Michelle Malkin Emailed Me Back

[No Free Beer]

Hello all,

after seeing this post:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...p-Created-the-TEA-PARTY-quot&highlight=malkin

I went ahead and emailed Ms. Malkin.

To my astonishment, she emailed me back. For all of you who emailed as well, did you get a response from her? I hope this is actually her and not just some administrator.

Anyway, here is what I wrote, followed by what she wrote.

Dear Ms. Malkin,

I was astonished to hear your claim that Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich
are all grassroots and they helped create the tea party movement. With
all due respect, were you being serious or just providing Fox News
with comic relief? Anyone in their right mind knows this couldn't be
further from the truth. The actual tea party started when Ron Paul
supporters held rallies in Boston and Los Angeles in 2007. The actual
movement didn't pick up steam until 2009, to which Gov. Romney nor
Speaker Gingrich were anywhere to be found. Let me please remind you
that BOTH of these men were for the bailouts. BOTH of these men were
for individual mandates. BOTH of these men are considered
establishment Republicans. How can it be that they are considered "tea
party"? Let me remind you, in 2007, when the REAL tea party movement
started, you were on Fox News saying "Ron Paul really has no business
being on stage" when discussing a debate. YOU, ma'am, are not tea
party. Therefore, YOU have no idea what tea party is or could be in
the future.

Keep up the good work,

Tea Party member

Her reply:

You misheard what I said. I said that the grass-roots OPPOSE both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich and that the tea party grew because of dissatisaction with Big Government Republicanism. I have been one of the most forceful critics of the Bush administration and bailout pushovers like Romney AND Gingrich for their support of massive government interventions.


Is it possible that we misunderstood her? Forget about her prior statements about Ron Paul. We have to be fair. Is it possible?

Edit: 3:55 pm est:

I emailed her back, with the following:

Dear Ms. Malkin,

If I misunderstood you, I apologize. You must understand how
infuriating it is to see all these candidates and pundits lie on
national television, especially about the tea party movement and its
roots. Even though I have heard you bash Congressman Ron Paul in the
past, I try to be fair each and every time someone gets on the air.
Again, if I misunderstood you, I really do apologize. The reason I
wrote you an email was because a lot of us tea partiers are fed up
with what we are seeing and hearing from the GOP candidates. Moreover,
the commentators and pundits on television are all doing the same
thing, which does not help America's cause. If I may, I would like to
ask you a question...Would you agree that it was wrong of you to say
what you did about Ron Paul in 2007-2008? If not, have you since
changed your opinion? I believe all ideas and points of view should be
allowed for debate, whether I agree with them or not.

Thank you,

tea party supporter

If/When she writes back, I'll post here.

Thanks guys...

 

[Sola_Fide]

I think she's cute.

 

[sailingaway]

I never heard her say what you said she said in your email. She hasn't liked Ron in the past (although she has tweeted a few complimentary things during debates) and her reasoning is inconsistent with what she says she is for, unless she doesn't really know what HE is for. However, she isn't for TARP and DID point out the Grinch was for it, that is where I got the links in opposing candidates.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Is it possible that we misunderstood her? Forget about her prior statements about Ron Paul. We have to be fair. Is it possible?

Yeah, it's possible. I'm going to believe her on this one and just watch.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

I would explain to her, that being part of the Tea Party was intended to return the Republican Party back to its roots of Individual Liberty, Free-Markets, etc.

 

[anaconda]

tube or transcript of her original comment should settle this..

 

[Unknown.User]

..

 

[airborne373]

Is this the same Michelle Malkin who wrote a book about putting Americans in camps?

 

[Bonnieblue]

I would explain to her, that being part of the Tea Party was intended to return the Republican Party back to its roots of Individual Liberty, Free-Markets, etc.

I know that men like Dr. Ron Paul, Mr. Pat Buchanan, Mr. Barry Goldwater, and Senator Taft have valiantly attempted to stay within the framework of the Republican Party and claim for that party some heritage of liberty and free-markets; but all four of them, struggled and struggle against the reality of history which is the the Republican Party has never been the party of liberty nor the party of free markets.

At its genesis its core was and its core remains bankers, stock jobbers, paper aristocracy, and corporatists willing as in 1860 to ally themselves with South-hating abolitionists and African-hating free soilers to become a regional party which, however, given the demographics of the time, could seize the general government and complete the revolution against the Constitution which Hamilton, Marshall, Story, Webster and Clay had spun and supported as Federalists and Whigs, the goal of that revolution being to overthrow the union of constitutionally federated republics and to replace that union with a consolidated and centralized Hobbesian state as Bismark was doing in Germany and as Garibaldi was doing in Italy.

The Republicans were champions of nationalism over patriotism, of consolidated power over a subsidiarity of power, of protectionism over free trade, of fiat currency (Greenbacks) over specie currency, of a central bank over state banks and charter banks, etc.

The Hobbesian state which is an abstract corporation with a monopoly on coercion and with the ability to define the limits of its own power came into being with Lincoln and his Republican Party and the war of aggression and terror which they unleashed against those states which had seceded. All of the evils which we today loathe - suspension of habeas corpus, arrest of Americans without trial, banishment of American citizens, closing of dissenting newspapers, inflation, lucrative deals between corporatists and the general government began under Lincoln and his Republicans.

The corruptions spawned by these arrangement had their fruition under Grant and other Republican administrations. McKinley's administration was a warmongering imperial expansionist administration.

I understand that Dr. Paul needs the Republican Party as a platform to reach Americans. The system allows no other choice; however, let us not contribute to myth, legend, fiction and lie about the real Republican Party.

 

[orenbus]

omg michelle malkin is the devil, don't you guys remember the fred thompson forum?

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

I know that men like Dr. Ron Paul, Mr. Pat Buchanan, Mr. Barry Goldwater, and Senator Taft have valiantly attempted to stay within the framework of the Republican Party and claim for that party some heritage of liberty and free-markets; but all four of them, struggled and struggle against the reality of history which is the the Republican Party has never been the party of liberty nor the party of free markets.

At its genesis its core was and its core remains bankers, stock jobbers, paper aristocracy, and corporatists willing as in 1860 to ally themselves with South-hating abolitionists and African-hating free soilers to become a regional party which, however, given the demographics of the time, could seize the general government and complete the revolution against the Constitution which Hamilton, Marshall, Story, Webster and Clay had spun and supported as Federalists and Whigs, the goal of that revolution being to overthrow the union of constitutionally federated republics and to replace that union with a consolidated and centralized Hobbesian state as Bismark was doing in Germany and as Garibaldi was doing in Italy.

The Republicans were champions of nationalism over patriotism, of consolidated power over a subsidiarity of power, of protectionism over free trade, of fiat currency (Greenbacks) over specie currency, of a central bank over state banks and charter banks, etc.

The Hobbesian state which is an abstract corporation with a monopoly on coercion and with the ability to define the limits of its own power came into being with Lincoln and his Republican Party and the war of aggression and terror which they unleashed against those states which had seceded. All of the evils which we today loathe - suspension of habeas corpus, arrest of Americans without trial, banishment of American citizens, closing of dissenting newspapers, inflation, lucrative deals between corporatists and the general government began under Lincoln and his Republicans.

The corruptions spawned by these arrangement had their fruition under Grant and other Republican administrations. McKinley's administration was a warmongering imperial expansionist administration.

I understand that Dr. Paul needs the Republican Party as a platform to reach Americans. The system allows no other choice; however, let us not contribute to myth, legend, fiction and lie about the real Republican Party.

While true, it's important to remember that the extremes of the Republican party, were once prohibited by its adherence to the US Constitution. When it did this, it remained the party of Individual Liberty and Free-Markets.

 

[Bonnieblue]

While true, it's important to remember that the extremes of the Republican party, were once prohibited by its adherence to the US Constitution. When it did this, it remained the party of Individual Liberty and Free-Markets.

When was the Republican Party as such, excluding individuals like Taft, Goldwater, Buchanan and Paul, ever anything save for that which I outlined. The best one can come up with are the brief years of Coolidge and Harding. Hoover was a wartime socialist who cut his teeth in the Wilson Administration along with FDR. Much of what FDR did in the New Deal mimic what his antecedent Hoover had attempted to accomplish.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

When was the Republican Party as such, excluding individuals like Taft, Goldwater, Buchanan and Paul, ever anything save for that which I outlined. The best one can come up with are the brief years of Coolidge and Harding. Hoover was a wartime socialist who cut his teeth in the Wilson Administration along with FDR. Much of what FDR did in the New Deal mimic what his antecedent Hoover had attempted to accomplish.

Further back than the 1900's.

 

[RonPaulGangsta]

 

[akterence]

very angry video.

 

[anaconda]

While true, it's important to remember that the extremes of the Republican party, were once prohibited by its adherence to the US Constitution. When it did this, it remained the party of Individual Liberty and Free-Markets.

What are the "extremes" to which you refer? And by what mechanism(s) did the party invoke and apply the Constitution to "prohibit" these? An example or two if you please? Thanks. I am very curious.

 

[anaconda]

I know that men like Dr. Ron Paul, Mr. Pat Buchanan, Mr. Barry Goldwater, and Senator Taft have valiantly attempted to stay within the framework of the Republican Party and claim for that party some heritage of liberty and free-markets; but all four of them, struggled and struggle against the reality of history which is the the Republican Party has never been the party of liberty nor the party of free markets.

At its genesis its core was and its core remains bankers, stock jobbers, paper aristocracy, and corporatists willing as in 1860 to ally themselves with South-hating abolitionists and African-hating free soilers to become a regional party which, however, given the demographics of the time, could seize the general government and complete the revolution against the Constitution which Hamilton, Marshall, Story, Webster and Clay had spun and supported as Federalists and Whigs, the goal of that revolution being to overthrow the union of constitutionally federated republics and to replace that union with a consolidated and centralized Hobbesian state as Bismark was doing in Germany and as Garibaldi was doing in Italy.

The Republicans were champions of nationalism over patriotism, of consolidated power over a subsidiarity of power, of protectionism over free trade, of fiat currency (Greenbacks) over specie currency, of a central bank over state banks and charter banks, etc.

The Hobbesian state which is an abstract corporation with a monopoly on coercion and with the ability to define the limits of its own power came into being with Lincoln and his Republican Party and the war of aggression and terror which they unleashed against those states which had seceded. All of the evils which we today loathe - suspension of habeas corpus, arrest of Americans without trial, banishment of American citizens, closing of dissenting newspapers, inflation, lucrative deals between corporatists and the general government began under Lincoln and his Republicans.

The corruptions spawned by these arrangement had their fruition under Grant and other Republican administrations. McKinley's administration was a warmongering imperial expansionist administration.

I understand that Dr. Paul needs the Republican Party as a platform to reach Americans. The system allows no other choice; however, let us not contribute to myth, legend, fiction and lie about the real Republican Party.

Thanks for the fascinating post.

 

[trey4sports]

she has been much more tame with regards to paul lately, IIRC. I'd guess this is because she knows the future of the party is going our way.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

What are the "extremes" to which you refer? And by what mechanism(s) did the party invoke and apply the Constitution to "prohibit" these? An example or two if you please? Thanks. I am very curious.

Each political philosophy (or politician in general), has specific ideals associated to their party or philosophy. The guideline to prevent these extreme ideal's is the US Constitution. Parties and politicians are not meant to establish laws associated to their extreme ideals, unless if it's constitutionally legal. As we all know, the Republican Party has always been the Pro-Business/Corporation party. Thus, it was the most easily tempted by the Corporatist element that is relevant today in the U.S. This is why it was meant to be left to individuals to donate to political campaigns, and not corporations. Campaign Finance Reform is one ideal the Republican party has always wanted throughout history, that was meant to be prohibited.

This is why Paul doesn't accept money from corporations, but only from individuals. If we reference Benjamin Franklin, he once said that if the people realize they can vote themselves money, it will Herald the End of the Republic.

 

[COpatriot]

Malkin is a moron.