I was very surprised to discover that although Dan Riehl is obviously the type of person who enjoys spending his weekends on his knees sucking cock in disreputabe bath houses, there is no actual evidence that he has ever engaged in any homosexual activity. As a responsible “citizen journalist”, I can only ask: how long before said evidence inevitably surfaces?

She’s a classic sociopath. Everything about her is artificial, including her outrage.

The best set up would be to have a debate situation: two people on opposing sides with a moderator who enforces rules of behaviour. That way she couldn’t yap out of turn and she’d be accountable for her answers.

I wouldn’t mind seeing a little more mirroring. For example… she circumvents a question and the moderator could respond with “You didn’t answer the question. You’ve been asked five times, you haven’t answered…moving on” ”

Something like that to reinforce for the dumbasses watching what’s transpired.

Good point. I have cross-examined her type, and you are right. The best thing you can do is let them rant and rave for a while, looking amused, and then arch your eyebrows with a smile at the jury, i.e., “see, folks, what’d I tell you? She really is that bad. And by the way, you can’t believe a single word she said.”

OTOH, in my first post, I wasn’t really thinking about cross. I’ve been interviewed a time or two, and there is a big difference between TV and courtroom cross-examination. The subtle approach you suggest, which can work very well in the courtroom if done right, does not work at all on television. With someone like Malkin, you really have to Cliff Schecter her, just jump right in her face from the get go and pummel her severely, not letting her get a word in edgewise if you can help it. Point out all of her insanity and hypocrisy, then tell her what a horrible jerk she is and how representative she is of the right-wing nutjobs, and only then let her respond. She’ll spend the whole time on the defensive — all you have to do after the first whack with the 2×4 is keep repeating the desired conclusion. “See? There she goes again. What a nut.” The raised eyebrow, needless to say, doesn’t work on TV — you have to say it and say it and say it again.

Evidently you’ve never cross-examined a psychopath. When they cry they fake it, batting wet eyelashes at the jury. You come off looking like a meanie.

The best strategy is to bring out the intense inappropriate rage that lies just below the surface. That way you look good and they look batshit crazy evil (which is what you want the jury to see).

It’s good, but it’s still not as good as Simple Kid’s new album “2″. Stream it here.

And I think most of those are bloggers from both sides monitoring the networks for bias.

Dan quotes Ezra;
I will debate Michelle Malkin anytime, anywhere, in any forum (save HotAir TV, which she controls), on the particulars of S-CHIP.

and one of his minions responds;

That really lowers the chances of a useful outcome.

Can we just give these guys their own state or island or something?

Thanks joannegm for that dissonant counterpoint to the Wurlitzer. I was reading the 44% BS on malkin’s site, and how it came from the House energy and commerce committee republicans, so you know it’s got to be true, and was wishing I had the drive to respond intelligently, and through carefully applied procrastination and sloth, you did it first and better. Goodonya.

Feh! I hope the real Tor comes down from heaven or wherever and body slams Riel into a thin paste for besmirching his reputation, and just on general principal. I think he may outperform Steyn in the “asshole pundit” department.

I’m a lawyer. You give me five minutes with Michelle Malkin on camera, no moderator, and I will have her in tears. No violence, just me tearing her a new one, metaphorically speaking. In the real world, we call this cross-examination. I generally try to stop before they cry, but sometimes I make an exception. This would be one of those times.

Malkin’s pathetic, and I’m pissed off. Bad combination.

There is irony there that I can’t begin to describe.

I couldn’t debate these assclowns for two minutes.

They don’t seem to be FOR anything. Just against any spending that actually helps people.

Oh. They do seem to be FOR spending that results in the violent death of muslims many thousands of miles away from them.

They cause me to feel that violence just might be a solution…

How about seeing if he’ll agree that the more seriously damaged daughter should have been broken up and sold for parts (she probably had at least one undamaged kidney, a young healthy heart & lungs, many square inches of undamaged skin) to cover her brother’s repair bills?

Hey, if Riehl believes in precognitive preventative abortion, I’m sure he’d agree that the Frosts should have cut their losses and been satisfied that they still had two other undamaged back-up kids. Because he’s already stated that wanting to keep all four of their offspring brands the Frosts as greedy.

phleabo said,

Do you know that 44% of all SCHIP money is spent on adults?

Did you know that 78% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

Sadly, no. 83.694% of all statistics are made up on the spot. You see? It’s far more convincing if you use decimal points. :-)

You can google it up (schip, 44%, adults), but I won’t link to a press release put out by the odious Joe Barton with the same lying points.

Our Fearless Leader raised this complaint in his Saturday address and the NYT properly jumped his ass this morning…..since it was HIS administration that ENCOURAGED states to spend any excess money not used on kids on eligible adults in the state. Now he is slamming them for the very practice his own HHS people urged on them:

From their editorial 10/10:

“In his radio address on Saturday, Mr. Bush complained that six states — Minnesota, Illinois, New Jersey, Michigan, Rhode Island and New Mexico — “will spend more S-chip money on adults than they do on children” in this fiscal year. That might sound outrageous at first hearing, but there are often good child-centered reasons for covering certain categories of adults.

Surely it is sensible to enroll pregnant women, to make sure the prospective mother and her fetus get good prenatal care even before the child is born and becomes eligible. And in some cases it may even be reasonable to offer coverage to low-income parents, if only as bait to get their children enrolled.

New Jersey hardly deserves presidential criticism for what look like enlightened policies.

The state currently enrolls some 83,000 adults and 124,000 children in its S-chip program. The adults account for more than 60 percent of the program’s costs because it is a lot more expensive to cover adults than children. A small number of the adults are pregnant women. A small number are childless adults supported solely by state funds, under a program that is being phased out. The overwhelming majority are poor parents, with family incomes no higher than 133 percent of poverty — or $27,500 for a family of four.

To imply that this is an abuse of the S-chip program reflects an ideological determination to disparage public insurance no matter how much it helps poor families and their children.

Mr. Bush failed to acknowledge that all of the states that extended coverage to adults did so under waivers granted by the federal government, mostly by his own administration. In its first term, his administration actively encouraged states to use any unspent S-chip funds to cover adults.

That was back when Mr. Bush was espousing “compassionate conservatism” and the administration was looking for efficient ways to reduce the number of uninsured Americans. Now Mr. Bush calls any expansion of S-chip a step toward “government-run health care for every American.”

The president claims he wants to “put poor children first,” but so do all members of Congress who voted for the bill that he vetoed. Bizarrely, Mr. Bush also urges both parties in Congress to support a new bill that “moves adults off this children’s program.”

“…This story is about the parents, Bonnie and F. Halsey Frost who grew up with all the advantages and, despite what I might assume is a liberal view on abortion, not only most likely support that free choice; if someone wants to have kids, they apparently believe it’s cool to play with wood, or hold low-paying, fun, or perhaps lower stress jobs without having to worry about providing for whatever number of moppets one might feel like dropping into the world…”

In other words, liberals are bad people for supporting abortion rights but they are also bad people for having children and not having had abortions when it turns out that their children happen to need medical care? Yeeesh!