Karoli at Momocrats, though seemingly doubting the value of responding to someone as intellectually dishonest as Loesch, nevertheless decided that the piece was too absurd to leave unchallenged:
I debated about whether to take on the latest turd Dana Loesch dropped on SFExaminer.com in the form of an op-ed column or ignore her. Other than being the latest Ann Coulter wannabe, she hasn't said much original for the past year or so. (Yes, I snark. It serves as a reminder not to take her too seriously.)After this blistering intro, Karoli proceeded to perform a point-by-point takedown of nearly every disingenuous paragraph of Loesch's post. She took down Loesch's false claims about Avastin. She took down Loesch's conspiracy theory about Allee Bautsch. She took down Loesch's ridiculous suggestion that "librul" policies are responsible for the current unemployment levels. She rightly mocked Loesch's childish claims about the education system. She questioned Loesch's fact-free assertion that males are "being suppressed." And she noted Loesch's complete head-in-the-sand approach to the fact that women make 78% of what men make for similar jobs. In other words, she destroyed each and every substantive point in Loesch's article. Read the whole article. Trust me; it's worth it.
The Sarah Palins, Michele Bachmanns, and other members of the "feminist right" can always be counted on to echo the newest Luntz talking points through the echo chamber. Now that Betsy McCaughey, Pamela Geller and Dr. Laura have been thoroughly discredited, they just pick up some other woman looking for her five minutes of fame and hackery. Dana is the newest candidate. Not the first and she won't be the last.
Do conservative women -- especially intelligent ones (yes, they do exist) -- ever wonder why the party faithful finds the dumbest, most extreme groupies to deliver their message? Republican cynicism at its best -- pay lip service to women's equality but find the ones dumber than a rock to deliver it. Bachmann, Foxx, Palin, Angle....need I say more?
And what, pray tell, was Loesch's response? She completely avoided all substance and tried to brush off the entire post by saying that those mean "liberal-chicks" were "name-calling:"
The implication from Loesch, of course, is that all the post does is "name call" and so doesn't substantively address her points. But in fact, addressing all of her points is precisely what Karoli did, despite her own stated misgivings about wasting time on such nonsensical tripe. And it was Loesch who was completely scared sh*tless by the prospect of having a conversation about the actual issues being discussed.
And lest you think that Loesch was in fact responding to some other post that really did just do name-calling, it's pretty obvious that's not the case. You can see Loesch responding with the "waaaaah, name-calling" claim right after PunditMom tweeted Karoli's article:
And, of course, she didn't stop there:
As she always does when discussing feminism, Loesch makes sure to bring in some physical references about how the people she's arguing agaisnst are somehow lacking in some "femininity" or some physical characteristic. For example, when I tuned in to her radio show after the Emily's List mama grizzly video came out, she made sure to repeatedly make claims that the membership of Emily's List has "hair lips." For some reason, Loesch can't seem to talk about women's issues without bringing it back to physical appearance, which some might say is also a way in which women are kept down.