If we could go a week without a pundit on either side of the political aisle putting their foot in their mouth, it would be nice. But thanks to MSNBC's Ed Schultz, it doesn't look like this will be the week. The liberal TV and radio host showed the quickest way to LOSE an argument when he took a shot at Fox News fave Laura Ingraham.
Schultz called Ingraham a "right wing slut" on Tuesday. And he used the s-word not once but TWICE. Ye-owch Ed. The first time I was really hoping you meant "right wingnut." Really ... hoping.
But take a listen:
It's pretty clear that he said slut, and he meant slut. Sadly, Ed Schultz was in the middle of talking about an important issue here -- the right winger's rabid focus on President Obama's trip to a Guinness factory rather than the devastating tornado in Missouri -- and he derailed. Because he couldn't control the vitriol, he turned a conversation about a matter of national importance to a playground argument.
Calling someone a slut is, among other things, sexist and rude. It's a way to tear a woman down for simply having a uterus. It's not to be called for. And it's certainly not a way to address your distaste for someone's politics.
But it doesn't matter what he called her, really, does it? It's not which nasty name he used so much as the use of an epithet at all that is the problem here. The better argument would simply have been to say, "Laura Ingraham said this, and she's wrong because of this."
See how easy that it is? It's what we learned to do back in grade school, when our math teachers taught us about proofs. All it takes to prove a point is the truth.
When are pundits -- right and left -- going to realize that the best way to win an argument is when we can get back to the old-fashioned Dragnet "just the facts" style of taking someone down?
Image via YouTube