| | |
 Liberals to Susan Estrich: Drop Dead
6/21/05 19:50:04
|
OK people. We need to discuss the following:
A liberal’s defense of Fox News
By Susan Estrich
LOS ANGELES –
I work for Fox News as a commentator. I say whatever I want. I’m the blonde on the left, figuratively and literally - the one who’s usually smiling because it’s TV, not the Supreme Court or Congress, and I find civility more effective in any event.
Besides, why shouldn’t I be smiling? Prior to working for Fox, I worked for ABC and NBC, spent a lot of time at CNN, and almost ended up at CBS. I worked for a bunch of local stations in Los Angeles and had a talk-radio show at KABC for six years. In other words, I’m fortunate enough to have been around, and Fox News is the best place I’ve ever worked.
I’ve come to expect the jabs at Fox News - because being a liberal, I get more than most. I work there in part because, six or seven years ago, they offered me a better deal than NBC at the time; and because, as a feminist and a Democrat, I think it’s particularly important to have a dialogue with people who aren’t already members of the same choir - that’s the way we will ultimately have to win elections.
I also work there because of my respect for Roger Ailes, the man who created it, and hired me, and to whom I am extremely loyal for reasons having nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with integrity. The jabs have gotten stronger with success. No surprise there. When you get to No. 1 as fast and as impressively as Fox News has, it’s a bull’s-eye, and Mr. Ailes would be the last person in the world to expect his competitors to go gently.
But things have taken a personal turn in the last week or so, as the targets have shifted from the institution as a whole to the individuals within it. The criticisms have gotten personal, the tone has changed, the volume is up, and the value is down. Neil Cavuto? Brian Wilson? Under attack by a Washington press corps for not probing enough on Iraq (Cavuto) and being too tough on Howard Dean (Wilson)? Give me a break.
Mr. Cavuto, a Fox News anchor, sat down to do an interview with George Bush last week on his business show. He didn’t discuss Iraq. Cavuto doesn’t cover Iraq. As far as I know, he had nothing new to ask him, nothing new to add, and no important new question to pose. In fact, the president had nothing new to say on the topic. There was no news to be made on Iraq. So Cavuto didn’t use the opportunity either to beat up on the president or to let him say something we’d heard a hundred times. Instead, he asked him questions he didn’t know the answer to, where he might get an answer he hadn’t already heard.
For this, he’s been summarily beaten up by the press corps - the same one that still can’t figure out why it got it all wrong about those weapons of mass destruction that justified the war.
Then there’s Brian Wilson’s great sin. In his case, the problem wasn’t not asking a question, but trying too hard to ask tough ones of the Senate minority leader and the party chairman who’d joined together to make it look as if there was no problem when there very obviously was.
The Dean charge is, of course, the more serious one, particularly since the party chairman has taken to attacking Fox News. There certainly is disagreement among Democrats as to whether party leaders such as Joe Biden and John Edwards should have gone public with the obvious criticism that Dean had gone too far in calling Republicans a party of white Christians who don’t work.
But I’m hard-pressed to think of anybody who’ll tell you privately that in the midst of debates about such issues as Social Security and the deficits, it’s a good idea for the party leader to be turning himself into the issue by engaging in class and religious warfare.
This is precisely what congressional leaders and Dean agreed Dean wouldn’t do when he became party chair. He was supposed to leave the message to them. Because Dean hadn’t done so and had been criticized for it by two possible presidential candidates - neither of whom is even a conservative - Sen. Harry Reid was trying to put a perennial good face on a bad situation, while Brian Wilson was trying to puncture it.
And that’s what the press is supposed to do.
Asked to respond to Vice President Cheney’s comments about him to Fox’s Sean Hannity, Dean said: "My view is that Fox News is a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party, and I don’t comment on Fox News."
Three times as many people watch Fox every day as watch CNN. There were certainly times during the last campaign where I disagreed with decisions made by young Fox producers. But without exception, every time I raised an issue, I won. The joke was that I would tell them to set their stopwatches and transfer me to Ailes, so they could time how long it would take me to get their decisions reversed.
It never came to that, but everyone understood the commitment not to make decisions that would even give the appearance that Dean so cavalierly bandies about.
Is Fox News different from the other places I’ve worked? Sure. But all of the rest were pretty much alike, which is the larger point that Dean ignores.
Dear Susan Estrich:
You and I have never met, but I suspect you know who I am. I’m the OTHER blonde on the left - literally, not figuratively. I’m the woman in OUTFOXED who used you as an example of a Fox staple, the faux liberal. Ring a bell?
So I read your defense of Fox, and I have a few comments.
How much did Roger Ailes pay for your soul? How much does a conscience go for on the open market these days? I realize that your lifestyle is expensive - those Hollywood plastic surgeons don’t do charity facelifts, after all - but wouldn’t you have been better off calling a madame that specializes in middle-aged call girls (uh, women) and peddling your ass for money? I think that becoming a literal whore would have allowed you to stay truer to your feminist principles than being Fox’s "liberal" Uncle Tom.
So you’re buddies with Roger Ailes. Excuse me, but isn’t he the same Roger Ailes who played a part in sinking the campaign of your candidate Michael Dukakis in 1988, by resorting to crude race-baiting and demagoguery? This is what you say about your buddy Roger:
I also work there because of my respect for Roger Ailes, the man who created it, and hired me, and to whom I am extremely loyal for reasons having nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with integrity. The jabs have gotten stronger with success. No surprise there. When you get to No. 1 as fast and as impressively as Fox News has, it’s a bull’s-eye, and Mr. Ailes would be the last person in the world to expect his competitors to go gently.
Here’s what this paragon of integrity did to YOUR candidate, Susan:
The GOP threw everything at Dukakis. They attacked him for mental problems (John McCain, are you listening?); his veto of a Massachusetts bill requiring public but not private school teachers to recite the Pledge of Allegiance; his "lax" furlough program; his membership in the ACLU; the filthy Boston Harbor (supposed proof that the "Massachusetts miracle" was a scam); and his refusal to support the death penalty, even for CNN’s Bernard Shaw, who posed a difficult question about the issue in a presidential debate. This was carefully designed helter-skelter -- there was no pattern, but the bottom line was, this guy is not like the rest of us.
Republicans also attacked Dukakis for allowing a weekend furlough for a convicted black felon, Willie Horton, who had attacked and raped a white woman -- under a program begun by Dukakis’ Republican predecessor. "When we’re through, people are going to think that Willie Horton is Michael Dukakis’ nephew," said political consultant Floyd Brown of Americans for Bush. By making the spot, Brown’s group allowed Bush and Ailes to deny that they had hatched it. (Brown’s group would later pump up the Whitewater pseudo-scandal against the Clintons, once again sucking in the press corps.)
You know, it must have seemed like old times in 2004, watching Ailes and his minions push the Swift Boat Vets for "Truth", a group so sleazy that even Bill O’Reilly - Bill O’Reilly! - was sickened by their tactics. It takes a real man of integrity to instruct his underlings to turn a decorated war hero into a lying, flip-flopping, Frenchified faker who may have received his Purple Heart under false pretenses, all in defense of a chickenhawk who went AWOL for a significant portion of his service (I guess defending Texas from Oklahoma was just too stressful). Yes, I think it’s safe to say many of us will never forget election 2004, and Fox’s role in it. Never.
Now let’s take a look at some of your other liberal bona fides, shall we?
- Telling the PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER that the Clintons need to "shut up" (I see your colleague Bill O’Reilly is rubbing off on you! But not literally...)
- Slamming Air America
- Slamming Howard Dean and Al Gore
- Sucking up to repulsive hypocrite and serial adulterer Newt "I know you have cancer, just sign the damn divorce papers" Gingrich
- Trumpeting your friendship with the fair and balanced Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter
- Defending Matt Drudge
- Defending Arnold Schwarzenegger against charges of groping and harassment
On this last point, Katie Roiphe writes in SLATE:
The week before the election she attacked the Los Angles Times for running an exposé about the charges. She complained that the paper had cited outdated accusations, which is a little odd when she herself has argued so passionately against the need for "fresh complaints," saying it often takes women a long time to conquer their fears and report a sexual crime; she also took the newspaper to task for seeking out women who hadn’t come forward, when she herself has written extensively on how hard it is to come forward in cases of sexual assault. It may or may not be relevant to all this that she was one of the Democrats later named to Schwarzenegger’s transition team.
She goes on to praise your honesty in facing your internal contradictions. Me, I just call it opportunism. Hey, tomato, tomahtoe, you know?
As to this preposterous point:
Mr. Cavuto, a Fox News anchor, sat down to do an interview with George Bush last week on his business show. He didn’t discuss Iraq. Cavuto doesn’t cover Iraq. As far as I know, he had nothing new to ask him, nothing new to add, and no important new question to pose. In fact, the president had nothing new to say on the topic. There was no news to be made on Iraq. So Cavuto didn’t use the opportunity either to beat up on the president or to let him say something we’d heard a hundred times. Instead, he asked him questions he didn’t know the answer to, where he might get an answer he hadn’t already heard.
To review: Cavuto asked Bush about MICHAEL JACKSON. I don’t know about you, but I really don’t care what Bush’s view is on MJ’s problems. He’s GEORGE Bush, not BILLY Bush after all. As to "nothing new to ask him, nothing new to add", are you out of your fucking mind? The insurgency continues apace, Americans are dying at a rapid clip, recruitment is so fucked that the military is bringing on, shall we say, undesirables to fill the rapidly emptying ranks. But I guess that when you spend all that time at Fox, guzzling the Kool Aid, you probably DON’T think there’s anything new to report. The Administration says all is well? Good enough for me! Move along, nothing to see here.
I have to say that I’m pretty amused by your use of a common Fox maneuver: When you’re accused of bias, change the subject. Howard Dean calls Fox’s content "propaganda", so your response is:
Three times as many people watch Fox every day as watch CNN.
Talk about misdirection! OK, so if you want to play the ratings card, how about this: On a typical night, a ten year old episode of LAW AND ORDER on TNT gets twice as many viewers as THE O’REILLY FACTOR. Come to think of it, that little reprobate in tight pants, SpongeBob, whips O’Reilly’s ass as well. What have we proven about Fox’s bias? Nothing, right? Ok.
Let me finish by telling you that I’m amazed you’ve come this far. Had I been in charge of hiring contributors, let’s just say you wouldn’t have topped my list, unless I needed an expert in how to blow a huge election lead and lose big. If you’re happy at Fox, good for you. But stop claiming to speak for me. You’re an embarrassment and a disgrace to liberals, feminists and people of conscience.
UPDATE: Gilliard and Wolcott join in the fun.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
|
76 Comments>>
|
| 1. |
re "I guess defending Texas from Oklahoma"
Bush went AWOL in Alabama.
|
| | Comment by Eric Jaffa--June 21, 2005 @ 20:02 pm
|
| 2. | Eric: "Documents that should have been written to explain gaps in President Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service are missing from the military records released about his service in 1972 and 1973, according to regulations and outside experts."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0905-01.htm
|
| | Comment by DCMediagirl--June 21, 2005 @ 20:12 pm
|
| 3. | You rock! I can’t believe that just because someone SAYS they’re liberal, that means that the person is actually liberal. REAL liberals go by actions, not words. Which is why real liberals know that Bush lies when he says he cares about the American people.
|
| | Comment by Ha--June 21, 2005 @ 20:23 pm
|
| 4. | Well said!
Applause, applause, applause plus standing ovation.
|
| | Comment by Ellen--June 21, 2005 @ 20:31 pm
|
| 5. |
DC Media Girl-
Ok, I misunderstood the sentence about Oklahoma the first time, but now I know what you mean.
|
| | Comment by Eric Jaffa--June 21, 2005 @ 20:51 pm
|
| 6. | Ellen: Great to hear from you! I’m not worthy of your visit, mighty Newshound. My love to the other ladies.
|
| | Comment by DCMediagirl--June 21, 2005 @ 21:15 pm
|
| 7. | MG--you’re right on about that plastic surgery. She looks grotesque lately.
|
| | Comment by Dr Steve--June 21, 2005 @ 21:25 pm
|
| 8. |
The essay ends by noting "Susan Estrich is the Robert Kingsley Professor in Law and Political Science at the University of Southern California Law Center."
So she doesn’t need the money from Fox News.
She just wants the money from Fox News.
|
| | Comment by Eric Jaffa--June 21, 2005 @ 21:29 pm
|
| 9. | This is pretty funny:
"So Cavuto didn’t use the opportunity either to beat up on the president or to let him say something we’d heard a hundred times. Instead, he asked him questions he didn’t know the answer to, where he might get an answer he hadn’t already heard.
For this, he’s been summarily beaten up by the press corps - the same one that still can’t figure out why it got it all wrong about those weapons of mass destruction that justified the war."
Excuse me?? The PRESS got it wrong about WMD’s? I think BushCo got it wrong and tricked the rest of the press, outside of moron Judy Miller.
|
| | Comment by Mike Finney--June 21, 2005 @ 21:53 pm
|
| 10. | Clara,
Tell us how you REALLY feel.
It’s about time someone told off that faux liberal. She doesn’t speak for me either; she gives women and liberals a bad name.
|
| | Comment by Chrish--June 21, 2005 @ 21:56 pm
|
| 11. | One thing you forgot to mention: This is the same Neil Cavuto who said, "And I say to the protesters, you were sickening then, and you’re sickening now."
Funny thing for a guy who "doesn’t cover Iraq" to say.
|
| | Comment by Ben Jones--June 21, 2005 @ 22:11 pm
|
| 12. | Estrich gives slutty-slutty HOs a bad name.
I also think her choice to use Jacko’s plastic surgeon was not a wise one.
|
| | Comment by nikto--June 21, 2005 @ 22:13 pm
|
| 13. | I’ve detested that faux liberal Estrich for years (including her faux face, hair, etc.). I think she’s right where she belongs on Faux News. I agree with your headline: Drop Dead. Thanks for all your great work.
|
| | Comment by swissgirl--June 21, 2005 @ 22:16 pm
|
| 14. | I’m with SwissGirl! Emphatically so!
|
| | Comment by JimmyJeff--June 21, 2005 @ 22:44 pm
|
| 15. | Good stuff, DC!
|
| | Comment by DaveH.--June 21, 2005 @ 22:48 pm
|
| 16. | Estrich is a mean drunk, period, the end.
|
| | Comment by Jethro--June 21, 2005 @ 23:04 pm
|
| 17. |
Ben Jones-
Good point. If Cavuto isn’t shy about talking about Iraq when it means insulting peace activists, he shouldn’t be shy about asking Bush a question or two on Iraq.
|
| | Comment by Eric Jaffa--June 21, 2005 @ 23:11 pm
|
| 18. | If only I could applaud and type at the same time...great response to a lame column!
|
| | Comment by Mark--June 21, 2005 @ 23:21 pm
|
| 19. | That was spectacular. Beautifully, perfectly sharply put. Thank you so much!
|
| | Comment by CSGirlsRule--June 21, 2005 @ 23:25 pm
|
| 20. | That was spectacular. Beautifully, perfectly sharply put. Thank you so much!
|
| | Comment by CSGirlsRule--June 21, 2005 @ 23:29 pm
|
| 21. | Estrich is a whore. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out she blew an 18 point lead in 88 in exchange for a bribe from the Bush camp. She is willing to sell her soul for money. She can sell her candidate for money.
|
| | Comment by Don--June 21, 2005 @ 23:53 pm
|
| 22. | This is why DCMedia Girl is America’s Sweetheart.
Fox News: It Estrich’s sister AND her daughter.
|
| | Comment by driftglass--June 22, 2005 @ 00:05 am
|
| 23. | Republicans may have Fox News but Liberals have abc nbc cbs cnn msnbc bet pbs mtv comedy central lifetime oxygen and bravo. So liberals quit hating your country and use the main-stream media for good reasons to be liberal not just hating on republicans
|
| | Comment by Vito--June 22, 2005 @ 00:25 am
|
| 24. | Vito, shut the fuck up. CNN is not "liberal." CBS cancelled a movie about Reagan when you rigjtwing eunuchs whined bloody murder over hearing the truth about your senile hero.
Yes, us liberals do have the "comedy" channel, though.
It’s to relive the stress of dealing with double digit IQ Americans. Like yourself.
|
| | Comment by farang--June 22, 2005 @ 00:42 am
|
| 25. | People like Vito (cons I guess) think CNN and MSNBC are "Liberal". Nothing is further from the truth...they are just entities of the corporate media. http://www.libertynewstv.com/ that is pretty liberal though. Liberalism means knowing the truth about irresponsible and corrupted corporations- something the corporate media is incapable of doing!
|
| | Comment by Marcel--June 22, 2005 @ 00:57 am
|
| 26. | I think it’s just that critters like Vito spend so much time in the GOP Bell Jar, re-breathing their own propaganda beer-farts for so long, that plain old fresh air that isn’t full of wingnuts shrieking "feminazi" every 11 seconds smells..suspicious.
|
| | Comment by driftglass--June 22, 2005 @ 01:44 am
|
| 27. | I always found it astounding that the person who masterminded the most disastrous presidential political campaign of my lifetime (Dukakis) was considered an expert on anything political.
In the real world, when you screw up that badly, you get fired, no one else wants to hire you, and you go on to another line of work. In Pundit World, you’re never held accountable for your past failures or your present predictions, even when they’re proven wrong.
Kinda like a certain president I know.
|
| | Comment by Gutterboy--June 22, 2005 @ 01:51 am
|
| 28. | Vito--We’re only trying to get some truth out there; you just think it’s hate.
driftglass--Your bell jar metaphor is a howler!
|
| | Comment by freq flag--June 22, 2005 @ 01:59 am
|
| 29. | Protecting Texas from Oklahoma? Now I see why Delay notified the FAA that the flight of Texas Dems to Oklahoma were possible terrorists. Going over to the other side in that border dispute, damn them.
|
| | Comment by Paul--June 22, 2005 @ 03:19 am
|
| 30. | Protecting Texas from Oklahoma? Now I see why Delay notified the FAA that the flight of Texas Dems to Oklahoma were possible terrorists. Going over to the other side in that border dispute, damn them.
|
| | Comment by Paul--June 22, 2005 @ 03:19 am
|
| 31. | I understand what Estrich means by Ailes’s "integrity". She means he treats journalistic colleagues well, not that he treats the public well. This is the professional elitism that fuels the media, which allows them to know the facts and yet report the lies.
|
| | Comment by mimsong--June 22, 2005 @ 06:19 am
|
| 32. | The Fox is mother, the Fox is father...
|
| | Comment by JHB--June 22, 2005 @ 06:46 am
|
| 33. | Don’t forget that other liberal Fox house Ho, Tammy Bruce.
|
| | Comment by Robert Lynn--June 22, 2005 @ 07:50 am
|
| 34. | Don’t forget that other liberal Fox house Ho, Tammy Bruce.
|
| | Comment by Robert Lynn--June 22, 2005 @ 08:20 am
|
| 35. | Shorter Susan Estrich: I’m note a liberal, but I play one on TV.
|
| | Comment by Dan Holzman--June 22, 2005 @ 08:22 am
|
| 36. | ouch - a triple onslaught from DCMediaGirl, Gilliard and Wolcott. that should knock the botox right out of her.
|
| | Comment by shmee--June 22, 2005 @ 09:35 am
|
| 37. | 1. What about General Wes Clark, who won the Kos poll?
Doesn’t he work for Fox News? I don’t see an outrage.
2. Here is a satirical post with a lot of truth in it
George H.W. Bush’s Daughter-in-Law Is Running for President Unopposed"
Link here
http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog
|
| | Comment by btwg156--June 22, 2005 @ 09:51 am
|
| 38. | 1. What about General Wes Clark, who won the Kos poll?
Doesn’t he work for Fox News? I don’t see an outrage.
2. Here is a satirical post with a lot of truth in it
George H.W. Bush’s Daughter-in-Law Is Running for President Unopposed"
Link here
http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog
|
| | Comment by btwg156--June 22, 2005 @ 09:52 am
|
| 39. | Forget Wes Clark, et al. I’m thinking "Susan Estrich as token". Unless one has a 1.) a truly functioning brain and 2.) a genuine backbone, one as a token hire can actually survive and rise above tokenism. This ain’t the case here. She isn’t even a spark in the underbrush over at FOX where she is completely outnumbered to begin with. Frankly, she hasn’t got a case.
|
| | Comment by mageen--June 22, 2005 @ 10:16 am
|
| 40. | Youch! Remind me to stay on your good side...thekeez
|
| | Comment by Jeff Keezel--June 22, 2005 @ 10:36 am
|
| 41. | btwg156--
Wesley Clark should be judged by what he says on Fox News.
Susan Estrich goes on Fox News and bashes Democrats.
|
| | Comment by Eric Jaffa--June 22, 2005 @ 10:56 am
|
| 42. | DCMediaGirl --
Have you followed Paul Lukasiak’s research of the AWOL documents? Not only was Dubya AWOL (actually a Deserter, but AWOL is a lower bar) but he defrauded the government, by submitting false claims for drills that he never attended. He was also paid for these non-existent drills -- some of which supposedly took place before the drills he missed.
The really infuriating part of this is that CBS producers had all of Paul’s research, but chose to go with the flashy Killian Memos.
I know Paul from our research into the origins of the 2000 Florida Felon List Voter Purge -- which was Rove Bush Feeney operation.
But that is so before 9/11, and Bush is a strong wartime leader -- right?
ps: I have a long post in Gilliard’s comment thread on the backstory of how the Dukakis campaign turned Susan Estrich into a screeching harpy.
|
| | Comment by ck--June 22, 2005 @ 11:22 am
|
| 43. | fankly, after reading both Susan "and" the DCgirl, I think I like Susan alot better. I prefer civility to name-calling and crude language. You simply betray the strength of you argument when you resort to such behavior. She might be fun at a party, but I doubt she could ever convince me of anything serious.
|
| | Comment by skypilot48--June 22, 2005 @ 11:22 am
|
| 44. | oh go fuck yourself, skypilot48.
|
| | Comment by Dick Cheney--June 22, 2005 @ 11:49 am
|
| 45. | skypilot48,
How can you ignore the content like that? Don’t you agree that Susan’s arguments are completely outrageous and misleading? Plus Susan was a newspaper piece, this is a blog, you are allowed to be more colorful in your speach on a blog. Look at the content.
|
| | Comment by Northern Observer--June 22, 2005 @ 12:50 pm
|
| 46. | DC Media Girl, excellent!
I’d just add that Estrich is lying about class and religious war - her side is the one doing it.
|
| | Comment by Barry--June 22, 2005 @ 13:09 pm
|
| 47. | i wasn’t going to post until, near the end of the comments, skypilot48 weighed in with a howler that put my old pal vito to shame; i am forever amazed at the hypocrisy of right wingers whenever they whine about rude political discourse; i’m sorry for your delicate sensibilities, mr. pilot, but your side invented the sleaze game; and also the manner of ignoring reality that you have so ably advanced-you and yours respond to every rightwing quagmire with whining about the shrill tone of the discourse-you know what, asshole, get over it! the shoe’s on the other foot, now, how’s the fit? oh, by the way, dick couldn’t have said it any better, so lay off the koolaid and open your eyes! as for vito, who cares anymore? he’s beyond help!
|
| | Comment by brian--June 22, 2005 @ 13:16 pm
|
| 48. | Well done! I really REALLY hope you sent that to here as well as putting it here.
|
| | Comment by Roger Christie--June 22, 2005 @ 13:49 pm
|
| 49. | Well done! I really REALLY hope you sent that to here as well as putting it here.
|
| | Comment by Roger Christie--June 22, 2005 @ 13:50 pm
|
| 50. | Well done! I really REALLY hope you sent that to here as well as putting it here.
|
| | Comment by Roger Christie--June 22, 2005 @ 13:51 pm
|
| 51. | OMG, if I wasn’t already married I’d propose.
|
| | Comment by Scott--June 22, 2005 @ 13:59 pm
|
| 52. | OUCH!!! What an ass-whopping! She’ll need more than a plastic surgeon to save what little of her ass is left.
|
| | Comment by el loco--June 22, 2005 @ 14:07 pm
|
| 53. | Same comment as I sent to the CS Monitor.........
If Susan Estich is a Liberal I am the Virgin Mother!
|
| | Comment by Maggie--June 22, 2005 @ 14:15 pm
|
| 54. | Ooooops, misspelled her name. Hell’s Bells, she probably can’t read anyway!
|
| | Comment by Maggie--June 22, 2005 @ 14:16 pm
|
| 55. | Here’s another of my favourite observatons.
Did you ever notice that any time a Conservative/rabid righty/Repug tries to describe a Democrat/Liberal OR anyone who opposes him, that he always...ALWAYS describes himself!
|
| | Comment by Maggie--June 22, 2005 @ 14:19 pm
|
| 56. | I don’t suppose anyone noticed the contrast in the vitriolic personal attacks (see: plastic surgery, whore, etc.) to the lack of personal attack in the original article. I agree with your call of bullshit on Susan, but the shrill tone just makes YOU seem nuts and her seem perfectly reasonable. I know blogs are license to SHOUT, but who are you helping again? Not liberals I don’t think... or the ideas that liberals agree with, though it sure riles people up.
|
| | Comment by jeffrey sprague--June 22, 2005 @ 15:10 pm
|
| 57. | I don’t suppose anyone noticed the contrast in the vitriolic personal attacks (see: plastic surgery, whore, etc.) to the lack of personal attack in the original article. I agree with your call of bullshit on Susan, but the shrill tone just makes YOU seem nuts and her seem perfectly reasonable. I know blogs are license to SHOUT, but who are you helping again? Not liberals I don’t think... or the ideas that liberals agree with, though it sure riles people up.
|
| | Comment by jeffrey sprague--June 22, 2005 @ 15:27 pm
|
| 58. |
jeffrey sprague--
Susan Estrich blew one of the most important elections in American history.
The election of George H. W. Bush led to Saddam being told by April Glaspie that the US has no position regarding the border dispute with Kuwait.
This led to the first Gulf War, which included George H. W. Bush giving phony photos to Saudi Arabia showing Iraqi troops on their border. George H. W. Bush used that to get American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia.
That US troop deployment in Saudi Arabia motivated UBL to attack us on Sept. 11, 2001.
By contrast, all DC Media Girl did was write a blog post with impolite language.
So who is worse, Susan Estrich or DC Media Girl?
|
| | Comment by Eric Jaffa--June 22, 2005 @ 15:57 pm
|
| 59. | Under Bush poverty rate has increased and more people don’t have health insurance. Under Clinton the opposite trend existed. So it would appear, that the poor Republicans are and have been making a mistake. But it surely is theirs to make. As they approve of the Bush’s foreign policy, they get to contribute their children to his war. If this suits them, it’s OK with me.
|
| | Comment by Wil Burns--June 22, 2005 @ 17:20 pm
|
| 60. | Under Bush poverty rate has increased and more people don’t have health insurance. Under Clinton the opposite trend existed. So it would appear, that the poor Republicans are and have been making a mistake. But it surely is theirs to make. As they approve of the Bush’s foreign policy, they get to contribute their children to his war. If this suits them, it’s OK with me.
|
| | Comment by Wil Burns--June 22, 2005 @ 17:21 pm
|
| 61. | if shes so buddy-buddy with ailes why doesnt she get her own "liberal" show.
|
| | Comment by J--June 22, 2005 @ 17:53 pm
|
| 62. | Jeffrey,
You get to a point where something so stupid is said that it ceases to merit a normal or civilized response. Estrich got to that point some time ago.
The self-indulgence of Estrich was famoulsy shown when in an exchange of emails with the LA Times she could only imagine that the editor’s illness (terminal, I believe) was the reason she was not given column space in some of the most sought-after journalism real estate in the country ("people are beginning to think that your illness may have affected your brain, your judgment, and your ability to do this job.").
Estrich can go fuck herself.
We need more ballsy commentators like DC Mediagirl who will mercilessly point out the stupidity of this bunch and their little lackeys like Estrich.
|
| | Comment by Franky--June 22, 2005 @ 18:34 pm
|
| 63. | hey dcmediagirl, i didn’t know you were in outfoxed! now i’ll have to rent it.
well said. i mentioned something about the ratings in a comment on atrios, also citing spongebob square pants.
the faux news folks always mention ratings within specific paramenters...eg, they get the most ratings of a cable news network.
in other words, they beat cnn and msnbc. which is like my saying i can beat my nephew at basketball, ergo i am a good basketball player.
on a side note, i actually (almost) did meet her, and bill mahr (separate incidents), while eating lunch at mel’s diner in los angeles. but i didn’t interrupt her (or mahr) as she was dining with a bunch of kids, and i believe it’s rude to interrupt people who think they are celebrities while they are eating.
|
| | Comment by skippy--June 22, 2005 @ 19:07 pm
|
| 64. | I started suspecting Susan Estrich was losing it when I read her email exchange with Michael Kinsley concerning her view that women were systematically being under-represented in the Op-Ed pages of the L.A. Times. She implied (not so implicitly) that his M.S. was affecting his cognition in the most offensive and lunatic way.
P.S. Nice post!
|
| | Comment by dK--June 22, 2005 @ 19:53 pm
|
| 65. | Do not delude yourselves. This was an extremely weak riposte on
DC Girl’s part. It was whiney and, considering the material she had to work with, depressingly strident. It reads like something written by someone who really doesn’t believe the facts are on her side.
Altogether an extremely disappoingting performance. I mean, this is Susan Estrich we’re talking about — an angry pompous, ass-licking windbag of the first water.
Her argument about Cavuto is screamingly stupid and you did a fine job of taking that one apart because you showed the facts were on your side. Next time demolish her pretentions first, call her a whore second. That should at least double the effectiveness of your attack.
|
| | Comment by Hieronymus Braintree--June 22, 2005 @ 23:17 pm
|
| 66. | Thank you! It’s so refreshing to read this, it works like a tonic on me. Not since Galloway let fly have I spent such an enjoyable 5 minutes.
|
| | Comment by A. Voss--June 22, 2005 @ 23:40 pm
|
| 67. | Remember, liberals, this is how your "friends" will treat you if you ever step out of line.
|
| | Comment by Evil Pundit--June 23, 2005 @ 01:06 am
|
| 68. | Remember, liberals, this is how your "friends" will treat you if you ever step out of line.
Actually, Ms. Estrich’s "friend" Roger Ailes pay her very handsomely to use her past liberalism to attack real liberals. I think she’s chose her friends -- lots fo flat, dead presidents. So, she’s not a friend of mine.
|
| | Comment by paperwight--June 23, 2005 @ 01:34 am
|
| 69. | Regardless of what we’uns think of her, we owe her the courtesy of spelling her name right. Right?
|
| | Comment by Vinilo Suave--June 23, 2005 @ 02:48 am
|
| 70. | Wonderful post.
You’re my favorite blog superhero, DC media girl. I
heart you. I just blogged you too.
Thanks.
|
| | Comment by Scott Butki--June 23, 2005 @ 10:29 am
|
| 71. | WOW 70 post about FOX News You liberals need to get a grip.Quit worring about Fox News and wonder why you keep losing election after election.Don’t blame Estrich for 88.Dukakis was a terrible candidate.I can’t wait for you leftys to start hating Wesley Clark because he has sighned with FOX.
|
| | Comment by Vito--June 23, 2005 @ 12:58 pm
|
| 72. | YOU seem to be the one to "need to get a grip" you dittohead troll.
Fuck you Vito.
|
| | Comment by LizDexic--June 23, 2005 @ 14:19 pm
|
| 73. | Cavuto could have asked Bush if he got the campaign contribution. And Estrich is slightly preferable to Tammy "I’m a lesbian Democrat"
Bruce,who always makes sure to point out she a lesbian and Democrat before she proceeds to rip into Democrats.
Here comes dumbass Vito with te "you lose election after elction" BS.
Bush wins 2000 by the electoral college, losing the popular vote and wins reelection by the slimmest margin of any incumbent president in history and Vito acts like they’re the 1927 Yankees. Yeah, he’s a regular "Landslide George".
Vito, your boy ain’t that popular.
|
| | Comment by Pug--June 23, 2005 @ 14:24 pm
|
| 74. | Susan Estrich is to Democrats as Lord Haw Haw was to the Allied Forces in WWII.
|
| | Comment by Jon Koppenhoefer--June 23, 2005 @ 17:04 pm
|
| 75. | Estrich has always been a phony. Fortunately for us in California, she so misunderstood us that she supported Proposition 187 in 1994, revealing her xenophobia and destroying any appointment prospects that she may have had during the Gray Davis governorship.
For more entertainment, check out her columns about the Kobe Bryant case, where she deliberately ascribed hostile attitudes about Bryant to the judge, until he repudiated them in court shortly thereafter.
|
| | Comment by Richard Estes--June 23, 2005 @ 17:50 pm
|
| 76. | Once again, slipped in like a shiv between someone’s ribs in a crowded subway train so that the killing can be very public, and yet so very quiet and subtle, we see the distortion of what Dr Dean said, this time by Estrich. But you knew she wouldn’t miss the chance, didn’t you?
Dr Dean did not say that the Republican PARTY never held a job. He was speaking of the party leadership, many of whom have never done an honest day’s work. Stealing all day doesn’t count as honest.
It would certainly be a fine thing if someone who actually was a liberal ever appeared on camera as Fox host or anchor, but don’t count on it. This bogus apologia of Estrich’s is a waste of time and space. Once again we see the tactic that the White House has made a fetish: deny what is right in front of everyone’s eyes and some percentage of the people, anxious to believe you, will believe you rather than their own, lying eyes.
|
| | Comment by G. D. Frogsdong--June 24, 2005 @ 08:25 am
|
|
| | |
|
