Gay Patriot Header Image

Andrew Sullivan Notwithstanding, Michelle Malkin is not a Liberal

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:59 pm - February 17, 2006.
Filed under: Conservative Discrimination

Today, on her blog, Michelle Malkin ran her second post critical of the Bush Administration’s decision to turn control of several ports on the eastern seaboard over to a company owned by the government of Dubai (one of the United Arab Emirates). As I read Michelle’s post, I realized how frequently this blogress criticizes the Administration on border control and immigration issues. Indeed, the first time I heard her speak (after Bush took office) — I believe it was on FoxNews — she faulted the president for not adopting stricter immigration controls. She has, for example, been relentless in criticizing him for tapping Julie Myers, niece to Richard B. Myers, former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to head the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency in the (e.g. here).

And although Michelle has frequently criticized the president, I would never think to call her a liberal. Indeed, although we knew about her criticism of the president, we included her as one of our nominees for “Conservative Blogress Diva,” even identifying her as conservative in my first post on the contest — before we had begun to receive nominations from readers. That is, we called Michelle conservative even though she had not pledged “blind loyalty to George W. Bush.” She’s been criticizing him for years and, in our eyes at least, this great blogress remains a conservative.

Earlier this week, I made much of Andrew Sullivan’s posting as quote of the day a comment from Glenn Greenwald that “in order to be considered a ‘liberal,’ only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush” (Via The Corner). Andrew’s claims notwithstanding, Greenwald did not diagnose “the current situation accurately.” Because if he did, no one would consider Michelle a conservative.

And it’s not just Michelle. Indeed, as Marshall Wittman has written:

The reality is that prominent conservatives have been critical of this President on a range of issues – the Weekly Standard has questioned Administration’s execution of the war, the National Review and the Heritage Foundation has been critical of the President’s big spending ways. And now, a range of libertarian conservatives have differed with the President on the NSA program.

. . .

While Greenwald suggests that “loyalty” to Bush is the requirement for the right, the standard to be a member in good standing of the liberal/left community is hatred of Bush. . . . Because in the left wing universe, one must oppose everything the President supports.

(Via Instapundit.)

In the right wing universe, however, we are open to a variety of viewpoints. Far from seeing blind loyalty to the President, we have instead seen vigorous debate on a number of his policies, with general (and strong) appreciation for his leadership in the War on Terror and strong and unrelenting criticism of those who accuse him of dastardly and diabolical motives. Once again, Andrew Sullivan got it wrong. Perhaps he’s mistaken conservatives’ blunt criticism of unhinged Bush-haters as blind loyalty to the man himself.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest):



  1. If liberals would shut up once in a while and pay attention to conservatives, they’d know there are lots of conservatives who criticize the President and Congress on any number of issues, most notably, their left-wing domestic policies.

    But when anything less than “Bush lied people died! Impeach Bush! Behead Bush! War Crimes!” is perceived as “unconditional support,” that’s not likely to happen.

    Liberals are unhinged (TM, Michelle Malkin — who you will recall I said was the undeniable Diva of the Blogosphere, votes notwithstanding).

    Comment by rightwingprof — February 17, 2006 @ 6:37 pm - February 17, 2006

  2. I have to part company on the hysteria over the so-called port sale. The company involved would only be running the trucks and cranes at the port. Security would still be an American responsibility. If you are concerned about Port Security, your focus should be on the incompetence of the Dept. of Homeland Security, not on who owns the company that loads and unloads the ships.

    I’m the last one to cry racism, but I think this story is mostly anti-Arab hysteria. Also, I’ve been to the UAE, so maybe that’s colored my opinion, but I think this is is something to be concerned about, not hysterical about. On the scale of security concerns, I’m much more worried about Iran’s nukes, and about the ACLU suing to keep Islamist radicals from being deported and terrorists from having their phones tapped.

    Comment by V the K — February 17, 2006 @ 7:03 pm - February 17, 2006

  3. V the K, it seems like conservatives are coming down on both sides of this issue. Doesn’t sound much like a group of blind loyalists marching in lockstep.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 17, 2006 @ 7:06 pm - February 17, 2006

  4. I think there is more than a little projection going on. Sully has become quite the megalomaniac. He seems to define conservatism as “whatever Andrew Sullivan believes today.” And he is the one who denounces anyone who doesn’t agree with him as not a real conservative.

    Comment by V the K — February 17, 2006 @ 7:26 pm - February 17, 2006

  5. I thought the same thing V, until today. I’ve been doing alot of digging on this subjet because I travel by ship five times a year, and security has been getting worse and worse as the cruise lines introduce bigger and bigger ships. Imagine at the Port of NY on the westside, a turnover of more than 30,000 passeners every satuday and sunday. It’s chaos.

    This $7 billion deal gives the UAE more control and information that I’m comfortable with.

    (Reuters)”Stewart Baker, assistant secretary of policy at the Department of Homeland Security, said Dubai Ports World had a solid security record.”

    But at a time when security in the ports remains unacceptably lax, I wonder whether this is a wise move.

    (New York Post) “Dubai Ports, after all, is owned by the United Arab Emirates, whose banking system – considered the commercial center of the Arab world – provided most of the cash for the 9/11 hijackers. Indeed, much of the operational planning for the World Trade Center attacks took place inside the UAE.”

    * America’s seaports have long been recognized by homeland security experts as among our most vulnerable targets. Huge quantities of cargo move through them every day, much of it of uncertain character and provenance, nearly all of it inadequately monitored. Matters can only be made worse by port managers who might conspire to bring in dangerous containers, or simply look the other way when they arrive.”

    (New York Sun) ” Entrusting information about key U.S. ports – including, presumably, government-approved plans for securing them, to say nothing of the responsibility for controlling physical access to these facilities, to a country known to have been penetrated by terrorists is not just irresponsible. It is recklessly so…”

    (Wash Times) “The root question is this: Why should the United States have to gamble its port security on whether a subsidiary of the government of the United Arab Emirates happens to remain an antiterrorism ally?
    The Committee on Foreign Investment is the wrong place for this decision to be made; it appears to be little more than a rubber stamp.”

    Sorry for so many quotes, but this makes me very uncomfortable. I can tell you first hand that breaching security on a cruise ship far too easy.
    Not to mention cargo vessels.

    And we don’t need the fox guarding the henhouse.

    Comment by hank — February 17, 2006 @ 8:15 pm - February 17, 2006

  6. Sorry “passengers”

    Comment by hank — February 17, 2006 @ 8:23 pm - February 17, 2006

  7. You know GPW, I think you and Andrew actually agree that the Right is more tolerant than the Left is of criticism.

    But I don’t think that the Gay Patriot blog is as tolerant of Andrew as the Right is. There is just something about him that seems to set you and GP off.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — February 17, 2006 @ 10:02 pm - February 17, 2006

  8. hmmm…. Interesting comment Patrick. There may perhaps be some truth in what you say. I will say that I largely ignored Andrew during 2005. This time, I just found his quote of the day earlier this week so amusing & so wrong that I couldn’t resist this post.

    Perhaps, it seems I appear less tolerant of Andrew than the right because I no longer read his blog any more except when linked there. And usually the links I find are to posts critical of him.

    But, if you read my posts carefully, particularly my previous one, you will see how much I appreciate the courage he had when he first spoke out and offered a perspective on gay issues differed than that from the gay establishment. He took a lot of hits for that. And likely worse ones than I’ll ever experience.

    If he does set me off, it’s that he secured his success by being a smart gay iconoclast — and still postures as one — but is increasingly becoming, at least on matters of policy and attitudes toward the president, a conformist.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 18, 2006 @ 2:01 am - February 18, 2006

  9. #5

    Reminds me of the days after 9/11 when I was working for one of the legacy airlines. So many people were demanding more security. Problem is, when they got what they demanded, they bitched and whined about it.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 18, 2006 @ 2:22 am - February 18, 2006

  10. I’m no admirer of Andrew Sullivan but GPW routinely goes overboard on mention of his name. It’s sometimes hard to tell if Sullivan is an iconoclast who has drifted toward the mainstream or if he’s being opportunistic.

    One thing you can count on here and throughout most of the rightwing bloggysphere is a kind of gross literalism so that when Greenwald makes a comment like the one at issue, everyone takes it literally. Then they can posture about the small-mindedness of the left. The same thing happens on the left’s side. Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity declare liberals traitors and everyone takes them 100 percent seriously and gets to pontificate about the generalizing rhetoric of the right.

    The real issue, as Greenwald’s post made clear, is civility in discourse and by taking him to task for this one comment, the right gets to puff itself up without addressing the real issue. If anyone had the energy to do so, it could be easily documented how often Democrats and liberals disagreed with Bill Clinton, but as soon as that effort was made, someone on the right would say how little it matters.

    I think GPW used the key word here: Iconoclasm. Some bloggers try so hard to distinguish themselves from others that their “iconoclasm” becomes more important than discourse. What I see, everytime GPW mentions Sullivan, is the little green monster dancing before his eyes.

    Comment by JwGreen — February 18, 2006 @ 10:12 am - February 18, 2006

  11. I’m really not clear what JwGreen is trying to say in the first three paragraphs of his comment. I found the Greenwald quote (and Andrew’s favorable citation of it) so amusing precisely because it’s so wrong. I can’t think of a single conservative blog, columnist, web-page or other news source which has been blindly loyal to the president. Indeed, every one (at least those I read regularly) has criticized the president on more than one occasion. And no one would think to call them liberal.

    I used Michelle as an example because we had called her conservative even though I, at least, had been aware of how critical she has been of the Bush Administration for almost as long as the president has been in office.

    And despite his accusation in his last paragraph, he makes a really fascinating point, made even stronger by his choice to put iconoclasm in quotation marks. Some bloggers do try hard to distinguish themselves, being different for the sake of being different (but that while it resembles iconoclasm not true iconoclasm). Others, however, go out of their way to please angry adherents to certain ideologies. And that is where I fault Andrew most strongly. And Arianna Huffington.

    Both were once iconoclastic conservatives. Now, they seem ever eager to win the accolades of the DailyKos crowd.

    Oh, and, Pussy, nothing you say makes us look silly though it does reflect poorly on you.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 18, 2006 @ 1:54 pm - February 18, 2006

  12. #3 GPW. You’re right. This is not a partisan issue. And it’s going to get alot bigger.
    As far as airline security goes. It’s always been 100 times safer than port security.

    Comment by hank — February 18, 2006 @ 2:03 pm - February 18, 2006

  13. Who cares what QueefPatriot says anyway.

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2006 @ 2:27 pm - February 18, 2006

  14. The ‘Conservative Cult’

    There has been a recent wave of posts in the lefty blogosphere denouncing the alleged ‘cultish mentality of the right’ towards the President. Their rhetorical (and mostly yawn-worthy) arguments go a little something like this (paraphrasin…

    Trackback by Sister Toldjah — February 18, 2006 @ 4:07 pm - February 18, 2006

  15. #11

    The co-blogger crows about how open to different views he and the other one are. What horseshit

    Actually, they’re open to different views of the intellectually honest, not the vaginal expulsions that you post.


    I don’t doubt that, but there is something to be said about that. I imagine some sort of mutiny if you tried to instill anything anywhere near airport type security on the cruise ships.

    I’m still wondering why Algore never fulfilled his promise of improving airport/airline security. Other than the $500,000+ donations the DNC got from the airlines and their lobbyists.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 19, 2006 @ 3:51 am - February 19, 2006

  16. REgarding the ports:
    But at a time when security in the ports remains unacceptably lax, I wonder whether this is a wise move.

    DPW taking over management interest of the ports changes nothing w respect to security interests for the US.

    Staffing will remain the same, security, etc. etc.

    One has to posit a rather bizarre conspiracy (one which involves the Western management of DPW – typical of Emirates, there is lots of Anglo expat talent) destroying the firm in the process to get a security issue.

    (New York Post) “Dubai Ports, after all, is owned by the United Arab Emirates, whose banking system – considered the commercial center of the Arab world – provided most of the cash for the 9/11 hijackers. Indeed, much of the operational planning for the World Trade Center attacks took place inside the UAE.”
    Contemptible racist fear-mongering.

    The 11 Sep group used Dubai banks. As they used Hamburg banks, London Banks and wait for it… US banks. The assertion w respect to operational planning is a gross exageration. Much planning actually occured in Germany where Atta was, should Germany as a whole be suspect?

    Re banks. They had accounts. This hand waving guilt-by-association is hardly something that brings credit upon those repeating it.

    Comment by collounsbury — February 19, 2006 @ 6:20 am - February 19, 2006

  17. #16 True. If they insigated airport style security, it would take two days to board.

    Comment by hank — February 19, 2006 @ 10:04 am - February 19, 2006

  18. instigated ..sorry

    Comment by hank — February 19, 2006 @ 11:09 am - February 19, 2006

  19. #18 — Queef, we’re trying to have a serious debate about homeland security here. Nobody is interested in your whiny little hissy-fit about someone removing your stupid little comment. We grown-ups would rather talk about grown-up things. So, grow the Hell up!

    #17 — DPW taking over management interest of the ports changes nothing w respect to security interests for the US. Staffing will remain the same, security, etc. etc.

    Exactly my point. DHS is doing a horrible job at Port Security, which is ridiculous because the technology to better monitor container shipping already exists. If Wal-Mart can know the exact origin, contents, and destination of every container it unloads from China, why can’t the DHS?*

    * Well, I mean apart from the fact that DHS is brobdignagian government bureaucracy staffed with people who are more interested in moving paper and planning Diversity Awareness Seminars than defending Homeland Security. If a civilian bureaucracy like DHS had been in charge of the D-Day invasion, we would still have troops waiting in the English Channel while the EPA completed its report on the environmental impact to Normandy Beach sand and the Cultural Sensitivity Group worked out the best way of killing Nazis without offending their cultural sensitivities.

    Comment by V the K — February 19, 2006 @ 12:05 pm - February 19, 2006

  20. There seems to be so much mis-information on this sale. I see something different everyday.

    V, do you know what the takeover will involve, or change?? And how much internal port information will be in the hands of UAE? I don’t.

    Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, are backing this sale. But I want to know more.

    Comment by hank — February 19, 2006 @ 1:18 pm - February 19, 2006

  21. V, do you know what the takeover will involve, or change?? And how much internal port information will be in the hands of UAE? I don’t.

    And I see no reason to get hysterical until answers are forthcoming. As I said in my earlier post, I see this as a matter for concern, not for panic.

    Comment by V the K — February 19, 2006 @ 3:52 pm - February 19, 2006

  22. I agree. I don’t think a serious concern is “getting hysterical”.
    It was a question. Do you know? I can’t find the info anywhere, which says what it will really involve.

    Comment by hank — February 19, 2006 @ 4:22 pm - February 19, 2006

  23. Brit Hume on the “Ports”

    Comment by hank — February 20, 2006 @ 3:46 pm - February 20, 2006

  24. As much as was in the hands of the UK company that was doing it previously.

    These ports have been outsourced for years, and not one peep from Hillary or Schumer. Could you make it any more obvious that this is all about Democrats’ racism, not about any concern with security?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 20, 2006 @ 7:45 pm - February 20, 2006

  25. That is a ridiculous statement. Check the facts. It isn’t just Hillary and Chuck by a LONG shot.

    Comment by hank — February 21, 2006 @ 11:02 am - February 21, 2006

  26. It makes about as much sense as this.

    Comment by hank — February 21, 2006 @ 12:08 pm - February 21, 2006

  27. #24 North Dallas Thirty — February 20, 2006 @ 7:45 pm – February 20, 2006

    THis is a joke, right? Management of the ports was outsourced to a company in a country–the UK–with which the US has had a “special relationship” for at least upwards of a century. Now the outsourcing will be to a company controlled by the government of a country that is a known supporter of anti-western terrorism.

    Some of us can recognize a difference. It’s somewhat telling that some here are apparently unable to.

    Comment by raj — February 21, 2006 @ 1:10 pm - February 21, 2006

  28. Michelle got the best thing next to a fatwah: her blog has been banned in the UAE.

    Comment by rightwingprof — February 21, 2006 @ 4:26 pm - February 21, 2006

  29. She broke the story, and look what it gets her.
    Reason enough to stop the port sale NOW.

    Comment by hank — February 21, 2006 @ 8:41 pm - February 21, 2006

  30. Hello, I have to say that this really is a great blog. Found your blog while searching for more information at yahoo about ergonomic computer chair. I was reading your blog and I realized it had quite a lot of interesting thoughts, that’s why I stopped by and gave it a look. Keep up the good work.

    Comment by Ergonomic computer chair — February 23, 2006 @ 10:56 am - February 23, 2006

  31. whoa…

    Comment by themoldlawyer — March 31, 2006 @ 2:41 pm - March 31, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.