Estrich Marks

Via James Capozzola, we read Susan Estrich's pathetic defense of the other Roger Ailes.

Oh, if only I had so much cash to engender such loyalty in my employees.

The piece is actually a defense of the work of Neal Cavuto and Brian Wilson. Estrich has a fairly easy time defending Roger's boys, since logical consistency is a concept alien to Estrich.

Follow along, if you will.

Estrich claims that Neil Cavuto was unfairly bashed for failing to challenge the Republican Party's leader:

So Cavuto didn't use the opportunity either to beat up on the president or to let him say something we'd heard a hundred times. Instead, he asked him questions he didn't know the answer to, where he might get an answer he hadn't already heard.

For this, he's been summarily beaten up by the press corps - the same one that still can't figure out why it got it all wrong about those weapons of mass destruction that justified the war.

On the other hand, Estrich claims that Brian Wilson was unfairly criticized for challenging a Democratic Party leader:

This is precisely what congressional leaders and Dean agreed Dean wouldn't do when he became party chair. He was supposed to leave the message to them. Because Dean hadn't done so and had been criticized for it by two possible presidential candidates - neither of whom is even a conservative - Sen. Harry Reid was trying to put a perennial good face on a bad situation, while Brian Wilson was trying to puncture it.

And that's what the press is supposed to do.

It all makes perfect sense. The press is supposed to challenge a pol who gives a canned answer, unless the pol is a Republican.

No wonder Roger likes to keep Estrich around.