Fox Foxed

Thanks to Joey the Accordion Guy, those of us who don’t watch Faux News can enjoy the fun when one of their less-adept anchors tangles with a person of education, wit, and a sense of historical context. There’s video there, too.

In this case, that person would be Judy Quinn, contributing editor of Vanity Fair. She proceeds to take the air out of a hapless Faux News anchor in such a way that the anchor barely feels the needle slipping in and deflating her head. Can you spot it? I did!

Here’s the transcript:

Fox News: We were noticing all the snow in Washington, boy it’s really coming down! I hope that doesn’t put a crimp in anybody’s plans. Look at that gorgeous shot of the White House…

Judy: Well I, I have a feeling that maybe it should put a crimp, or at least something should put a crimp in the plans of the White House to have such a very lavish inaugural at a time of war.

Fox News: Really?

Judy: Yes. What I’ve noticed is the worse a war is going, the more lavish the inaugural festivities. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt was President, during a time of war, of course as you know*, he had a very modest inauguration and a very tiny party where he served chicken salad, or where chicken salad was served. And that was when we were winning a war.

Fox News: Right, but, well, no, I, look, I mean, the President has, has addressed this, hasn’t he, he said that this is a, I believe the quote was that we’re celebrating, we’re celebrating democracy, we’re celebrating a peaceful transfer of democracy. What’s wrong with doing that?

Judy: Have you noticed any peace or any transfer of democracy in Iraq? If you have, you’re the first person to have seen it.

Fox News: Well, I’ve noticed the elections coming up, and, to be honest…

Judy: They don’t seem very peaceful.

Fox News: ….I didn’t want to argue politics with you this morning.

Judy: Oh really? I thought I was allowed to talk about what I wanted to talk about.

Fox News: You certainly, you certainly have that right. Let me ask, let me ask you this: what, I mean, what — what should they have cut back on? I mean we…

Judy: How about $40 million.

Fox News: All right, well…

Judy: May I say something? May I say something?

Fox News: Sure.

Judy: We have soldiers who are incapable of protecting themselves in their Humvees in Iraq. They have to use bits of scrap metal in order to make their Humvees secure. Their Humvees are sitting ducks for bombs. And we have a president who’s using $40 million to have a party.

Fox News: What would you suggest for the inauguration? How would you do it?

Judy: How about a modest party? Just like FDR. I’m sure you’ll agree he was a pretty good President with a fine sense of what’s appropriate and what’s not. And during a time of war, 10 parties are not appropriate when your own soldiers are sitting ducks in very, very bad vehicles.

Fox News: Well, don’t you think that the President has, has given his proper respect to our troops? I mean yesterday, as far as I can tell, the festivities opened with a military gala, they ended with a prayer service. There does seem to have certainly been a tremendous effort over the past couple of days and more than that to honor our troops!

Judy: Well, gee, that prayer should sure keep them safe and warm in their flimsy vehicles in Iraq. I’d rather see that money going to them, rather than to a guy who already is President, for the second time.

Fox News: All right, well, Judy Bachrach, I think we’ve given you more than your time to give us your point of view this morning.

Judy: Thanks for having me on.

And thank you, Joey, for passing along that very enjoyable exchange. It was all so good, I had to quote the whole thing.

I can’t fail to note that when the Fox anchor was completely unable to engage Judy Bachrach on the facts, on the issues, or on the history of Presidential inaugural celebrations, she fell back on an old Fox/GOP standby, the snotty remark. This is most often seen when someone bravely takes the opportunity to exercise their right of free speech in a public arena, and a Party flack or an “objective” Faux News hack can only snark in reply.

After gabbling a bit doing the verbal equivalent of shuffling through the pages of a script in a fruitless attempt to get back “on message,” that is. At this point, note the random buzzwords and buzzphrases produced by said hack. Poor thing, she didn’t come off well, did she?

* Oooh!! PSSSSSSSSST!!!