Tucker Carlson’s website publishes vicious, sexist rant against new ‘Crossfire’ host

By David Ferguson/Raw Story

Tucker Carlson’s online publication The Daily

Caller published a review of the new version of Carlson’s old show “Crossfire” on Tuesday that went beyond a bad review and veered into a viciously personal attack against co-host Stephanie Cutter. The review —written by the Caller’s Patrick Howley — called Cutter, variously, a “sociopath,” a “treadmill-stomping, Starbucks-chugging monument to modern self-absorption” and an “unmitigated monster.”

“A loathsome creature like Stephanie Cutter, the roots jutting out from her blonde dye job as black as the recesses of her soul, can push her way onto national television to sit next to a former Speaker of the House and two sitting U.S. senators,” bemoaned Howley. “A charmless, dead-eyed, tacky sociopath with no sense of ethics, an empty shell spewing her flat-throated bile without the slightest trace of self-awareness, can beat all of us to the front of the Darwinian line.”

The piece’s title, “Crossfire Review No.1,” implies that there will be more reviews to come. “Crossfire” was hosted by Daily Caller editor Carlson and Paul Begala in 2004 when “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart appeared as a guest and notoriously took Carlson and Begala to task for “hurting America” with their tedious back and forth and reduction of every issue to a left-right binary.

The show’s already diminished audience fled and CNN mothballed “Crossfire” until this fall, when the show was rebooted with hosts Cutter and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

“A figure of hatred and dishonesty, a person devoid of any pleasantness or redeeming human value, a treadmill-stomping, Starbucks-chugging monument to modern self-absorption, someone incapable of appreciating good art, fine food, or the love or kidness (sic) of her fellow man, can shove and kick and lie her way ahead of the rest of us in this misbegotten society,” Howley continued. “This unmitigated monster can appear before us, talentless, grating, fraudulently tanned, thrusting in our faces the career trophies she earned simply because we didn’t care enough to stop her from getting them.”

The columnist called Cutter “feminism mutated into grotesque cartoon,” comparing her to”Carrie Bradshaw without the literacy,” “Chelsea Handler without the punch lines” and “Kirsten Powers without the prettiness.”

“She leaves us exhausted in our discomfort,” he continued, and demanded to know why Cutter got the job. He was asking, he said, on behalf of “every cute, shy, intelligent young woman rejected by sororities at the fuchsia nails of clipboard-toting middle managers like Cutter,” as well as “every hardworking man forced to report to vaguely qualified female ‘corporate consultants’ in a post-Anita Hill world.”

Cutter was the deputy campaign manager for Pres. Barack Obama’s winning 2012 re-election campaign. She attended Smith University and graduated from Georgetown University School of Law. She has worked at the Environmental Protection Agency, at the White House during Pres. Bill Clinton’s term of office and for former Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA).

Megyn Kelly Destroys Fox Pundit For Views On Working Moms: ‘What Makes You Dominant And Me Submissive?’

By Rebecca Leber/Think Progress

On her Friday segment, Fox News’ Megyn Kelly tore into conservative commenter Erick Erickson over his comments that it is“natural” for women to stick to raising children while men play the primary breadwinner. Erickson drew fire earlier this week for arguing that women who work are “hurting our children, and it’s going to have impact for generations to come.”

Kelly debunked Erickson’s Red State op-ed, point by point. “I will start with you Erick. What makes you dominant and me submissive and who died and makes you scientist-in-chief?” Comparing Erickson to the people who used pseudo-science to argue against interracial marriage a half-century ago, Kelly asked, “Why are we supposed to take your word for it, Erick Erickson’s science, instead of all these experts?”:

KELLY: In this country in the ’50s and ’60s there were huge numbers of people that believed that the children of interracial marriages were biologically inferior and that is why it was illegal for blacks and whites to marry in some states in the country up until 1967. And they said it was science and fact if you were the child of a black father and white mother or vice versa you were inferior and not set up for success. Tell that to Barack Obama.

Watch it:

In the same segment, Lou Dobbs mocked Kelly’s accusations, responding “oh dominant one.”

Fox News Commentator Says Women Should Stick To Raising Children

By Annie-Rose Strasser/Think Progress

Conservative commentator Erick Erickson earned himself a lot of detractors Wednesday night when, responding to the news that a record number of families rely on women’s income, he argued on Fox News that it was “natural” for men to take the “dominant role” and that women being the primary breadwinner for families is “hurting our children, and it’s going to have impact for generations to come.”

But Erickson stood by his comments on Thursday, first tweeting, “Husbands and wives should play complimentary roles w/ dad as breadwinner,” and then penning a longer piece on the site he edits, Red State, making the case for why women shouldn’t be the primary earner in a household. In it, he said that single mothers currently are able to handle parenting on their own solely because society “will subsidize their doing it all”:

In modern society we are not supposed to say such things about child rearing and families. In modern society we are not supposed to point out that children in a two-parent heterosexual nuclear household have a better chance at long term success in life than others. In modern society, we are supposed to applaud feminists who teach women they can have it all — that there is no gender identifying role and women can fulfill the role of husbands and fathers just as men do.[...]

Feminists and politicians on both sides of the aisle view these statements as insulting to single moms and antithetical to their support for gay marriage.What should be insulting to single moms is for society to tell them they can do it all and, in fact, will subsidize their doing it all. I know a number of wonderful, nurturing single mothers. They do as best they can. Most of them have wonderful children. But not one of them prefers to be a single mother.[...]

Actually, American society is far from subsidizing the lives of single mothers. In fact, compared to other wealthy nations, single mothers fare terribly in America. Twenty five percent of single parents hold low-wage jobs, and there is a huge wealth gap between dual parent and single parent homes. Single parents also suffer from the United States’ lack of paid parental leave, since when they are forced to leave the workforce to raise an infant, they lose their only source of income.

Erickson has a long history of making remarkably sexist, anti-woman remarks. Last year, hereferred to an all-female line up of speakers at the Democratic National Convention as “The Vagina Monologues,” a comment that prompted over 100,000 people to call on CNN — where Erickson is a contributor — to fire him.

NOW Objects To Sexism, Conservative Media Respond With More Sexism

by Mike Burns/Media Matters

Following Rush Limbaugh's misogynistic attacks on Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, the National Organization for Women (NOW) last week announced a new initiative named "Enough Rush," which calls out bullying by Limbaugh. 

In response to NOW's campaign against sexism and other bullying tactics, conservative media have responded with ... more sexism. 

During a segment of Fox News' The Five about NOW's campaign, co-host Greg Gutfeld said that NOW isn't relevant these days, because "women have, you know, all the rights ... they can shop."  

Today, Limbaugh himself piled on with more sexism. Limbaugh, who has often demeaningly referred to NOW as "NAGs," said: "[T]he NAGs are having some meeting in May oriented around getting rid of me. The National Organization for Women, with a big convention oriented -- I mean, the objective is to get rid of me. I looked at it and I said, These poor women. They must be running out of money and members, because that's all this is. Don't worry about it folks, it's just a fundraising drive." 

Limbaugh later added: "The NAGs obviously running low on cash, and I don't know, their membership probably isn't all that hot to trot either, so drag me out." Limbaugh also referred to NOW president Terry O'Neill as "the head NAG."

It should come as no surprise that Gutfeld and Limbaugh responded to NOW's campaign with sexism, given that both have long histories of making sexist comments. Gutfeld has, for instance, said that Janeane Garofalo "is as sensible as she is attractive," and declared himself "a Jon Huntsman supporter" after seeing pictures of Huntsman's daughters. He has even been called out by his own colleague for his "creepy" comment about her appearance. 

And Limbaugh has a decades-long history of sexism. In addition to his misogynistic attacks on Fluke, Limbaugh referred to a 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton as the "White House dog," called NOW "a bunch of whores to liberalism," and said the presidential limo "weighs eight tons without" First Lady Michelle Obama. And the list goes on and on.