Redstate

"It is entirely another matter, however, to know the man, to have worked with the man, and feel the irrepressible urge to show your fair-mindedness, to strut your reasonableness, to tell it like it is, sister! -- friendship be damned. All this before your former colleague has had the opportunity to speak."

Just yet another example of us eating our own.  Makes me sick.

You like me! You really, really like me!

--paraphrased from sally fields before someone decides to attack my relationship with my mother.

Michelle has revealed how she values people she works with.  I hope her sources and anybody else who has worked with her on something keep her actions on this matter in mind.

I guess Malkin felt that if Republicans are going to criticize one another, particularly on the blogosphere, she should be leading the pack.

I certainly agree that Ms. Malkin's writings have an edge but I wouldn't compare it to Colter's bombast (which I enjoy immensly).  I tend to prefer a more erudite form of opinion writing which is one of the things I enjoy about Redstate.  

But "she is dead to me", Please!!! Is Glen also dead to you?

You asked for her to comment and her quick post (she explained her circumstances) clearly indicated her appreciation for Ben's work and friendship. The issue with the NRO movie review, which Ben has yet to address, was something Ms. Malkin couldn't square with continued support.

Asking anyone to opine and then objecting with such vitriol to the result under these circumstances appears to exhibit a lack of reason.  I understand that Ben was your friend but Malkin didn't suggest that he be arrested or drawn or quartered or some other awfull thing.

I suggest everybody chill.  The truth one way or another will come out.  If Malkin was hasty she will apologize.

Will you if you are wrong?

...it's a courtesy thing.

You don't kick your friends when they're down. Period.

and that point came through in your diary post.  I do believe you engage in hyperbole with the whole "...dead to me" stuff.

BTW how would Malkin's credibility have suffered if she was silent on this because of a personal relationship when she has been vocally critical of others in the same position?

What would her friends think about the attacks that would surely befall her if she did that?

Part of Malkin's schtick is accusing witches, and then claiming credit when they burn.  If this is part of your claim to fame, then you need a steady supply of witches.  And, you've no real motivation to seeing if anyone is really innocent or not.

Ben Domenich deserved his chance to have his say.  But, Ms. Malkin apparently wasn't interested in listening.

She gave similar treatment to Julie Myers, Michael Brown and Harriet Miers.  For the sake of argument, I'll stipulate that Malkin was overall right, in that all three were not good choices to either rise to the positions for which they were nominated (Myers, Miers) or keep the ones they held (Brown).  

But, in each of those three cases, Malkin seemed bent on being among the first to yell "J'accuse."  To be in a position to say she was one of the first to call for so-and-so to be fired, or denied their position, or whatever.  I mean, there's no glory in saying "Me too--burn the witch."

Michelle Malkin has done quite a bit for the conservative blogosphere.  Her work with Brian Maloney in exposing Air AmericaScam leaps immediately to mind.  And, I am grateful that she linked to my Redstate diary on blogswarming the Iraqi documents.  In so doing, she gave me some of my best national exposure ever.  I do appreciate that, and the many good things she has done, said and written.

But she does go hunting witches, and doesn't seem too concerned if they're really witches or not. Today, she didn't seem too concerned if Ben was really guilty.  And Ben Domenich deserved better. Much better.

just so you know this gives the appearance of some very esteemed diarist at Redstate giving countenance to plagiarism.  Not necessarily my view but what I would imagine a completely objective third party would think.

any of these defects in Malkin's character before this incident?

With Ben's latest on the front page, it looks like she was right, unfortunately.

Are not always the same thing.

kept her damn mouth shut until she knew for sure.

Malkin is no better than any other self-serving blogger trying to make a name for him/herself.    

That's true, but I don't understand what she did wrong here.

This is the Internet.  That is her personal website.  She trades heavily on her books, and someone connected with her books was accused, with evidence, of professional dishonesty in writing.  She had to say something; given how she uses her site, it was expected.

So, she looked at the evidence, agreed that it looked bad for him, and expressed that, but still bent over backward to distance herself from and attack the lynch mob.   It was the only thing she could do.

So what exactly is your beef with her?  That she didn't keep absolutely silent about a serious charge against a major figure of the right on the Internet, one that she had professional connections with, until Ben made a statement?  Is that really what you expect from instant-response commentary logs?

...they compared him to a terrorist supporter because of the port terminal deal,  did provide all denominations of Conservatism with a green light to publicly attack fellow Conservatives. That willingness  of Conservatives to publicly police one another regardless of the cost distinguishes them from the self-deceiving liberals.

She publicly slammed Ben before he even had a chance to address the charges.

My attitude is that everyone is posting and commenting, and attacking before they have time to digest the situation.

First, with Augustine, no one was willing to give him three or four days to respond to the accusations.  Everyone wanted him to respond immeadiately.  Too many people have decided that the speed of the Internet means that we should all make decisions and judgements at the same speed.  I think Michelle Malkin fell into this trap.  Indeed I agree that she probably should have posted something along the line of "these are serious charges and I am Investigating, I will post more once I determine the truth."  and then take a day or two to digest the information and evidence.

Often I have found that what looks like proof in the heat of debate cools after a night's sleep- and I discover all sorts of holes in both my own arguements and in my opponents.

I agree that this rush to judgement was bad, however, one must admit that it was accurate.

Now people are making the same mistake about Malkin.  "Lets attack her because she rushed to judgement."  First of all, I think that when we put aside our personal friendships, the fact that she was right in her judgement does mitigate the offense.  (After all the worse thing about a rush to judgement is the innaccuracy that usually results).  Secondly, I think we are making the same mistake she did.  We are making comments before we have allowed our passions to cool.  Lets wait a day or two before attacking another one of our own.

Surely conservative bloggers have already suffered a loss.  Do we have to now enter into a fratricidal war with each other?  Such a result is foolish, even when over real offenses.  Let us wait till our anger cools before we create more wounds.  Then we can more reasonably determine if the offese is a forgivable one.

And if we can't count on you, why in the name of all that's holy would we want to be on the same team with you?

Simple and binary. Malkin and a lot of others simply threw their lot in with the enemy when a lot of other options, options that we know they did not avail themselves of, were available.

It looks at if Brown was lynched (in the media) for the failures of Nagin and Blanco.

Myers and Miers... well, there were people who knew them far better than Malkin who felt they were qualified, and acted on that.

Everyone is human, and subject to the fralties of humanity.

Ultimately they will screw up and betray you in some way, whether intentionally, through incompetence, weakness, or even a short bout of stupidity.

I have learned this lesson the hard way and it is a bitter lesson.

The second life lesson I learned is almost as bitter.

If you want to accomplish your goals in life you are restrained by necessity into trusting people.  

Thus my conclusion is that to accomplish our goals in life we must trust people- even knowing that they will betray us.

Of course we can minimize the betrayal by limiting the scope and level of our trust.

While I think Michelle Malkin has offended some of the trust that Domenech had in her friendship, did he not also betray her trust in him?  Was not his betrayal more severe than her's?

Let us not try to throw Malkin overboard.  Instead let us just remember that she does tend to speed towards judgement (a flaw shared by many people).  

My best friend shares this flaw and has misjudged me many times- even once acting in a way that would end most friendships.  I could have ended our friendship.  Instead I wrote her and defending myself, corrected her understanding.  (Her flaw is redeemed by her willingness to reconsider those rushed judgements.)  I have of course made note of her temperment and am careful accordingly to ensure I make a full explianation of any controversal action or conversation.

I think about the years of friendship that would have been lost if I had responded with anger, (well justified), instead of seeking reconciliation.  Surely the good that Malkin has done our cause deserves consideration.

Let us not make enemies of those that could be our friends- even if they have offended us.

prerogative. I don't consider friendship to be the equivalent of wearing a Kick-Me sign on my back.

We aren't making enemies of those who could be our friends that was done for us by the alleged friends.

Substantially different rules of engagement apply to contestants in Public Media and Private Blogging. While Public Media conflict is governed by the law of the jungle, more civilized protocol is agreed to by those invited to participate in blogging.  Public Media conservative contestants are regularly demonized, struck in the face with cream pies and drowned out by hecklers in addition to having their loyalty questioned by other contestants.  As playing in the NBA differs from academic basketball, venturing into the Public Media arena has ended the careers of many Conservatives.

Blowback is an ugly thing. Some of the language and personifications in this thread are despicable.

How can anyone really be surprised at Malkin's reaction? Her rhetoric is her stock in trade. Augustine set himself up as an easy target and she obliged.

I can certainly understand being unhappy with her response to the whole mess....but "dead to me"??

I think everyone would be well served from a few deep breaths. This too shall pass. What is the point of throwing fuel on the fire with Michelle Malkin hate threads?

It demeans the site in my opinion.

During Malkin's appearance on MSNBC about 12 months ago, Chris Matthews became so enraged  that he accused her of being an evil person and banished her from the set as the viewers around the world listened and watched her being disciplined by the famous journalist. He also told her that she was banished from appearing on his show for life.   Now that many Conservatives are confirming Matthew's opinion about her, Malkin may develop even thicker skin, and become even tougher.

Being banned by Chris Matthews is a situation greatly to be desired ... :-)

So now we're in the business of abandoning friends to impress unknown third parties.

That's really pathetic.

"It demeans the site in my opinion."

Then read another site.

See how easy that was.

You've been registered here less than a month and we're supposed to care about your opinion?

Get a life.

> "She's Coulter Lite -- a guilty pleasure we can't count on to rhetorically rip the guts out of the America-haters."

Not to get off on a tanget here, but I'm not sure whom you're talking about in that statement. Al Qaeda?

The Dems have been fairly incompetent in recent years, sure, but in what way are they hating America?