Dana Loesch Hypocritically Doubles Down on Her Own Stupidity
Loesch needs a time out.
Dana Loesch thinks that Donald Trump has made some cruel remarks and owes some apologies.
Even Trump supporters will concede that some of their candidate's many words during the presidential campaign should have been left unsaid.
Loesch should have focused on the merits and eschewed personal attacks.
She didn't...and ended up looking like the south end of a north-bound horse.
For example, Loesch objected to Trump's reference to Carly Fiorina's appearance.
So what did Loesch do when Trump supporter Kayleigh McEnany challenged the conservatism of professed conservatives who have not rallied behind presumptive Republican presidential nominee Trump?
Loesch launched into a diatribe that must have disgusted Trump as well as McEnany and disappointed principled conservatives who think that two wrongs don't make a right, common decency should be practiced by all and the answer to "progressive" hypocrisy is not "conservative" hypocrisy.
"Who the hell is this chick?" Loesch asked on her radio show, dismissing McEnany as unworthy to have an opinion.
That was a bad way to try to make a point, but nothing compared to what Loesch proceeded to say as she tried to buttress her case on the merits with a personal attack on McEnany's smile, chest size and hair color.
Purporting to address McEnany, Loesch proclaimed:
"Babycakes, this [election is] more than going on television and flashing them pearly whites and your flat-chested, red-dressed, over-sprayed bleach blonde hair, while you sit here and you preach all this stuff about who is and isnít a conservative."
In law school, students are advised to pound the law if it favorable, pound the facts if they are favorable and pound the table if both the law and the facts are unfavorable.
Loesch should have said nothing about McEnany's appearance.
McEnany's chest size and hair color choice obviously are not relevant to the issue of what a conservative should do now that Trump is the presumptive Republican presidential candidate.
Loesch hsd said that she had checked out McEnany, but her checking left as much to be desired as her foolish diatribe.
Then it got worse for Loesch.
Upon learning that McEnany had mastectomies as a result of a genetic predisposition to develop cancer, did Loesch take the opportunity to salvage something from her ill-considered attack by demonstrating to Trump how to make a sincere apology for unfortunate chosen words?
Instead, Loesch insisted that she had done nothing wrong and attacked her critics.
Loesch blogged that she did not cross a line, and her critics should feel "shameÖ for such a ridiculous deflection."
"This election cycle the most fervent Trump supporters have excused, defended, even cheered a candidate that has mocked a disabled reporter, the appearance of cancer-survivor Carly Fiorina (sadly, this gene also runs in my family which has been ravaged by cancer), and women in general.
"In fact, this most fervent groupís behavior is the epitome of Social Justice Warrior Political Correctness. I pointed this out in my monologue (also here and here) regarding a Trump surrogate who had the audacity to play bouncer of the conservative movement by personally attacking and smearing conservatives I know and claiming that you canít be a true conservative unless you whole-heartedly support Donald Trump. Her statement was asinine and my observation, delivered in the stated style of Donald Trump, was absolutely valid. That I chose this rhetorical device (I even predicted the outrage and literally mocked it mid-monologue in the video) served the purpose of highlighting the hypocrisy of these most fervent supporters, and they didnít disappoint with their hypocritical reaction."
Loesch did disappoint.
Loesch needs a time out.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
It was Loesch who had "the audacity to play bouncer of the conservative movement by personally attacking and smearing" McEnany.
Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.
Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.
The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.
Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.