Nationally syndicated "center right" conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt
has confirmed today that
Michelle Malkin
will be a guest on the "Hugh Hewitt" radio program:
MONDAY (11/25/02)
5:20 pm (California time)
8:20 pm (East coast time)
Posted on 11/22/2002 4:38:16 PM PST by RonDog
Nationally syndicated "center right" conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt
has confirmed today that
Michelle Malkin
will be a guest on the "Hugh Hewitt" radio program:
MONDAY (11/25/02)
5:20 pm (California time)
8:20 pm (East coast time)
Michelle's interview on the Hugh Hewitt show is timed to co-ordinate with her personal appearances in southern California to promote her new book, Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores:You can LISTEN LIVE to Hugh's show over the Internet (or find a local station that carries his show) from his website, at:Like FR founder Jim Robinson, Hugh is apprehensive about the damage that the "immigration reform" movement can do to the "mainstream" image of the national Republican party, and has concerns that the leftist media can distort the actions of some of the more extreme elements in the movement to make the party appear to be racist, and anti-Latino.Tuesday (11//26) - 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm - Book Signing
Borders Books - 1830 Westwood Blvd, Westwood, CA
Wednesday (11/27) - 6:30 pm - Book Signing/Speech
Garden Grove Women's Club - 9501 Chapman Ave., Garden Grove, CASuch a charge could effectively crush the Bush administration's outreach program to the huge (and growing) numbers of Hispanic voters who are in this country LEGALLY, but many my most passionate conservative FRiends have chosen to force this extremely important issue into the forefront of our political discussions.
Fortunately, Michelle Malkin may be the IDEAL person to lead this charge. Like Ann Coulter, she is a young attractive woman - which should not matter in the ideal world of well-reasoned political discourse, but really DOES matter in the superficial world of "television journalism." Good looks get her in the door, and then good THINKING delivers her powerful conservative message.
As I understand it, Michelle's brief appearance on Hugh's show this Monday is a "trail balloon" of sorts, to determine if she should be on his show again in the future - perhaps even as a regular weekly guest! - so please be on your best behavior. :o)Let us show Hugh, and Jim Robinson - and President Bush! - that there **is** room in the GOP's "big tent" for BOTH serious proponents of immigration reform AND for advocates for an expanded Hispanic outreach...
www.HughHewitt.com
It's a small start, but I give Hugh total credit for being willing to give the "other side" a hearing.
Still, I too hope for the best out of the discussion.
(I think President Bush wants Mexican oil deals and/or Iraqi OK's in exchange for concessions on 'migration.')
We're allowing the rabid, racist, pro-illegal immigration, open borders advocates to dictate who can speak out against open borders and illegal immigration, now?
This is another job for which a blonde haired, blue eyed, white male need not apply, because we've all bought into minister Farrakhan's propaganda?
I'm very active with the Community Outreach Task Force in the Tucson area Republican Party. We have opened up a second headquarters in a heavy Hispanic area, and have been attending local telemundo events. Our party bought 3 tables at the last Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Dinner, and the local Republican Party was acknowledged in their program.
We ARE making strides. My main concern with attracting these voters to our side is that we do NOT give up OUR principles in the process; that we effectively communicate that OUR principles are THEIR principles and will work for them as good American citizens.
One of our principles is adherence to the rule of law, and this becomes a mockery if we allow contined lawlessnes of illegal immigration.
Furthermore, if Homeland Securtiy is so important to the President, he MUST realize that our borders pose the greatest risk.
I hope Hugh keeps an open mind on this issue, and realizes the great damage that is being done to our country by this contined lawlessness. Perhaps he should interview the parents of the young forest ranger who was murdered by an illegal crosser.
Thanka for this thread, Ron.
Donna
"IMHO - not-white, not-male, not-raving lunatic. :o)"Yes, the hard cold reality of political warfare is somewhat disapppointing, but not quite for the reason that you cite.We're allowing the rabid, racist, pro-illegal immigration, open borders advocates to dictate who can speak out against open borders and illegal immigration, now?
This is another job for which a blonde haired, blue eyed, white male need not apply, because we've all bought into minister Farrakhan's propaganda?
Like it or not, image is important in effective communication.
We had this debate at the Leadership Institute conference at FRiva, and in the LONG thread that followed the event, MANY of the folks involved agreed with you - that the messenger should NOT matter.The Leadership Institute speaker told us, however, of an abortion debate in which the pro-life side had a sharp, well-spoken, well-prepared GUY, and the pro-choice side had a not-so-bright, inarticulate, unprepared WOMAN.
After he spoke - eloquently, SHE started by saying that there was no way for him to appreciate the pro-abortion side of the issue - since HE had never been eighteen years old, pregnant, jobless, abandoned by the father, under pressure from her family, emotionally devastated, etc. - as SHE had been - in in that moment, she captured the hearts of many of those present - who may have otherwise been open to OUR side...Here are a few comments from that thread:
To: Auntie Mame
"If you're that man and you're asked to debate a woman about abortion, politely decline, and suggest a woman in your organization would probably be happy to debate. "
I'm not comfortable with that at all. Did he also advise that white folk not debate black folk on race issues?
84 posted on 08/19/2002 7:05 AM PDT by Harrison Bergeron
-- snip --
To: Harrison Bergeron
I'm not comfortable with that at all. Did he also advise that white folk not debate black folk on race issues?
No, he was talking about the tactics of perception -- a black conservative might well be more effective in such a debate because of the "I've been there" factor.
Now of course the leftists have slathered this stuff with hypocritical pseudomorality to the point that they probably believe whites have no right to talk race issues with blacks. Matt's coming from a different perspective: understand your opponents and be willing to use their best tactics when it doesn't conflict with your core principles.
I ambled up between sessions and asked Matt if he'd read Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals -- Alinsky advised, among other things, staying within the experience of your group and working to maneuver your opponents outside their own areas of experience. He had, of course.
87 posted on 08/19/2002 7:31 AM PDT by Interesting Times
-- snip --
To: Interesting Times
Thanks for the reasoned response. I understand the tactic of knocking the racism or sexism slats out from under left-wing opponents by enlisting female or black conservatives for the debate - there's nothing innovative about this. But I'm skeptical of any insinuation that men have nothing to say about sexism or abortion, or that whites have nothing to say about racism. A good argument stands on its own without having to use appearances as a prop.
92 posted on 08/19/2002 7:57 AM PDT by Harrison Bergeron
more
Hi, Ron.Hi, DLfromthedesert - EXCELLENT!I'm very active with the Community Outreach Task Force in the Tucson area Republican Party. We have opened up a second headquarters in a heavy Hispanic area, and have been attending local telemundo events. Our party bought 3 tables at the last Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Dinner, and the local Republican Party was acknowledged in their program.
We ARE making strides. My main concern with attracting these voters to our side is that we do NOT give up OUR principles in the process; that we effectively communicate that OUR principles are THEIR principles and will work for them as good American citizens.
One of our principles is adherence to the rule of law, and this becomes a mockery if we allow contined lawlessness of illegal immigration...
You should CALL IN to Hugh's show on Monday, at:I think that we should START calling his show on Monday in the SECOND hour - from 4 pm to 5 pm (California time) - to THANK HIM for having Michelle on, and to start talking about her ideas IN ADVANCE...1-800-520-1234
My understanding is that she is only scheduled to be on BRIEFLY - from 5:20 pm to 5:30 pm (California time) - so we need to MAXIMIZE that impact.The word for the day, of course, is PROFESSIONALISM - as you know, since Hugh often bills himself as the "Voice of Reason."
...MICHELLE MALKIN is also guesting today on the Weekend Edition of...Thanks for that WONDERFUL news, ALOHA RONNIE!
..The JUDICIAL WATCH Report.. Talk Radio Show...
...airing LIVE online on...
.. http://www.JudicialWatch.org .. -&- ..
...airing LIVE in Southern California on...
...on KPLS 830 ..'Radio on the Right'.. at...
9-11AM Pacific Time - 12-2PM Eastern Time.
What about George Putman?
Do you have any connections with the folks on HIS show?He would LOVE to talk with Michelle!
We're all capable of discerning right from wrong regardless of our color, race, gender or religion.
The man in your example should have been prepared for that specious argument, as well.
Comparing a debate on abortion rights to one over illegal immigration is apples to oranges, anyway.
I'm very active with the Community Outreach Task Force in the Tucson area Republican Party. We have opened up a second headquarters in a heavy Hispanic area, and have been attending local telemundo events. Our party bought 3 tables at the last Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Dinner, and the local Republican Party was acknowledged in their program...There SHOULD be more Hispanic Republicans, since our CORE VALUES are so similar!
Check out THIS picture, from:
[pre-VIDEO] FREEP REPORT: Gray Davis Pasadena Freep 10/26/2002 a ROARING success!-- snip --
amazing.com (my web site) ^ | 10/27/2002 | David H Dennis
Posted on 10/27/2002 1:35 PM PST by daviddennis
The Democrats were lucky we were at this event, because otherwise the poor Firefighters would have fallen asleep from boredom.
Picture it: An evening of impossibly dull speeches, all alike. The speaker thanks the firefighters for inviting him, thanks the firefighters for all the hard work they are doing, takes about a minute tooting his own horn, and tells them to be sure to walk precincts and talk to people and get out there to vote!
By the time this pattern is repeated five or six times, even the dumbest Firefighter is going to have gotten the idea.
Well, we made their evening a whole lot less dull.
It started, though, with a mistake and a SWAT team...
more
Comparing a debate on abortion rights to one over illegal immigration is apples to oranges, anyway...Perhaps.
But do you not see the POWER in having AnnaZ represent our side in the Second Amendment debate, or Larry Elder talk about race relations......or Michelle Malkin talk about immigration reform?
I say, let us be EFFECTIVE in communicating our ideas, and if that appears to be superficial, so be it.In this extremely VISUAL world of television advocacy, we must deal with the REALITY of first impressions, IMHO.
It doesn't just appear to be superficial, it is superficial.
You're playing right into the hands of the pro-affirmative action, pro-hiring quotas, pro-illegal immigration, open borders advocating opposition.
Michelle Malkin is qualified to speak on the subject of illegal immigration, because she's studied the issue, she's intelligent, articulate, can think on her feet and can keep her head under pressure.
Yes and no.
Let's keep in mind: much of politics is very superficial. Many voters slect candidats or ballot propositions for superficial reasons.
In such a climate demagoguery is commonplace, as shameless political hacks are able to demonize their opponents (often us conservatives) based on media myths and stereotypes held by superficial voters. This is not going to change appreciably in the near future.
So, when confronted with a deck of superficial cards stacked against us, isn't it prudent to play our hand in a fashion that doesn't leave us vulnerable to superficial cheap shots?
The same people out there that would dismiss a blond-haired, blue-eyed male as a racist for saying these same things will dismiss Michelle as a traitor to her race, culture, gender, etc., etc..
All our preoccupation with Michelle's race, gender, culture, etc. does is send the opposition a message that they're winning.
We're starting to think like they do.
We're starting to think like they do.
No, we're starting to anticipate how they'll think, and plannning accordingly.
If they want to underestimate us and think they're winning when we put up a qualified spokesman that they can't demographically demagogue, I'll happily ride their "victories" all the way past the checkered flag.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
