The Dumbest Thing I Heard This Week — Michelle Malkin on “Julia”

How can we have gone this long without Michelle Malkin appearing in this feature? Her inability to string together a coherent thought routinely succeeds in making Ann Coulter sound thoughtful and reasoned. This week she takes on the “Life of Julia,” the Obama campaign’s slick interactive ad demonstrating the divergent lives of a woman living under the policies of a second Obama administration vs. a Mitt Romney administration.

Malkin sets the tone in the first paragraph:

But as is increasingly common with Obama’s social-media propaganda initiatives, “The Life of Julia” immediately flopped.

This is an effective framing device employed by Fox News and columnists like Michelle Malkin too. By telling the audience right off the bat that the campaign flopped, it shapes how the rest of the argument is received.

The campaign premiered yesterday. There are no public “Nielsen overnights” to review. How can an online campaign be termed a “flop” at this point? The answer is that it can’t and Malkin doesn’t even attempt to back up this claim with numbers. Good ole Michelle Malkin argues that the “Life of Julia” campaign flopped mostly because she believes it should fail, which is not really a warrant for her claim as much as a veiled excuse for a general rant.

Why? Because 1) self-sufficient women voters aren’t as sheeple-ish as Democratic strategists make them out to be

While the GOP proclaims the Obama administration all about the “Divider-in-Chief” and decries “Class Warfare,” Malkin actually gears her rhetoric toward, for lack of a better term, a “War Among Women.” Divide and conquer — embolden female supporters to envision Democratic women as lacking the self-sufficient instinct to take care of yourself. Or successfully marry well and stay at home (and I believe stay-at-home mother is work, but it is definitely not “self-sufficient” since it requires a partner to provide outside income). And if you buy this ad campaign you aren’t “self-sufficient” and “sheeple.” Malkin resorts to this ad hominem because saying “women don’t support these policies as much as Democrats believe” is a statement belied by any public polling.

That's a whole lot of Sheeple (via the People's View)

2) conservative activists are overtaking Obama’s zombie army online

Wow. This is going to be fascinating when she compares the numbers of twitter mentions and Facebook likes that prove the growing influence of conservatives over the historically powerful social media machine of the Obama campaign (or Obama administration depending on the day). Spoiler alert: she will not back this up.

3) non-delusional Americans don’t want cradle-to-grave utopians turning their country into the next Greece or Spain

Spain had a budget surplus and low debt before they collapsed. A cradle-to-grave utopia had nothing to do with the crisis. A poorly regulated banking industry did.

4) responsible grownups are getting sick and tired of radical Saul Alinsky–style tall tales from the progressive Pied Piper.

This isn’t even an independent argument, but it does earn her SEO points in conservative circles by mentioning Saul Alinsky for absolutely no reason.

But “Julia” is a pathetic figment of the progressive imagination. She simply cannot function without the lifelong intervention of federal patriarchs.

OK, let’s see how many of the situations in this ad involve a federal takeover of Julia’s life.

Instead of two parents preparing her for school, Obama credits Head Start bureaucrats with ensuring that Julia is “ready to learn and succeed” in kindergarten

Catch the fun coded messaging against single moms in the first clause? Amazing. Why is funding a school program mutually exclusive with having parents? Is Malkin mad that we have public schools too, because taken to its logical conclusion, “Instead of two parents, the Obama administration credits schools.” Well, she does tackle the subject next:

Instead of individual teachers, private mentors, home-school organizers, or charter-school leaders, Obama extols his federal Race to the Top program for implementing the high-school “classes she needs to do well” in college.

The whole point of Race to the Top is to introduce a competitive market for federal funds that incentivize states and individual teachers to innovate. Sounds pretty conservative to me. But consistency is not a Michelle Malkin strong suit

Instead of thrift-minded families who save for their own kids’ higher educations (or who opt for non-college alternatives) and who encourage those kids to work in private-sector summer jobs, Obama praises his “opportunity tax credit” and Pell Grants for putting Julia through college.

Maybe she doesn’t get this because she’s comparatively old. I’ll put it in terms she can understand. When Michelle Malkin graduated from Oberlin College, tuition was $24,000/year. In 2012-13, it is $44,512/year. That’s almost double (85% increase to be precise). With no increases over the next four years, that’s $178,000 to go to school. That’s a lot of “thrift” and private-sector summer jobs. Indeed in Malkin’s native Pennsylvania it would require, assuming zero taxes, 11.8 years of 40/hour weeks for a student to save that up while working at McDonalds. Without students able to afford college, America’s economy flounders in the next decade and beyond.

Tip: Buy in bulk and you can save enough for tuition in roughly 27 years (via Businessweek)

I’m not even going to detail all of the misstatements Malkin makes about that persistent punching bag for those attacking the Obama administration, the Affordable Care Act. It’s actually just insulting, more or less boiling down to “my plan would cover this stuff, so presumably all your plans would have too.”

Like most TDTIHTW features, the article ends with a statement of ultimate hypocrisy.

My story? I’ve founded three web ventures over the past eight years without a penny of taxpayer money or government venture socialism

Really? It’s great that she never took a small business loan from the SBA, but did she claim deductions and exemptions that functionally gave her a discount on purchasing supplies and services to help her business succeed? She received a massive break paid for at the expense of any taxpayer that did not own a small business. And that’s fine, but don’t get on a high horse and act like the government didn’t bend over backward to give you preferential handouts through the tax code.

Leave a Reply