dead to me.
As I've told you before, if you have something to add, great. If all you have is personal attacks, I will respond in kind.
If you're too stupid to read, have somebody read it to you. But the number of warnings and bannings over this subject where numerous. I'd point them out, but of course it'd be useless./
You say a collective decision, I say a got the memo -- po-ta-to, pot-a-to.
It's amazing that you can title a post calling somebody an idiot that whine and moan when the conversation breaks down. You see a correlation in your unprovoked personal attacks and the threads going in the toilet? If you don't then you're the only one.
Enforcing rules is one thing. But name calling in order to provoke responses is quite another. It's obvious you only have the ability to do the latter.
PS: Buckland, don't take this personally, but in the future please don't speak for any of us unless you're asked to.
I thought I made it clear I was making a prediction based on observation. Did it come across as me speaking for you guys? Sorry, Not intended.
Dois Kearns Goodwin, defintely not a roastee. Ms Goodwin has made a living and been awarded a high reputation for writing books that can be relegated to the juvenile section of the library shelves. However these are books that accord with a certain world view, so automatically she becomes an intellectual. Having had her own plagarism scandal she was recently awarded a $50,000 prize by the NY Historical Society for the bestsomethingorother. This proves,a] that there's PLAGARISM and then there's plagarism, b] that purgatory has it's membership limits and liberals get suspended sentences. To anticipate remarks of this not getting Ben[augustine] off the hook you may regard this as a lesson in life and then place the hook in the same catagory as the purgatory.
something lighthearted
Yes, I'm sure Ben got a real kick out of reading it.
And why is it that Michelle Malkin is the only person in the universe who is personally responsible for every word ever written by every person she ever links to for any reason?
(Emphasis added)
Hyperbole, thy name (at least on Redstate) is Neil Stevens
Signed, A "traitor"
Oh please. Nathan Hale you're not. IMO, of course.
who, like a LOT of others on the right, called for BD to leave the WaPo long before Malkin did.
And, you want CREDIT for that? A share of the bounty perhaps? Sure thing!
As far as I'm concerned, BOTH you and Michelle gave Ben a push as he was standing on the edge that Friday. If you take pride in that, well...
But, you BOTH were well within your rights, of course. Just to be clear.
Sure, he's a serial plagiarist. Sure, he libeled his old editors by claiming that they were the ones who inserted copyrighted material into his articles. Sure, he ended up discrediting The National Review and other publications by writing second-hand reviews for same. But you guys are overlooking the really important factor here -
Ben Domenech is a conservative! And thus, he's right! Ipso facto!
Also, Thomas can ban people from this message board! He's a big man! He's kind of like James Bond, except, you know, different!
Blam! Blam! Blam!
512-560-2302.
Now take your sorry a** back over to kos. We just cleaned the carpets and don't need any more mud!
... damn that William F. Buckley! He's a traitor! He hates freedom, because, you know, he doesn't think the war in Iraq is going well!
Do you guys realize that, if William F. Buckley came here and posted a message to the effect that Domenech isn't exactly an innocent and that the Iraq thing has failed, you guys would totally ban him? Because, that's exactly what would happen. Buckley would get all Nazified after a single post. Do any of you find this to be amusing? Or, rather, ironic? It's almost as if the American conservative movement has degenerated into some sort of lawyer-driven primordial soup, energized only by lobbyists and evangelicals.
20 cents a word or $25 an hour? But you're not even funny...
So you waited through 5 days to post this tripe? The same thing we had last weekend? Ugh, you can't even be original. Comedy writing it say.? I thought comedy had to be funny. Next will you warn us "that I know three ways to incapacitate a grown man with my bare hands" too? bwhahahahhahahahaha online tough guy....ohhhhh
If so, you have an excuse.
I was interesting enough for you to look me up.
Also, that ol' resume should include Hustler now. But if you do go to the trouble of looking up that one, too, that article isn't entirely my writing, so don't judge me on that one.
Also, you people are insane.
"Oh, Michelle Malkin! How dare she publically acknowledge that the guy who edited her book is a plagiarist with no ethics whatsoever!"
Then again, car wrecks are interesting (it explains NASCAR's popularity). It's tough to argue with someone who doesn't have proper reading comprehension. Maybe they taught that in the classes at UT after you dropped out? See the argument against Ms. Malkin is not that she was right (she was), but that she personally knows Ben and maybe she should have taken that into account.
It's as if you got pulled over for speeding and the cop asks you "Do you know how fast you were going? And your buddy riding shotgun chimes in before you can saw a word, "not only was he doing 50 in a 25, he wasn't wearing his seatbelt and ran the stop sign a mile ago." Your friend would be "right" as well.
But consider that Michelle Malkin's product is, in part, her credibility. What would you have had her do?
... may I ask what search engine and search terms you're using? I haven't seen the resume link and the "mudcat" link for a long time, and I google myself all the time...
nice glass of Shut The Heck Up, IMHO. She could have waited 2 days to post about Ben, she could have sent him an email, or called him, or any number of things.
Then again, I think we here at RedState could probably drink a few glasses of STHU w/r/t Malkin for a bit.
Why did you link to a message board full of Christians, most of whom think I'm funny even though they disagreed with my piece? I mean, you've already claimed that I'm not funny, and now you've got to somehow account for the fact that other conservatives do think I'm funny... It's like, you're more of an Andy Card than a Karl Rove, which is to say, you're not very good at the whole propaganda thing.
but I sure am tired of hearing all this rot about Malkin or anybody else "betraying" Augustine. Malkin did nothing to Ben Domenech. The Kossacks did him considerable injury, and to a certain extent he did the harm to himself. The only thing Michelle Malkin did was to say a few hours earlier what the people on this site had to admit a few hours later.
Folks, the bottom line is this: the lefty blogosphere was looking for a scalp. They wanted to take a prominent conservative's scalp the same way we took Dan Rather's hair. And they got their trophy, but as despicable as their actions were, they wouldn't have taken their scalp if Augustine hadn't given them the opportunity. Malkin didn't cause any of this; she was just the first (or perhaps not even the first) to say, "Yon conservative has no hair!" This continuous vilification of a lady who was very popular before this incident is silly. If you don't like Malkin, don't read her blog. Besides that, let's move on and put this nasty bit of business behind us.
I guess I'd never used the quotes around the full name. Well, you learn something new every day.
I don't have to account for anyone else's poor taste in humor. There are people who think Carrot Top is funny. People used to laugh at Andrew Dice Clay for saying "Hour. Back. Get it?"
'Cuz nobody asked me. Get to work here, buddy!
why is this giddy little tomfoolery still in play?
Hey BarrettBrown, you got this childishness out of your system yet? Go peddle your 20 cents per word to a crowd that thinks you are cute and funny...it ain't gonna be found 'round these here parts.
We're all just dumb Conservatives that like to discuss stuff amongst our dumb selves...you go back to the holier than thou crowd from whence you came.
but it was Domenech who screwed her over first. If you know that your hands are really, really dirty, and then you choose to work as an editor, you've just cast a pall of suspicion over everything you've touched. Loyalty does not trump the truth, and there's not any grey area there. You can say she could have "waited," but the controversy was right there, right now, and people were looking for answers - was Domenech an honest guy or not? If Malkin had waited even though she already knew, then Malkin would have been a flak instead of a real columnist. And Malkin, presumably, doesn't want to be a flak. And that's to her credit.
Maybe I should change that to "will work for pie."
...not by me, but only because I was too slow.
L., I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. But, I'm not willing to let some of the things you just said simply pass. So, in no particular order.
The only thing Michelle Malkin did was to say a few hours earlier what the people on this site had to admit a few hours later.
Actually, she did more than that. My point--which I've made repeatedly and (I presume) you're ignoring--is that Malkin undoubtedly saw that Ben was going to take a fall. He didn't need a push. But, she gave him one anyway.
There was no NEED for Malkin to speak out WHEN she did. The evidence was coming in, and the story was going to get out fully. This wasn't AirAmericaScam, where Michelle's support of Brian Maloney's investigation was critical in getting the story the airing it deserved. This story was getting a full and vigorous airing.
So, what compelled Malkin to speak out WHEN she did, BEFORE her friend had had a chance to have his full say? The only compelling reason I can see--the urge to get out in front of the story, so she could claim some credit for being one of the first to call for Ben to step down.
Don't raise a strawman, in which I'm saying that everything Malkin has written and said has been bad for the conservative blogosphere. Overall, her work has strengthened the conservative movement. But, she took advantage of a situation where a friend who had screwed up was helpless. Who was in need of (at the very least) a little moral support, and some breathing space in which to deal with the troubles overwhelming him. Malkin withheld that support, and did her part to deny him that space. IMO that's cheap.
Was Malkin within her rights? Of course. But, from what I've read, she knew Ben. At that moment, on that Friday, Ben needed his friends. Michelle apparently thought first of herself, of her position as a "judge" in the blogosphere. And, I choose to point that out.
Malkin did nothing to Ben Domenech.
Oh yes she did. She didn't cause his situation, to be sure. But she did take advantage of it.
If you don't like Malkin, don't read her blog.
Well, that skirts the point I'm making in this diary, doesn't it L-K? Malkin used her blog to throw a rock at one of the founders of this blog. Yours truly, a diarist on this blog, fired back. My diary was counterbattery fire.
I sure am tired of hearing all this rot about Malkin or anybody else "betraying" Augustine...let's move on and put this nasty bit of business behind us.
Is someone forcing you to read this diary?
with banning? Can't we have differing opinions so we can learn and develop our positions to be stronger? Why is banning both threatened and discussed so often. Is this a club based on fear?
This is a Republican/conservative blog. If your opinions differ significantly from those philosophies, this probably isn't the place for you.
That's all.
The owners of the coffee house like to sit around and chat with the guests. It's free; no one is a customer. They're all guests, and guests should be polite.
Every once in a while, someone comes in and insults the hosts, or says the other guests are stupid, or does some other rude thing, often directly after being told by the hosts not to do that rude thing.
Would you be pleased, as one of the other guests, to have the boor shown the exit?
Be civil, be as truthful as you can, make sense, and you can say whatever you like. (You need not always make sense, as my own posts demonstrate.)
Most of the time, lefties quickly descend into rude, dishonest, incoherent invective and have to be shown the exit.
is the troll. Right?
comfortable in order to return and communicate freely. I guess I was seeing banning as hammer. I wouldn't think people who didn't agree with the "overall" philosophy would come here to write, read and converse. I have my won ideas but I think everyone needs to be civil otherwise we will just mouth the orthodoxy.
We do have some liberal regular posters here. I would say they are, to be honest, held to a higher standard of behavior as far as acerbity of comments and the wielding of Pointy Sticks (which is not to say conservatives here have carte blanche to be obnoxious). On the other hand, having been vetted, so to speak, we generally find them in polite but principled disagreement, and I think most of us would agree that that's neither disruptive nor contravenes the purpose of this site. The banning isn't perfectly impartial, but by and large it does its job, which is to allows us to discuss conservative ideas without perpetual accusations of racism and/or idiocy.
First, you are obviously not "agreeing to disagree" or you wouldn't have attempted this sort of point by point rebuttal ("attempted" being the operative word). If you really wanted to "agree to disagree" you wouldn't keep riding this particular dead horse. But since you haven't got off the horse, don't blame me for shooting it again.
At this point I would like to make it clear that I am defending Malkin, whose wit, intelligence, and principles I admire, rather than attacking Ben. I respond to your points solely with that purpose in mind:
My point ... is that Malkin undoubtedly saw that Ben was going to take a fall. He didn't need a push. But, she gave him one anyway.
Even if that were true it makes no difference to the final outcome of this sad story, does it? Did WaPo consult Malkin's blog when they decided to fire Domenech? Did Malkin's blog attack Ben for anything that hadn't already become known? Seriously, without Malkin's blog would Domenech's fall have been one iota less swift and painfull?
Remember that we are literally talking about a matter of hours here. The bulk of the action in the Domenech controversy happened over a period of about two days.
So, what compelled Malkin to speak out WHEN she did, BEFORE her friend had had a chance to have his full say? The only compelling reason I can see--the urge to get out in front of the story ...
As a professional blogger Malkin is undoubtedly a sort of journalist as well as an online commentator. I agree that journalists operate with an incentive to get "in front of" a story. Sometimes that causes them to get the story wrong, and they should be penalized for that. In this case Malkin neither the first blogger to "get" the story nor did she get it wrong.
Don't raise a strawman, in which I'm saying that everything Malkin has written and said has been bad for the conservative blogosphere.
Pot, meet kettle.
But, she took advantage of a situation where a friend who had screwed up was helpless. Who was in need of (at the very least) a little moral support, and some breathing space in which to deal with the troubles overwhelming him.
First, I'm not sure it's all that clear whether they were ever really friends. I know he edited one of her books, but besides that I'm not certain there was ever much of a relationship. Second, If you follow your logic to its natural conclusion you ought to write the same sort of diary about "The Corner" over at NRO. They said much the same thing at about the same time as Malkin.
Is someone forcing you to read this diary?
I someone forcing you to read my post? No, but you choose to read it and respond to it because you think it's worth your while. So it is with me.
Proud to be the "And" in Michelle Malkin is Judas / And you're like Jesus!"