Melanie Morgan might not have a profile as high as some other pundits on the right, but she is emerging, in my book, as one of conservatism's most fearless and articulate advocates.
Last month, I noted an epic dust-up on "Hardball" between talk radio host Morgan and feminist Naomi Wolf. On today's show, the two again clashed. Last time around, I suggested that Wolf might be America's most passive-aggressive woman. Today, she showed herself to be one of its most alarmist. The topic was the controversy over the extent to which Alberto Gonzales [at the time Pres. Bush's White House counsel] pressured a then-hospitalized Attorney General John Ashcroft into approving the extension of the anti-terror wiretap program.
View video here.
Morgan was unapologetic.
MELANIE MORGAN: Anbody that doesn't get what a truly dangerous world we live in should just take a look at this wireless wiretapping program. It was a valuable program and it still is. And if there was pressure applied by Gonzales, then good! . . . We needed that program and I'm really glad that if there was pressure applied, it kept it in place, because otherwise, Americans could die.
Wolf's response was a case study in breathless, alarmist, deconstruction-speak.
NAOMI WOLF: What's scary to me about listening to Melanie and various people at the White House is how Orwell [bonus points for Orwellian allusion] describes people who want to close down an open society don't just lie, they make lies the ground of the discourse. There's this extraordinary fudging [demerit for use of everyday word; consider "circumvention" next time] of reality, not just to change the record, but to disorient us [seems to have worked on Naomi].
Story Continues Below Ad ↓WOLF: I think that we have to get it [and as we all know, Republicans just don't] that what they're up to isn't just abuses of democratic process, it's about an end-run around democratic process. Why is it so scary what they're going to get away with? Gonzales isn't going anywhere. And we keep saying, "oh my goodness! How can this be? How can this be? How can he still be there? It's an outrage." Because we still think they're playing democracy's game, by democracy's game rules.
Melanie called Wolf on what might be considered her paranoia.
MORGAN: What kind of Orwellian discussion are you having? What is it you're referring to, Naomi? What is it exactly that happened that all these big, bad people at the Bush White House did that was wrong about the wireless wiretapping program?
WOLF: I think that what is really scary is that if you go back and look at what was suggested in those emails that they're [the White House] not producing, one of the things possibly suggested is that there would be a mass purge of the attorneys, the U.S. attorneys, and we really need to think forward, what kind of scandal, what kind of terror, that would be for the United States, in the event of a close election, if there had indeed been a general purge of the attorneys. And so I think we need to get it [that favorite lefty phrase, again] that they're not playing by the rules that we've come to believe for over 200 years that you have to play by in the United States. We have to get it [enough already!] that it's a different ballgame [come on, use "paradigm" next time], and act accordingly. It's a crisis.
MORGAN: The people who were fired were political appointees. There was no law broken, so all of this is a stupid little "gotcha" game that you Democrats are playing in order to keep Washington tied up in little knots. Well congratulations: you've been very successful at that. But you know what? We are in the middle of a war in which we are facing very serious consequences, long-term consequences, if we don't win it. So I suggest you get your mind focused around something important for a change.
Bravo, Melanie. Too many conservatives are intimidated by people like Wolf and their high-flown rhetoric. Wolf looks at the world and is scared by "crisis," "outrage," "purges" and "terror." The irony is that she sees them all as the work of our own government. Morgan tells it like it is: the terror emanates, very simply, from terrorists who seek to kill as many of us as possible and destroy our civilization.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.





















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Bravo indeed
August 17, 2007 - 19:45 ET by general companyWhere do I go to kiss this woman, witch one is Morgan?
The blonde. Check her out
August 17, 2007 - 19:52 ET by Jack BauerThe blonde. Check her out at www.melaniemorgan.com
Wolf is the witch, by the way.
Naomi
August 17, 2007 - 19:47 ET by allanfI hope Naomi is scared -- very scared. That means that the goverment is doing its job. It is when she thinks we are doing well that we have problems.
As for democratic process -- I don't think Naomi would do very well Islamic Republic where she had to don her burka and "shut up".
"We are in the middle of a
August 17, 2007 - 19:59 ET by balboa"We are in the middle of a war in which we are facing very serious consequences, long-term consequences, if we don't win it."
Like we're in danger of losing? Now who's getting carried away?
According to Harriet Reid
August 17, 2007 - 20:04 ET by Jack BauerAccording to Harriet Reid (D-Feat, Nevada) the US has already lost. He has said it more than once, including on the steps of Congress so I'm a tad surprised that passed you by!
And I believe it's offical Democrat policy not to or can't win isn't it? Maybe you know something the rest of us don't?
Let's be honest: we're
August 17, 2007 - 20:07 ET by balboaLet's be honest: we're never going to lose this war. It's just not possible.
Well, you're not running
August 17, 2007 - 20:13 ET by Jack BauerWell, you're not running the Democrat party bal.
And Mel was addressing those in the leadership of the party who are doing all they can to make sure it looks like the US didn't win.
I don't think that's true.
August 17, 2007 - 20:26 ET by balboaI don't think that's true. Concerned dem politicians are trying to make sure that our information gathering capabilities aren't used for the wrong reasons. It's easy to say "You're not taking the war seriously" and "There are serious consequences here" to make it look like dem politicians don't understand what's at stake, but that's a pretty broad brush to use, and an inaccurate one (can brushes be inaccurate?).
(can brushes be inaccurate?)
August 17, 2007 - 20:32 ET by drillanwrOnly if Britney Spears is painting with it after one of her "nights out".
boa....Concerned dems
August 17, 2007 - 20:34 ET by bigtimerboa....
Concerned dems are concerned via Frank Church style.
Dismantle dismantle dismantle.
Non-protection here...none...zilch.
Jamie Gorelick (sp) and her wall via Hillary's directions...Torrecilli and his B.S.....on and on it goes.....
But without appropriate
August 17, 2007 - 20:44 ET by balboaBut without appropriate oversight, discussion, etc., what guarantee do we have that these things won't be abused?
what guarantee do we have
August 17, 2007 - 20:57 ET bywhat guarantee do we have that investigations aren't being misused? especially when the investigation is into something that is known ahead of time is legal (attorney firings) or the answer is known beforehand (Dick Armitage DID it)
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
See? You guys want the same
August 17, 2007 - 21:01 ET by balboaSee? You guys want the same things.
same things?
August 17, 2007 - 21:09 ET bymaybe but one is for what's best for the country and the other is for personal political gain.
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
Right, because there aren't
August 17, 2007 - 22:04 ET by balboaRight, because there aren't any Republicans politicians just out for personal political gain...
of course there are Bal,
August 17, 2007 - 22:26 ET byof course there are Bal, people are people, there just isn't a game-plan in the RNC to undermine national security to do it. Cunningham should be in jail, Jefferson earned an adjoining cell.
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
Well I'll leave balboa alone
August 18, 2007 - 00:13 ET by SportPoliticsWell I'll leave balboa alone, but it is clear to me that the dems want to surrender, and send her (Pelosi - like her mission to Syria with her dhimmi scarf on her head and her mouth filled with not even her country's "foreign policy", nor anyone else's she claims to know, just pure LIES).
The dems whole idea is fleeing while "talking to the enemy", then they will do more Jimmy Carter malaise works, like shutting down drilling, forbidding nuclear plants, banning wind generators off Teddy's coastline view, stopping drilling for natural gas, government mandates for lower emissions, carbon credit forced purchases, whining about bridge collapses in their own run cities, blaming their totally corrupt for decades and hurricane ravaged places pathetic response on the other party when THEY own it, and on and on it goes.
I think with the democrats, someday they will be standing in the middle of a crater where an American city street used to be and they won't have a clue what happened, and like John Kerry on 911 they will walk around alone in a daze, and soon blame someone else, or blame the USA itself - again. If they do take any measures at all, shortly afterwards they will blame them on someone else and claim they were fooled, and they'ell vote against what they vote for, so vote for 'em. They won't change. Lying traitors and fools, morons and psychos, charlatans and miscreants, they don't even have a chance of changing.
Psycho lib traitors claim they've been silenced and intimidated again, for the ten millionth time as they shoot off their mouth on national TV all they want.
Sport... Could Not Agree
August 18, 2007 - 00:15 ET by bigtimerSport...
Could Not Agree More.
Great post from you for me to close on...
Have a good one.
Oversight is not antagonism
August 17, 2007 - 21:12 ET by KC MulvilleOversight is not antagonism. We have a dangerously self-reflexive argument, however, when we start discussing (openly) the rules of secrecy. When discussing a secret program that needs to remain secret in order to be effective, you can't just blather on about in public. It requires discrete and adult discussion.
The problem here is that the Democrats are trying to sell the danger of what might happen if the power is abused. They have no evidence of any abuse actually happening. The argument has some validity ... after all, by nature, we don't want to allow power unless we have to. But in this case, we have to. We need that secret evidence to fight an opponent who works in secret.
Do we have any guarantee? No. But sometimes you have to move forward even when you have no guarantee. That's what war is about. We can't promise to defeat the enemy without taking any risks.
bal -
August 17, 2007 - 20:14 ET by drillanwrRight. We can't lose it. But, once again (See: Vietnam), we can walk away and be perceived by an enemy (and the dems and MSM in this country) that only respects force and strength as handing them a victory.
Oh man now I am really
August 17, 2007 - 20:04 ET by bigtimerOh man now I am really laughing....
I just posted about this awhile back here on the Matthews blog/post and found drill the link...just got finished doing it.
She also told Wolf she would end up wearing a burka if we did things her way....(I am paraphrasing but it was that simple)
I still loved the best with Morgan and Matthews about Cheney...he was furious.
Morgan is the best....
....another heroine of mine...pretty too with tons of great brains and a quick wit who lets nothing get past her if she gets the chance without being cut-off, interrupted or kicked off.
Yeah I just watched it. The
August 17, 2007 - 23:18 ET by balboaYeah I just watched it. The burka comment is kookie talk. Sure ain't helping her make her point.
She made her point
August 17, 2007 - 23:26 ET by bigtimerShe made her point boa...
She sure as hell didn't need any help whatsoever.
True, but Mark might want
August 17, 2007 - 23:40 ET by balboaTrue, but Mark might want to add "nutty" next to "articulate" and "fearless".
Cute boa. Real cute...as
August 17, 2007 - 23:44 ET by bigtimerCute boa.
Real cute...as always.
bably your idiot leaderess
August 18, 2007 - 00:27 ET by SportPoliticsbably your idiot leaderess Pelosiloon already donned her leafed burkah scarf for her little seditious liefest trip to Syria.
Think about that for a second lib. Your demo leader loon woman rights advocate submitted to Islam with her donned makeshift burkah. Geta clue, and get someone with a backbone in your party, instead of a bunch of lying smart aleck traitors.
The burka comment is kookie
August 18, 2007 - 06:05 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsThe burka comment is kookie talk.
Yeah, just kookie. Like the talk about taxpayers funding religion, can't happen with that 'seperation of church and state' stuff.
Of course, a mosque isn't a church, so that makes it OK.
Those muslims, they just love peace.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Once again MSNBC proves it
August 17, 2007 - 20:11 ET by drillanwrOnce again MSNBC proves it is fair and balanced ...
3 liberals to 1 conservative. And Naomi Wolf is only very slightly more tolerable than hurricane Katrina Vanden-web-hubble
Matthews hates this war.
Well, Chris, tell us, please, which war would you like/love? Just curious.
Naomi is scared of the big bad Orwellian Bush Administration.
Well, Naomi, perhaps you'll be more relaxed and happy if your gal pal Hill gets in the WH with a dem controlled congress and all and every damn socialist program is passed and immediately put into place. Not to mention Big Brother Hill and dems chopping conservative talker off the radio and TV waves, and frog marching the FNC staff/crew off to Gitmo.
Mel, if Naomi was so paranoid about the "wire-tapping" of terorists, perhaps you could've thrown the Clinton years of wire-tapping political enemies in her face.
BTW, does Matthews have a red button under his desk to just dump a audio/video feed the way he did Morgan??? Not even an "ooops! We did not do that on purpose. Sorry Mel."
MSNBC would fit in perfect in Chavez TV land.
One more time for the hell of it:
The friggin' judges serve at the President's preference. Wolf was bemoaning Bush's 8 judges ... But Clinton's 92 (?) were A-O-K ... Talk about "cleaning out" .
Ah, yes, I thought I
August 17, 2007 - 20:29 ET by drillanwrAh, yes, I thought I recalled Naomi correctly:
http://www.slate.com/id/2096152/
Anyone have a link or two of Mz. Wolf supporting Bill Clinton in his time of feminist need when blue dresses, and sexually harassed women and rape victims were falling out of his closet?
Not only that, but these
August 17, 2007 - 20:48 ET by pbanks7Not only that, but these judges were dismissed at the end of their terms. Clintoon dismissed all 92 at once, including the judge that was investigating him.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
Clinton did turn into the totalitarian dictator Naomi warns abo
August 18, 2007 - 00:43 ET by SportPoliticsOh yeah Clinton did turn into a totalitarian dictator and sack the whole lot. Oh, that's ok, nothing going on there, he's a dem, so just move along we won't mention this again since it means nothing and Naomi obviously had part of her brain cut out of her skull.
We can't waste our minds and time going back and bringing up the king of all criminals Clinton just because GWB is planning on destroying the constitution right before the next election, again.
LOONOCRAT: The strange psychotic babbling morons you see on TV who work for the democratic party in the US of A.
-
August 19, 2007 - 13:30 ET by dahliatraversClintoon dismissed all 92 at once
Exactly.
Naomi was so busy hyperventilating about a hypothetical purge that she overlooked a real one - committed by one of her heroes.
Kudos
August 18, 2007 - 11:55 ET by BacchusFirst of all, many kudos to Melanie. Well done. She was whooping their asses right up until the point they dumped her video feed. How telling was that? The Softball producers are sore losers too, just like the boss.
What a revelation. That has to be the other big story coming from this video clip. Rather than being relieved that the surge is working, rather than acknowledging that General Patraeus' plan is succeeding, and rather than being proud that the troops are accomplishing the bi-partisan mission they were sent to do, Matthews is instead despondent. Wasn't it supposed to end this way - is that why he hates this war? It doesn't seem like a fair fight now but the military was asked to defeat al qaeda, the Iranians, the Democrats, and Matthews' liberal media. No sweat!
Liberals this is the
August 17, 2007 - 20:29 ET by jdhawkLiberals this is the deal: Gonzales is the Attorney General of the United States. He works at the pleasure of the President of the United States. The President isn't about to fire Gonzales. To do so would mean a lengthly nomination process in which you defeatocrates would reject all but the most liberal of candidates. That's just not going to happen. Gonzales is staying the course through this president's term of office. Get over it.
jd -- spot on. And the
August 17, 2007 - 20:37 ET by Jack Bauerjd -- spot on.
And the fact is most conservatives have never rated Gonzales -- intellectually, politically or even in possessing a base ability to simply defend yourself.
But so what. The President just ain't gonna fire anyone now with 15 months to the election in which HE IS NOT FRACKIN' RUNNING , no matter how much Democrats seem to wish he was.
Ditto!
August 17, 2007 - 20:50 ET by pbanks7Let's get rid of Gonzales to get the congress off my back. Yeah, that's gonna work.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
Libs and the military
August 17, 2007 - 20:54 ET by nkviking75America, the only country in the world which fights wars without spying on the enemy, taking prisoners of war and holding them without trial, or harming civilians or their assets even though our own troops must assume greater risk to do so. America, the only country that puts so a high priority on keeping their military personnel from getting wounded or killed that we would surrender first. America, which insists on treating its highly skilled military as though they are children who need to hide behind mommy's skirts. America, the country with a free press which feels the need to expose every military secret that might help keep us safe because they don't really believe there's a threat out there.
That's the lib vision of America's military.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Exactly--liberals "running"
August 18, 2007 - 06:30 ET by Andrew H.Exactly--liberals "running" a war gets more Americans killed. That's a fact every time they do it since Viet Nam and it seems to be with us still. These people are dangerous not because they mean ill but because they don't know what they're doing.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
The problem with liberals
August 17, 2007 - 20:54 ET by tracheostomyThe problem with liberals is they spent way too much of their time reading George Orwell and almost none of it spent on reading Aldous Huxley, a writer who is quite possibly more prescient and more applicable to our culture.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
The ironic thing is 1984,
August 17, 2007 - 21:10 ET by BlazerThe ironic thing is 1984, and Animal Farm are visions of Communist Socialist utopias that fall apart at the end. A liberal quoting Orwell, is like conservative quoting Bukowski.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
Melanie Morgan
August 17, 2007 - 22:45 ET by shawn228I am not happy about what went on with John Ashcroft, but.......my goodness Melanie Morgan took that Liberal to school.
shawn... That she
August 17, 2007 - 22:56 ET by bigtimershawn...
That she did...but you can bet your bottom dollar nothing sunk in.
Even if it happened to she would never admit it.
LOL...
Gee shawn228
August 18, 2007 - 00:53 ET by SportPoliticsGee shawn228, John Ashcroft would eat you alive with both of his feet in the grave. I noted how the crybaby liberals had to have a vic again, as if any one of them DARED ever face Ashcroft and won.
Ashcroft is the type of fellow you just do NOT get over on. I'm surprised the idiot liberals forgot all of that for their little crybaby psycho whine. All of a sudden ashcroft isn't a conniving torture artist of legal reinterpretation and Patriot Act demonic plotting, he a sickly pushed around victim...
YOU FOOL LIBS fall for anything.
The libs are the weak willed sissies who probably throw away every non-logical kookball stance they ever took once the common cold sets in and forces them into surrendering to their little sister.
You haven't got chance one with that type of crap from John Ashcroft.
Just how stupid are you liberals ? Don't you remember seeing him in action ?
Hi Sport.
August 18, 2007 - 02:56 ET by shawn228Just how stupid are you liberals ? Don't you remember seeing him in action ?
We are pretty darn stupid SP:) If I thought I would get anywhere debating you I would try. I saw what you are capable of after that whole "Paris Hilton" thing and want no part of your wrath.
Like I said before, you are an equal time insulter, liberal or conservative so I take no offense. I do notice that the text of your post are no longer as long as the book of john, so that is a good thing as well. God bless you Sport. Have a great night.
Wolf is begging for a strong Man
August 17, 2007 - 23:20 ET by Lame CherryThe reason Melanie Morgan is smiling and a secure woman is she is secure with herself. On the opposite is Naomi Wolf who is disappointed like that Irish lass of the New York Times who just craves a strong Conservative male to dominate her so she can feel secure in her life.
Ms. Wolf is text book in attacking that which she wants. She is disappointed with all the failed wimp males in her liberal den who lie to her, cry and make nice boring appendages to her existence. She is the type of female who dreams of being the princess who the prince rescues and takes care of........she doesn't want to grow up and in her years now wants to stick a knife in all men to make them pay for being he jerk choices.
One of the most interesting studies was on Rush Limbaugh sometime last year when a female caller who was on the Wolf war path was being nasty and Rush simple degraded her by calling her "sweetie" which ticked her off, but then he called her another pet name and she simply submitted in delight to having this strong male be a man to her.
If Ms. Wolf simply had a gentleman like that treat her like she wants and did not allow her to throw juvenile tantrums in trying to punish him, she would be found not on television in 5 years, but quite content on some white picket farm feeding chickens with 4 children delighting her.
Melanie Wolf just needs love and attention from a real man. She is a child acting out in the hope someone from "the other side" will come and rescue her.
She has probably been waiting for someone to expose her needs like this and would be quite delighted and not embarrassed that her weaknesses were finally noticed and a strong male was actually taking enough time to notice her.
(Put yourself in her place. Would you like having Chris Matthews drooling over you or Keith Olberman as your "protector". Yeah she cringes too at those thoughts and that is all she has in liberal types.)
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Lame C... You are also
August 17, 2007 - 23:29 ET by bigtimerLame C...
You are also describing Maureen Dowd to a perfect tee.
Excellent.
Wolf-speak
August 18, 2007 - 01:23 ET by GalvanicWOLF: I think that what is really scary is that if you go back and look at what was suggested in those emails that they're [the White House] not producing, one of the things possibly suggested is that there would be a mass purge of the attorneys, the U.S. attorneys,
As noted earlier, she ignores Clinton's firing 92 of 93 US Attorneys (one of whom was in the midst of investigating Democratic Rep. Dan Rostenkowski), which obviously created no scandals. In fact, it was standard procedure for incoming Presidents.
WOLF: ". . . and we really need to think forward, what kind of scandal, what kind of terror, that would be for the United States, in the event of a close election, if there had indeed been a general purge of the attorneys.
What do the US Attorneys have to do with a close election? For one thing, I believe they were fired after Bush's re-election, were they not? And there was no "general purge" like Clinton did; we're talking about a half dozen politically-appointed attorneys. In other words, the election and firings of half a dozen attorneys doesn't jive.
WOLF: ". . . And so I think we need to get it [that favorite lefty phrase, again] that they're not playing by the rules that we've come to believe for over 200 years that you have to play by in the United States. We have to get it [enough already!] that it's a different ballgame [come on, use "paradigm" next time], and act accordingly. It's a crisis. "
Omigod, another crisis. A few years ago, someone counted the number of issues that were labled "crises" on Ted Kennedy's webpage, and it came out to over 20 -- virtually every agenda item he was interested in. To the Left, everything is a crisis if they care about it.
Morgan was quite right when she dissected Wolf-speak as it was uttered. Naomi Wolf is a master of the half-truth and the spun lie. As Christina Hoff Sommers pointed out, it was Naomi Wlof who cited a health study that found that 150,000 American females die EVERY YEAR from psycholigical eating disorders such as bulemia. That's almost three times the number of Americans who died in Southeasteast Asia. Sommers' investigation into the study -- a phone call to the people who actually did the study -- revealed that the study found 150,000 American females suffer from those disorders; the number of fatalites due to the disorders was well under 100, and probably little more than a dozen or two. 150,000 deaths annually (Wolf)?
See how easy it is for Wolf-speak to generate a "crisis?"
WOLF: I think that what is
August 18, 2007 - 04:30 ET by Gary P JacksonWOLF: I think that what is really scary is that if you go back
and look at what was suggested in those emails that they're [the White
House] not producing, one of the things possibly suggested is that
there would be a mass purge of the attorneys, the U.S. attorneys, and
we really need to think forward, what kind of scandal, what kind of terror, that would be for the United States, in the event of a close election, if there had indeed been a general purge of the attorneys. And so I think we need to get it [that
favorite lefty phrase, again] that they're not playing by the rules
that we've come to believe for over 200 years that you have to play by
in the United States. We have to get it that it's a different ballgame , and act accordingly. It's a crisis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I the Bush attorney firings are a "crisis", what in the world was Clinton's "mass purge"?
I keep seeing stories that suggest marajuanna is many times stronger now, than it was, say in the 60's.
I hate to stereotype, but we know how those hippies love their Mary Jane!
By George, I may have found the root cause for all of the lefts insanity and paranoia!
People like Chris Matthews, and Mz Wolf scare the begeezus out of me!
}}---> Cry Wolf
August 18, 2007 - 07:55 ET by Cool ArrowLooks like the big bad Wolf just got slapped around by an Alpha Female.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Cup size doesn't win an
August 18, 2007 - 08:18 ET by Right2thePointCup size doesn't win an argument of thought.
It only stands to win in who gets picked up in the bar as a take out from the shallow ones who ain't got a clue execept for what they are trying to do tonight and forgetting next week.
Real deals are much more fun.
Hypocrisy...
August 20, 2007 - 07:11 ET by Sergeant ROCKWhere was the concern when the Klintons were gathering medical records and FBI files on the their political adversaries? Or using the IRS against them? I haven't see any of that going with GW. Of course, this concern will disolve away should another democRAT be elected in 2008.