Greta Van Susteren Slams Fellow Fox Anchor

    January 30, 2014
    Brian Powell
    Comments are off for this post.

With today’s 24/7 news media, Americans have become used to the constant bickering between networks. Those at Fox News hate MSNBC and CNN, and vice versa. The fighting is almost always directed at someone from another network or other political persuasion. However, the tide turned yesterday as Fox News anchor Greta Van Susteren railed against fellow Fox News contributor Erick Erickson.

So what could have possibly upset Susteren so much that she forwent network ties and lambasted her fellow coworker? The culprit was none other than the ubiquitous Twitter. Recently, Erickson has made it his life’s mission to make as many sexist remarks against Wendy Davis as possible. (To refresh one’s memory, Davis is the Senator who completed the 11 hour filibuster against an anti-abortion bill in Texas.) Here are some examples of Erickson’s commentary toward Davis:

To respond to Erickson’s remarks, Susteren went to the interwebs and published a a scathing blog entitled, “What is wrong with this guy? He is such a jerk! He is a repeat offender!” Susteren starts her discussion by stating that there is a utility to constructive debates in which one hopes to persuade others to adopt a particular viewpoint. For Susteren, Erickson does not fall into that category:

“And then there are the creeps who take cheap shots because they are too ignorant and small to engage in an important discussion. The best they can do is make themselves look really bad. No one should pay any attention to them – they are not persuasive, they are noise, and in some instances boorish and obnoxious.”

Hopefully, one appreciates the irony present in this situation. Erickson tweets ridiculous comments in hopes of getting national attention (as evidenced by his own post on RedState.com), and Susteren fulfills his wishes by drawing huge amounts of attention to the situation. However, in doing so, she preaches the fact that one should not give this guy any attention because there is no substance to his argument.

While I would agree with Susteren that the best way to eliminate erroneous opinions and idiotic commentary is to ignore it, there is one more level of irony in this article – the fact that I am writing on it myself.

Susteren’s stance against Erickson has more weight than simply being incensed by some inane Twitter remarks, though. Erickson has a history of making sexist comments. Perhaps his most grievous remarks came last year when discussing a recent Pew survey which showcased the fact that 40% of households were receiving the majority of their money from women and not men. Apparently, this fact was unacceptable to Erickson:

“I’m so used to liberals telling conservatives that they’re anti-science. But liberals who defend this and say it is not a bad thing are very anti-science. When you look at biology — when you look at the natural world — the roles of a male and a female in society and in other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it’s not antithesis, or it’s not competing, it’s a complementary role.”

This diatribe was so offensive that it forced another female Fox News anchor, Megyn Kelly, to sound-off against Erickson as well, stating “I was offended by the piece nonetheless. I don’t like what you wrote one bit. I think you are judging people. You sound like somebody who is judging but wants to come out and said ‘I’m not, I’m not, I’m not but let me judge, judge, judge. And by the way, it’s science and facts, facts, facts.’ But this is a list of studies saying your science is wrong and your facts are wrong.”

Fortunately, we all know the solution to the problem of Erick Erickson. Simply do the opposite of what I am doing in writing this article and do not give Erickson the attention he wants, needs, and craves.

Image via Facebook

  • Crazy Greta

    Greta is crazy.

    What the guy said about abortion Barbie is true. Here is what this article didn't tell you. Wendy Davis was a single mom whose family owned a dinner theater. She was only a single mom for a very short time. She quickly married a local rich man. Her new husband then paid for her education at TCU and then Harvard Law School. Harvard alone is 80,000 per year and TCU is not cheap either. Her husband cashed in his 401k to do this. Abortion Barbie, then promptly cheated on her husband and divorced him.

    So lets be fully truthful about what is behind the tweet. Abortion Barbie is a fraud and her life story is not nearly as bad as she made it out to be. In fact, she lied.

    • Crazy Greta

      Her is just one article about Davis and her lies. Notice that the last payment her sugar daddy husband made was the day that Davis left him. She is nothing more than a lying gold digger. But what do you think a woman is like who stand up for 11 hours talking about killing babies. The article quotes ABC News, Dallas Morning News, and other sources.


  • Wendy Davis is a Liar

    Andrew Stiles writes at National Review Online:

    "In the ABC interview with Zeleny, Davis repeated a false claim she made under oath in 2012, and has made on numerous occasions since: that she was 19 years old when she divorced her first husband. She was actually 21. Other fabrications uncovered by Wayne Slater of the Dallas Morning News include the fact that Davis’s second husband, Jeff Davis, helped pay for her tuition at Texas Christian University and Harvard Law School, in part by cashing in his 401(k) and taking out a loan. Davis’s website states that she financed her education “with the help of academic scholarships and student loans.” Jeff Davis told Slater that the relationship ended almost immediately after he made the final payment on the Harvard Law School loan. “It was ironic,” he said. “I made the last payment, and it was the next day she left.”

  • Sal

    She really is a liar. I read the articles listed above and went to the Dallas Morning news site. I also looked up TCU and Harvard tuition. TCU costs 50,000 a year and Harvard 80,000 a year —- on the low ends. So, at the very least she took that man for 400,000. But like the person above said, what do you expect from a woman who thinks killing babies is ok.

  • Will

    good job Brian Powell. Good article. Fair assessment and both sides presented. Well done.

    • @Will

      He presented both sides?

      He made no mention of why Erickson made his statements. In fact, he said Erickson's comments were baseless. When the facts are she married a man, used his money for an education, cheated on him, then divorced him after she got her education.

      Those are facts. Not opinions.

  • Abortion Barbie

    She got caught lying. She does that often. She tells half truths. I don't know how anyone can determine that she didn't lie. She even lied about when she was divorced the first time. It is literally in black and white.

  • Tami

    How can anyone defend Wendy Davis? She lied. Literally. There is not disputing it. This isn't the first time. Remember when she went after the parapalegic?

    But what do you expect from a feminist who is so crazy that she doesn't realize her abortion rants are killing little girls?