This is coming from someone who posed with a person at an anti-stimulus rally who was holding a sign comparing Obama to Nazis. This is the same person who was steamed that Little Rock "erased Confederate Blvd." from interstate highway signs just weeks before dignitaries arrived for the opening of Bill Clinton’s presidential library." Michelle Malkin couldn't stand the fact that President Bill Clinton had said, ""In our country during the '50s and '60s, black churches were burned to intimidate civil rights workers. I have vivid and painful memories of black churches being burned in my own state when I was a child." Malkin then linked us to Daily Republican which reported that, "Clinton's radio broadcast has deeply insulted his own home-state Democrats. They are saying Clinton has falsely accused Arkansans of torching black churches," even when white segregationists burned Black churches to the ground, in Arkansas.
Even the Washington Times reported that, "In 1963, while Mr. Clinton was a 17-year-old in Hot Springs, the Roanoke Baptist Church in that city burned to the ground. Although the authorities refused to investigate that incident, the pastor at the time, who was president of the local NAACP and active in efforts to open employment and public accommodations to black citizens, believed that the church had become the target of violent segregationists."
Michelle Malkin, however, mocked the president's statement and called him a liar, defending people who have either conveniently forgotten history or are trying to cover it up. This is how much credit Michelle Malkin gives to Democrats. It is funny how she always seems to side with those who bash Democratic presidents, and then says, "if selling out our children and our grandchildren's future is patriotism, than I am VERY proud to be an un-patriot in the age of Obama." Funny, she did not say that when President Bush was building up a trillion dollar deficit that our children would have to pay for.
Of course this is coming from someone who said, "my column today (Novemeber 10, 2004) compares the MSM’s love affair with Democrat Barack Obama with its apathy (at best) and bias against (at worst) minority Republican politicians." This is how Michelle Malkin saw America after the 2004 election. This just proves that she was never going to give then Senator Barack Obama a chance in the first place. Also, Michelle Malkins seems to believe that the party that then controlled the executive and legislative branches of government were in the minority.
When President Bush was re-elected in 2004, Malin's response was, "Lovely speech. God bless America!" Funny that she did not say, "I will be unpatriotic," when President George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004. But this is exactly what Malkin said at an anti-stimulus rally in Colorado, where Barack Obama signed the stimulus bill. She claimed that our children and grandchildren would be paying off the stimulus bill. She must not have been paying attention in 2004 when President George W. Bush lead us into a trillion dollar deficit, which grew to a ten trillion dollar deficit by 2008. Now she calls Democrats "turn-coats" for writing a stimulus bill which is full of "pork". This is what is in the stimulus plan. Plans to create green jobs, build a green infrastructure, invest in early childhood education, invest in scientific research, etc.
Here is the picture that will get Michelle Malkin in trouble. Though she is obviously posing with someone who is calling Obama a Nazi and is not, to my knowledge, a Nazi, it still shows that Malkin will pose with a hate monger. Why doesn't she practice what she preaches; if she was opposed to liberals comparing President Bush to Hitler, than why doesn't she condemn this man's sign which compares President Obama to Hitler? In her response, she points out that those on the far left compare Bush to Hitler. Instead, she says, "the tables have been turned." Okay, then why in the article does she not condemn the views of the man holding up the sign? Why does Michelle Malkin choose to associate herself with hate mongers and Obama bashers rather than taking a high road by condemning all forms of radical extremism? Yes, especially that in her own party, you know, the racists are McCain/Palin rallies.
Here is footage from the anti-stimulus rally.
I want Michelle Malkin to know that I have always been opposed to calling President Bush a Nazi. When the satirical newspaper I was working for wanted to include a Bush/Nazi reference in the article, I told them that they could not publish it with that reference. Though I often poked fun at the president, I refused to compare him to Adolph Hitler. If he looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul, however, I felt it necessary to link the two, but only when accurate and truthful. Malkin, whose response can be viewed here, has posed with someone who compared Obama with Nazis, and I would condemn anyone on the left who would compare Bush to Hitler. I think that Jon Stewart made an excellent point in his commentary on Nazi references.
As it turns out, no side is completely innocent. Even President George W. Bush is guilty of comparing opponents to Nazis. "While delivering an address before the Israeli parliament commemorating the 60th anniversary of Israel, President Bush said that Sen. Barack Obama and Democrats favor a policy of appeasement toward terrorists. CNN reports that Bush was comparing Obama to "other U.S. leaders back in the run-up to World War II who appeased the Nazis." This is no conspiracy, as "White House aides are acknowledging that this was a reference to the fact that Sen. Obama and other Democrats have publicly said that it would be ok for the U.S. President to meet with leaders like the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad." Nobody should make Hitler references against their political opponents (unless you are running against a member of the Nazi Party, of course), and by attacking liberals and not condemning the person with the sign, Malkin just added flames to the fire.
Even in 2004, The Bush campaign tried to fan the flames. They released an ad that included Al Gore, Hitler, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Dick Gephardt, Hitler, Gore, and Kerry. If anyone can find the original video, let me know, but here is a parody of "Kerry's Coalition of the Wild-eyed". The Kerry campaign was quick to respond, saying, "The use of Adolf Hitler by any campaign, politician or party is simply wrong." I could not find Michelle Malkin's response to that smear, even on Google.
The left wingers who compare Bush to Hitler are seen as crazy nut jobs who are irrational and choose hate over substance. When a right winger holds up a sign comparing Obama to Hitler and you pose for a picture with them, what does that make you? Of course not a Nazi, but someone who will pose with a person who compares our commander and chief to a Nazi, an action that you condemned radical liberals of doing in your response letter. Michelle Malkin claims that, "I’ve pretty much stayed away from using such rhetoric against those with whom I disagree — especially having been on the receiving end of Nazi allusions myself countless times over the years." Good for you, but if you associate with these people at these rallies, than are you any better than those "nutjobs"?
I usually steer clear of those who carry 9/11 Conspiracy Theory posters, or tree-sitters at UC Santa Cruz who depict Chancellor Blumenthal and the UC Regents in sexual orgies as they did after the Novemeber 2007 Protest. I was at the rally because I was documenting it and trying to get all perspectives, but I condemn the tree sitter's use of violence and vandalism, their and their slanderous rhetoric. In your response to the Obama/Nazi sign holder, you never specifically condemned the sign that you were photographed next to. I am waiting, but not holding my breathe.