≡ Menu

Ridiculous Defenses of Samantha Bee From Fellow Liberals

There was an outcry from the Left over Roseanne Barr’s patently offensive and racially tinged comment about Valerie Jarrett. Predictably, instead of applying the same standard for patently offensive speech to Samantha Bee as was invoked against Roseanne, liberals have doubled down in their pathetic defense of Samantha Bee.

After her half-hearted apology in the wake of her calling Ivanka Trump a “feckless c t”, Samantha Bee’s Progressive Praetorian Guard leaped to her defense.

Wasn’t it clear to all reasonable people that Bee’s comments were beyond the pale? Not so. Ivanka deserved the harsh and profane criticism because of her tacit agreement of her father’s immigration policies. In one of the most vile defenses of Bee’s conduct to date, Katy Waldman , whitening in The New Yorker, offers this justification,

” It is her complicity in her father’s agenda, most recently in policies that actively traumatize immigrant parents and children, that is obscene—far more than any four-letter word. It profanes and pulverizes any claim she might have on representing the interests of mothers and children. “Cunt” makes of womanhood something repugnant, and so does Ivanka, who embraces the shine and the softness of femininity at the same time that she rejects its bravery, love, and power.”

Another feminist supporter, Christine Estima mistaking her prolific profanity for exposition, had this to say about the furor ,

“Should it be used as an insult to tear down another woman? If that woman is complicit in the subjugation and oppression of women and then goes on television to admit that she doesn’t know what “complicit” means, then yeah, have at it. We cool, Sam Bee. We cool.”

These pathetic justifications and abrogation of the very same standards they apply with rigor to conservatives and Trump supporters is one of the reasons why, as Andrew Klavan correctly notes Donald Trump is president.

The hypocrisy on display her is simply too galling to go unnoticed.