That's Stephanie Cutter debating Senator Rand Paul over diplomacy in Syria on CNN's relaunch of Crossfire. I'm sure Tucker Carlson is watching Crossfire carefully, given that he got his first real break in national news on that show, opposite Anderson Cooper in the late 90s. And I'm equally sure that he green-lighted this absolutely over-the-top hack piece from one of his so-called investigative reporters about Stephanie Cutter, thinly disguised as a review of the new Crossfire show and format.
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. 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.
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 of her fellow man, can shove and kick and lie her way ahead of the rest of us in this misbegotten society. 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.
Who is responsible for this speed-talking tragedy? Who, among us, will stand in the public square and admit “I helped cause Stephanie Cutter.” Will anyone? Should we all?
[...]
Why? On behalf of every cute, shy, intelligent young woman rejected by sororities at the fuchsia nails of clipboard-toting middle managers like Cutter, we ask, ‘why?’ On behalf of every hardworking man forced to report to vaguely qualified female “corporate consultants” in a post-Anita Hill world, we ask, ‘why?’
Note the subtext. Pushy broad who rose to the top instead of worthier men, never on her own merits.
It's almost -- almost, but not quite -- bad enough to make the reader hope it's sarcasm. But it's not. It's sexist drivel disguised as a review.
It's not the first time Cutter has been attacked for daring to be female, either. Remember when they went after her last year after the Benghazi tragedy for daring to say what we all knew? Cutter was straight up and said they were playing the tragedy for political gain, specifically for Mitt Romney's political gain. That drove the wingers crazy then.
What is it about Stephanie Cutter that evokes such teeth-gnashing and downright personal attacks? Perhaps it's that she's great at what she does? Whether one likes her or not, she is a strong, forceful speaker who puts all of her conviction behind what she says. It doesn't hurt that she's female, either.
Unless you're Tucker Carlson, and you're still bitter that CNN fired you because you were a ratings-killing, bow-tied douchebag. In that case, picking on the blonde chick is totally fine.
Postscript: I'm amazed Cutter's critic didn't say she ate Evil Flakes for breakfast. Or compare her to Pol Pot. Because wingers seem to love hyperbolic comparisons when it comes to attacking women bringing messages they don't like. After all, if Evil Flakes are good enough for me, they ought to be good for Stephanie Cutter, too.
