Malkin: Hate to Say I Told You So, Actually, I Like to Say I Told You So, So I Told You So. OK, Maybe It Wasn’t So, But Dammit, I Still Told You So.
Michelle Malkin unintentionally underscores why everything you read in the blogosphere, with the possibile exception of damnum absque injuria, should be taken with a large grain of salt. When composing the original version of this post, which was based on absolutely nothing except Mickey Kaus’s idle speculation, Malkin could barely contain her glee:
Well, I hate to say I told you so. But I told you so.
On Sept. 14, I wrote:
Yes, I know. The House voted to approve a 700-mile fence at the southern border…But forgive me if I don’t break out the pom-poms over this. There’s no funding for the fence, which will take years to build if it ever does get funded. There are so many other immediate reforms that could have been adopted this year that would have strengthened immigration enforcement, closed deportation loopholes immediately, and provided true relief at the border. (And don’t even get me started on this administration’s renewed laxity at the front door, which has been thrown open to tens of thousands of new Saudi student visa holders while enforcement against millions of current visa overstayers remain virtually non-existent.)
The 700-mile fence vote is an election season gesture, and grass-roots conservatives who have watched the GOP squander away this issue afor six years are not going to be appeased by mid-September 2006 gesture politics.
[Emphasis in original.]
Of course, on Sept. 14, Malkin didn’t write that Bush was going to veto the measure, nor even anything consistent with that theory; after all, if the bill were a ruse, why veto it? In that case the thing to do would be to sign it with as much fanfare as possible. Besides, it’s not as though President Bush is famous for vetoing all that many bills, nor any at all for being too right-wing. No matter – Malkin told you something bad that had something to do with a 700-mile fence, and now some guy with a laptop and a well-read blog is speculating that something else bad might happen that also has something to do with a 700-mile fence, and if that doesn’t vindicate Malkin’s position, then dammit I don’t know what will. Malkin also offers some horrendous voting advice, encouraging readers to sit the election out and allow the Democrats to take over both houses of Congress. Come December, Michelle, when President Bush can’t do a f’ing thing to Kim Jong-Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinnejad without getting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on board, we’ll be the ones who hate to say we told you so. The difference is, we really will hate having to say it.
Scroll further down on Malkin’s entry, through the updates. You won’t find an admission that Malkin was wrong, either by pooh-poohing the bill as inconsequentail on Sept. 12, or for parroting baseless predictions of a veto today. All you will find is the proof that she was wrong, namely an update linking to Patrick Ruffini’s email to K-Lo at N-Ro. That email states clearly what most blog readers and almost all non-blog readers have assumed all along: Bush will sign the bill, or so the Trilateral Commission would have you believe.
UPDATE: Malkin has revised her post to acknowledge her “I told you so” was premature. In the update, she writes in response to this entry:
And this one item won’t be a reason for sitting out the election. Xrlq lays into me. Point taken, though nothing he says rebuts my argument that many other more immediate immigration enforcement steps could and should have been taken ahead of this fence gesture.
True, but there’s a reason for that. The reason I didn’t rebut Malkin’s argument that many more immediate immigration enforcement steps could and should have been taken a long time ago is because I happen to agree with that argument. I do not agree, however, that the issue is nearly as cut and dried as Malkin suggests; if memory serves, the now-Republican House did favor a pretty strong border control bill that couldn’t make it through the RINO Senate. And I have yet to hear a single coherent, or even not-insane argument by conservatives in favor of willfully allowing the Democrats to take over either house, let alone both. Especially if border control is your number one issue. President Bush has been clamoring about the need for a non-amnesty amnesty bill for years, which has always been a non-starter in the Republican House. Put the Democrats in charge, and that just might change.
UPDATE x2: Heh.
October 10th, 2006 at 1:17 am
The fake fence fiasco UPDATED…
***scroll for updates…hasty declarations… Update: 10/1012:57am. Sigh. The perils of blogging while traveling. It looks like Mickey was wrong– and I was wrong to pull out a premature I-told-you-so on the pocket veto claim. And this one item won’t …
October 10th, 2006 at 8:42 am
“Fence schmence”…do you think a fence is really going to stop a Noko or Iranian suitcae nuke????? I am voting and I am voting Republican…I will not feel any the guilt the day after voting when it is Speaker Pelosi gearing up to impeach President Bush. At this point I am not even sure Malkin would try to defend the President. Linda S.
October 10th, 2006 at 9:47 am
The Border Fence Bill Will Be Signed…
I never wrote about the speculation by Mickey Kaus on a pocket veto of the Border Fence Bill because I really didn’t understand it and I didn’t want to jump the gun. Well, according to Captain Ed, the Presiden’t support for this is …
October 10th, 2006 at 9:51 am
I am disappointed that Michelle blames all Republicans for the Foley mess. As “bad” as one may think things are with the Republican majorities, they will be SO much worse under Democratic leadership — more illegal aliens, higher taxes (and, I believe, a much worse economy as taxpayers lose disposable income), more “rights” for terrorists, and no doubt millions of our dollars spent trying to impeach the President. On a Foley situation note, I heard that the outed page is going to sue ABC (which I can see as justifiable) AND the bloggers who posted the info. Does that mean the government can sue the NY Times for publishing the info on the secret programs that were helping us find terrorists?
October 10th, 2006 at 10:26 am
I can’t see any justification for Jordan Edmunds suing anybody. I suspect his hack of an attorney, Stephen Jones, knows that and is simply acting like a bully. There is no law against “outing” people. If there were, Foley could sue under it, too. There is, however, a law against publishing classified information, so yes, the federal government can take action against the New York Times and the individuals involved. Unfortunately, it lacks the political will to do so.
October 10th, 2006 at 11:03 am
My disappointment with Michelle is deep on this. I hope she reconsiders. The alternatives for this nation are real.A democrat win, especially in the light of their dirty tricks, their obvious coordination with the MSM, and the fact that their speach is identical with that of Al Qaeda, is something none of us should simply allow to happen in a pique of anger.
The fact is things are going pretty well.
We are winning the war. We have NK acting like the losers they are. We have Japan finally waking up to its own defense obligations. The borders could be more secure, but I would point out that we have full employment, a booming economy, and no domestic terror. And for this I will toss out the party that defends us and has let us build prosperity and actually keep more of our money?
No Michelle, I will be very happy to vote Republican this year.
October 10th, 2006 at 11:39 am
I have voted republican since 1984, except for the two Clinton wins, which i sat it out because I felt I couldnt vote for either candidate…boy was I wrong and didnt punish anyone but myself. never again. I am not registered as a republican but I will vote republican this year, which I explain more fuly below.
I have also emailed a few conservative bloggers that are making alot more out of this page scandal than it needs to, and playing into the hands of the left wing radical agenda to divide and conquer.
I further couldnt believe what I read that because of the border fence signing delay, people have voiced their decision about sitting this election out. And this decision was being voiced over a delay that wasnt even fully confirmed.
Although republicans have disappointed me on a variety of issues in the last 6 yrs, and being from a far left state in the northeast, my vote wont count for much, I am still voting for republican candidates, or pro-life candidates, where the republican is pro-abortion.
do I feel the republican congress didnt do enough about the border and a host of other issues? yes, they are close to being incompetent & inept, but they are listening to the conservative base more than any lib dem will ever do. Thats what a base does: keeps its candidates honest even when they dont wont to be, or asks them to resign. If better repub candidates come up, then we should promote them, but unfortunately all we have are extreme left wing dems as the alternative, which is no alternative in my opinion.
I also think that although Bush made many mistakes over the border and his first supreme court justice choice(among other mistakes), in the end he listened to the base on both issues, and has been fighting the intern’l war on terror better than anyone else, and gave us two excellent supreme court justices. could he have done better? absolutely and he only gets a 45% in my book, but I would vote for him again if the election were held tomorrow.
And as far as Hastert is concerned, compare his voting record to Pelosi and its no brainer. Is he infallible? No he isnt. But lets face, in making political choices, as well as having opinions about politicians and political issues, are any of us infallible? I can learn to forgive but never forget.
to sit this election out over any one issue doesnt make any sense. So you end up getting more dems in office, who have an extremely more liberal approach to the border and a wide host of other important issues, then any repubs I know. The lib dems may even prevent a fence from being built and make the whole (illegal) immigration process too easy to manipulate and abuse if they had their way. Remember, one reason for all the immigration mess is Ted Kennedy, and he is only one lib senator. Just image an entire congressional majority with his political thinking. Thats scares me and I hope it scares other people too.
a little common sense needs to be used here.
October 10th, 2006 at 11:54 am
Amen Xrlq,
Thank you for being a proxy vent for me and countless others regarding MM’s political “contributions”. Because she spends more time emotionalizing her reports vice using logistics she fails to see the forest for the trees.
I continue to hit myself over the head wondering why I keep giving her chance after chance by visiting her blog everyday. This will surely stop; I can’t take her lack of humility, her passive Christianity (I mean is she one?) and her non-substantive posts aimed at staying home every election because she doesn’t always get what she wants.
She keeps blogging about BDS but I think the issue becomes; is she really projecting?
October 10th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Looks like I’m getting a secondhand Michelle-a-lanche from her link to this post. People are seeing my “Others Say…” line up there on the right and looking in.
Not bad for a day when I haven’t posted a bloody thing yet.
October 10th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Thanks for the warning McGehee. I’m taking out the link to my site for this comment. I’m voting Republican (except maybe for state Secretary of State) for one very good reason: I have a four and half year old daughter. I do not trust the Democrats, as they have degenerated, to preserve the America I want her to grow up in. This piddly immigration nitpicking is a primary issue, not a general election issue.
October 10th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
Well, now I have posted.
As for any question of sitting out the election, I’ve seen people say they might do it, or even vote Democrat, because of Frist’s comments allegedly about the Taliban, about the Foley mess, and God knows what-all else.
I don’t understand them and I vehemently disagree with them. I suspect many of them were already looking for an excuse long before whatever they’re pointing to as their “reason.”