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.
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): GayPatriotWest@aol.com