Dana Loesch embarrasses St. Louisans on AC360 and Parker/Spitzer once more

Dana Loesch went on CNN's Parker/Spitzer and AC360 yet again.

From 10.25.2010's Parker/Spitzer:
Note: they again spelled her last name as "Loesh" instead of "Loesch."

Loesch falsely claims that keeping the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich will somehow reinvigorate the economy, when the opposite is true:

Loesch wants the GOP to follow the Teahadist Agenda, which is proof that the Tea Party = Republicans.

SPITZER: And that's what we're going to be talking about, tonight, Kathleen we'll discuss these issues and so much more. And tonight leading this off, we got Nate Silver, a whiz kid who not only predicts everything when it comes to baseball, but politics too, just an incredibly smart creative mind. It's going to be fun.

PARKER: Well, maybe he can predict what's going to happen with those cuts and the deficit. But we're also -- what does the community -- what do the Tea Party movement and the hip-hop community have in common? I'll bet you thought nothing, but think again, Eliot. You're wrong yet again.

SPITZER: You'll teach me. All right, we'll find out. And then, of course, as with every night, we're going to keep our guests feet to the fire, we're going to make them name their cuts. You can't close the deficit without making tough decisions. We're going to force them to do it. Now it's time for tonight's "Headliner."

You know, Kathleen, she calls herself a conservatarian and the last time we had her on the show, she called me "crazy."

PARKER: Gosh, I wonder where she got that idea. So naturally we thought, let's invite her back. Dana Loesch is a radio host and is the new editor of the conservative blog, BigJournalism.com and she joins us right now from St. Louis.

Welcome back, Dana. Let's say the predictions are true. Fast forward to January, and John Boehner's the speaker. He said this amazing thing not long ago that he would continue the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, but not necessarily for those earning over $250,000 a year. Would the Tea Party go for that?

DANA LOESCH, BIGJOURNALISM.COM: Well, first of all, thanks for having me back. And I'm not too crazy about Boehner's little class division, there. I think it's not necessary. Tax cuts are tax cuts and you have to look to people who are above that line in the sand that he drew. These are people who are providing jobs, these are people who are helping the engine of the economy turn. And sort of by singling these people out in a recession airy period, especially in a recessionary period, I don't think -- I think it does more harm than good. But I'm glad to see at least that he's bringing them up, that someone is bringing them up in D.C.

PARKER: I have to say, that you're not being very Boehner- friendly. I mean, he's going to be the new speaker of the House, it seems like you would be celebrating.

LOESCH: Well, I mean, I'm glad to see if it were to go red as opposed to being blue, I'm excited about that, but just because it's a Republican in there doesn't mean I'm going to be any less tenacious than I already am nipping at these folks' heels to make sure that they fulfill the promises that they've been telling everyone. In fact I'm probably going to be even more harsh on Republicans than I would be Democrats if they assume control in the House.

SPITZER: Dana, that's, I think, what we're waiting to see. Will you be as rigid, ideologically, and I say that with all due respect to doubt what you've done, will you be as rigid in holding John Boehner's feet to the fire or Mitch McConnell, whether or not he is the majority leader in the Senate, as have you been aggressive in attacking Democrats. The moment the Republican Party deviates from the rather clear position you've taken, which is cut those taxes and do not compromise a bit -- we want to know, are you going to be just as aggressive?

LOESCH: Oh, yes, absolutely. In fact, I think that it would be worse for Republicans to break their promises than for Democrats to do what they're doing, right now. I absolutely would. I see no difference and this is why I am not a member of any party nor will I ever be, because I don't believe in party worship, but at the same time, I'm going to be incredibly strict. And I know a lot of other people are going to be on these guys to make sure that, hey look, if we're going to help support your party and help you get in here, because you're the best chance we have of accomplishing our beliefs that are our platform right now, then, yeah, we don't want a bait and switch. Don't say one thing, and court everybody and romance everybody and then get into office, assume power and then after the fact change it up and, no, no, no, we can't have any of that. We won't have any of that.

SPITZER: Dana, you know we are asking every night of our guests, to name their cuts so we can actually kind of put some flesh on the skeleton of how we're going to balance the budget. If your tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts were extended across the board for not only the middle class, but also the wealthy, the calculation, and it may be off by a tiny little bit, but basically over the next decade, we have a deficit of over $11 trillion. So, I want to come back, how are you going to cut that budget to balance out the deficit of $11 trillion?

LOESCH: Tax cuts pay for themselves. This is the money that's -- it's our cash dollars. This is our money. Tax cuts pay for themselves, because when people have their discretionary income, when they have that money, they put it back into the economy. It takes care of itself. But there are cuts that need to be made, but it's not that.

SPITZER: What are the cuts? I mean, you're -- look, everybody on either side of the aisle looks at these numbers, it's $11 trillion or so, give us the cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, which as you know, subsumes the vast majority...

LOESCH: Social Security is already broke.

SPITZER: I'm sorry?

LOESCH: Social Security is already broke. In fact, I just read an article the other day, it was in "Business Insider" that said people who are my age are going to be lucky if they can even get something like 13 percent of their Social Security benefit. The money is not going to be there, it's already broke. It's already been cut by Washington.

SPITZER: Well, that's actually not the case. But what are you going to cut. I mean, give us the cuts.

LOESCH: But it is. SPITZER: I'm just trying to understand.

LOESCH: What would I cut? This is what I would cut, I would cut the stimulus. Let's -- just put the money -- let's stop with the excess spending. Everyone wants to cut every single thing that is enumerated by our Constitution as things our government is allowed to do. But nobody wants to cut anything extra that our government is doing that it doesn't have the constitutional authority to do.

SPITZER: Dana, the stimulus is irrelevant to the $11 trillion we're talking about. Give us in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid..

LOESCH: Oh, no it's not.


LOESCH: No, it's not. The stimulus is not irrelevant. Medicare is already broke. Medicare, in fact, the president, Obama, he was even discussing about how he was going to cut more money out of Medicare.

SPITZER: How would you fix it?

LOESCH: So, that's already been...

SPITZER: No, I want to know how you're going to fix it, then. We have an $11 trillion chasm here and I haven't heard...

LOESCH: Well, if I answer you, does that mean I have your vote?

SPITZER: I'm sorry?

LOESCH: I said, if I answer you, does that mean I have your vote?

SPITZER: If you give me the right answer, absolutely.


LOESCH: No, I would cut out all of this egregious, nonessential spending. Stop with the stimulus. And this is something else that's so goofy to me...

SPITZER: Dana...

LOESCH: No, no, let me answer you. You want me to answer you, I'll answer you. We just passed a bill, $26 billion called the Edu- Jobs bill. This $26 billion went to go pay for stuff that we had already allocated $38 billion out of the stimulus to pay for. Why did we have to pay for the same stuff twice? That's just one example. If you don't think that adds to our deficit. I have a bridge to sell you, it's a fantastic bridge. It's beautiful...

SPITZER: We love bridges here in New York. Explain to me, though, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, which is, as you know, we put these numbers on the screen every night. That's where the money is. That's what we saw went to the banks, you rob the banks because the money's there. What are you going to do to defense? Will you cut defense spending?

LOESCH: Well, defense spending is one of the things that our government is empowered to do. Do I think that money should be spent wisely? Absolutely. Do I think that in a time when we have people coming into our borders, threatening to set their bridges on fire during a flight and all of this, do I think that we should cut out programs that are essential to our national security? No, I don't think so. Medicare and Medicaid, these are already broke programs that have been so completely convoluted and are so corrupt, that's almost a moot point.

SPITZER: So you're...

LOESCH: There are some -- go ahead.

SPITZER: I just want to make sure I'm clear.

LOESCH: Social Security is already broke, it needs to be privatized. Why can't people -- I have a better idea as to how to spend my money more so than the government. That's why there isn't any money there for the baby boomers, because it got out of Al Gore's lockbox.

SPITZER: Can I tell you something? Privatizing Social Security would add trillions of dollars to the deficit because of the way Social Security works. It would add to the deficit.

LOESCH: No, it's not going to add trillions of dollars to the deficit. You give people a choice, you give people a choice. Do you want the government to manage your money or do you -- people will get higher returns if they invest the money themselves as opposed to the government.

SPITZER: Dana, let me make this clear. We can debate whether it's a good or a bad idea in terms of the return to the investor. But that's a separate question from whether or not if you do it, it will increase the federal deficit. Without any question it will increase the federal deficit...

LOESCH: Giving people back their own money isn't going to add to the deficit, when you have again -- this is economics 101 -- when you have your discretionary income, you put that -- what's the first thing that you do when you have extra money? I know what I do, I go out and I'll send it in the economy. I'll save a little bit, and I'll go out and spend it.

SPITZER: Can I give you some advice?

LOESCH: If I need to get a new vehicle, I'll do that.

SPITZER: We should all save more than we're spending. But listen, Dana, I hate to say it...

LOESCH: Well, of course. Why can't Washington do that? SPITZER: You haven't given me a single cut.

LOESCH: Yes, I did. You just didn't like the answer that I gave you. So that doesn't mean that I didn't give you a valid answer. And your disagreement with me does not make my premise any less valid.

PARKER: She said, kill Social Security and Medicare. What do you want?

SPITZER: No, she said, they're already broke, so therefore we're not going to do anything more with them. Dana, that's not an answer. I want to know...

LOESCH: Stimulus, Edu-Jobs. All of the entitlement stuff. All of that. No, we still have $38 billion that were allocated to the states for education. That's why the $26 billion in Edu-Jobs...


SPITZER: When Piers Morgan's on this network, a big "X" will come up saying this answer doesn't fly. I'm sorry, that's not a answer.

LOESCH: It totally does.

PARKER: I just want to ask you about 2012. You noticed, I'm sure, the article that the Washington Post did over the weekend in which they described the Tea Party as being very dispirit and there's no leadership. You're, of course, one of a few different people who speak for the Tea Party. And when I asked people, Tea Party people, who they identified as their leader they said no one, which seems to be a point of pride among Tea Party members. And when they named those who were most often mentioned, were Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and (INAUDIBLE) Senator Jim DeMint.

So my question is, given that all of those people have a national approval rating in the vicinity of 22 percent, does that concern you at all, when we're looking forward to the 2012 election?

LOESCH: No, it doesn't really concern me at all. I -- when I read that article, I was -- that article really I found odd in two respects, the first, the polling that they did, they never released the concrete number of how many people they spoke, to how many different groups they spoke to. And secondly, there was this underlying theme in the article that unless you're a national organization your work doesn't count, it doesn't exist. Two things that I thought were weird.

But, I think one of the reasons that Palin's name and that Beck's name are constantly mentioned, regarding the Tea Party is that they're the people who really speak, the really -- they go out and they talk to people, they speak to people, they speak to the issues that the grassroots movement has at the top of their list right now, and I think that's probably why a lot of people would mention their name. I know Michele Bachmann's name is mentioned a lot, and Paul Ryan's name is mentioned a lot, as well as Marco Rubio. So, I think it's just because that they have these principles that a lot of the people in the grassroots movement have, and I think it just kind of plays off in that respect.

PARKER: Does anybody dome to mind for? I mean, is there someone out there that you have your eye on?

LOESCH: There are several people. I don't do fantasy football, I do fantasy presidential tickets. And I have some people that I -- I some people -- I know it's super early, I don't even like to speculate at this point in the game, nut I do like Michele Bachmann, Lieutenant Colonel Allen West, Charles Lollar who's in Maryland, who's another guy that I really, really like. I like Paul Ryan too, but I don't think that maybe it's time, necessarily in 2012. I think he's still sort of blossoming as it were. But, there's some really good up and comers in the GOP.

PARKER: Dana, thank you so much for being here. You're a good sport. It was a lot of fun having you here.

SPITZER: Coming up next, want to bet on the midterms? We've got one of the country's best sport and political handicappers joining us. We'll be right back.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right now, for reasons we can talk about, the Democratic message of, "they will take something away from you seems to have no resonance whatsoever." The Republican message of, "they will build this authoritarian state" is remarkably powerful, given how remote from reality it is.

SPITZER: James, there's a reason. There's nothing left to take from us. It's already gone...



Loesch said that she'll be harsher on the Repubs. Give me a break! Even if they take back the House and/or Senate, she'll be harsher on the Democrats.

From 10.25.2010's AC360:


COOPER: So unmanly and not a bake-off, get your man pants on. That's Christine O'Donnell talking about her GOP primary opponent, Mike Castle. Now, if you look up the definition of sexism in Merriam Webster's Dictionary there's actually a couple of them.

But one of them is, quote, "Behavior, conditions or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex". Now, you can decide for yourself if labeling a male political opponent unmanly and telling him to put his man pants on is sexist. But it certainly seems to be a double standard.

If someone told Christine O'Donnell to put on a skirt that would certainly be somebody that would raise an outcry understandably. We should point out this is not the first time that Christine O'Donnell has leveled an allegation of some kind of gender discrimination.

She filed a lawsuit in 2005 against her former employer alleging the gendered discrimination and wrongful termination. The suit against -- was actually against a conservative non-profit in Delaware where she had worked. She sued for $6.95 million but ended up dropping the lawsuit.

So is Christine O'Donnell the victim of a double standard, the victim of sexism? You can decide for yourself but without specific examples put forward by her campaign it's an easy charge to make and one that's not so easy to find in the record of this campaign.

Joining us now is Democratic strategist, Paul Begala and Dana Loesch, editor of BigJournalism.com and host on the radio station 97.1 KFTK in St. Louis. Paul, what about this? You say sexism -- sexism is definitely alive and well in politics. Is it alive and well in this particular campaign?

PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: I don't think it is. And -- and you're right. It is alive in politics. Look, I'm a big liberal but Sarah Palin is certainly has been the victim of some sexist caricatures, particularly I mean, you know photo-shopping her face on to a picture of a woman in a bikini. We don't do that to Mike Huckabee.

So -- it is out there, certainly, Hillary Clinton was -- was subjected to a lot of sexism when she ran for president. But I don't see it here. I think -- I think that by her own standards, she, quoting Gloria Steinem saying "If you would say the same thing about a guy". We would.

I mean, come on, if a guy said these kinds of eccentric things about sexuality, about -- about the Constitution, about dabbling in witchcraft, some guy claimed to have briefly dabbled with warlockism or whether it might be. You know, of course we would. So I -- I think, I think she's crying foul here.

COOPER: Dana, what about you, what do you think?

DANA LOESCH, NATIONWIDE TEA PARTY COALITION ORGANIZER: I don't think it's sexism. I don't, I don't -- I think that there are -- as Paul point it out, there are clear-cut cases of sexism. I think, Hillary Clinton, and I think that Sarah Palin, I think that Meg Whitman most recently have all been examples of this.

But I don't think that sexism has played any role in this race. And I -- I -- I have problems with Chris Coons, I have problems with Mike Castle, I have problems with some of the arguments that Karl Rove put out discussing Christine O'Donnell.

But sexism has no place here. This is about people looking at her as someone who is running their campaign as a person who is very new to politics. She's running her campaign like a freshman.

Now, I'm not being mean. I'm saying that she's running -- and it's refreshing, to see someone who is not completely just burdened by Beltway baggage and establishment status quo and all of that.

But at the same time, people are attacking her because of some of the things that she said, because of some of the things that are in her past and it has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman.

COOPER: Do you think Paul, or Dana, do you think that this is a calculated move? Or this is just -- you know, she's just speaking from her heart? This is what she believes? She doesn't give a lot of interviews to national media and this just came up, or do you think this is some sort of calculated thing to garner votes? Frankly.

BEGALA: Go ahead Dana. LOESCH: Well, I think this is -- it's like -- it's some of the things that I've been witnessing lately. And like, with -- with the case of crystal ball, the woman who have the photos up on Facebook.

The first defense that I see some women, not all but some women run to is "sexism." And it's becoming as overused as the term "racism" is becoming overused. Not every single case is sexism. Now, you had Jerry Brown call Meg Whitman and denigrate her for being a female and use a slur, I don't know, if I call it "slur" but use a nasty word against her and then now it turns around a day later and endorses him.

That was the case of him using her sex against her. This is not anyone using her sex.


COOPER: It's not clear whether, just for the record it's not exactly clear whether he said it or somebody behind him said or a campaign aide or maybe --

LOESCH: Right, but it's with his camp. Yes. Yes, but Christine O'Donnell, this isn't sexism.

COOPER: Paul? Go ahead, Paul.

BEGALA: I agree, it's not sexism on the part of Ms. O'Donnell. I don't think it's calculated. I haven't seen much out of her campaign that seems to have been calculated. She's sort of an accidental candidate. And so I don't think that -- and you know, look, we're seven days out. People are going to say -- we're just beginning to get to the really crazy part of the campaign. I can't wait.

I mean, if they'll do it on my side of the aisle they'll do it on the other side of the aisle. When you put people under this much pressure and this much scrutiny, they're going to -- some of them are going to say some things that they, perhaps, later can't back up.

COOPER: Guys, stick around. We want to talk about this debate that just occurred about two hours ago in Kentucky between Rand Paul and Jack Conway. Obviously, the last time they had a debate it was a brutal slugfest. The two guys didn't even up shaking hands afterwards.

We'll show you what happened tonight.

Also why is a Democratic candidate telling President Obama to, and I quote, "Shove it?" We'll find out in a moment. The live chat is up and running at AC360.com. Let us know what you think about Christine O'Donnell and this charge of sexism.

And just ahead also, a new feature on 360 "Dirty Politics." See who's running the dirtiest ad or pulling the dirtiest trick this week.

And later tonight, ever wonder what it's like to be in the eye of a tornado? Well, we'll talk to the guy who is right in the middle of this absolutely riveting footage that he took. He'll tell us what it was like.

We'll be right back.


COOPER: Well, you don't see this too often: A candidate telling the president, a member of his own party, to take something and shove it. Listen to what Frank Caprio, the Democratic nominee for Governor of Rhode Island said about being passed over for an endorsement by President Obama?


FRANK CAPRIO (D), RHODE ISLAND GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I've never asked President Obama for his endorsement. And what's going on here is really Washington insider politics at its worst. You have two former senators, Senator Chafee and former Senator Obama, who, you know, have behind the scenes, tried to put together an endorsement. He can take his endorsement and really shove it as far as I'm concerned.


COOPER: So the Senator Chafee he is referring is Lincoln Chafee, independent candidate for governor. Back in 2008, Chafee who is a former Republican endorsed then candidate, Barack Obama. So the White House says out of respect for that relationship the president is withholding an endorsement in the race.

Let's bring back in Paul Begala and Dana Loesch. Paul, are you surprised that a sitting Democratic president would opt not to endorse a viable Democratic nominee in a heavily Democratic state like Rhode Island?

BEGALA: I wish I had my thesaurus -- surprise doesn't begin to explain it. It's unimaginable to me. The notion that the leader of the party is being disloyal to his party is I think its own precedent. I can't think of a time -- and he went to the state today. That's the thing too. You go to Rhode Island -- it's the most Democratic state in the union.

The Democratic Governor's Association has spent $1.5 million trying to elect Mr. Caprio there. And the president has just completely undercut them. Keep in mind, in a three-way race with Linc Chafee, who is a moderate to liberal former Republican, the key vote here unlike anywhere else, the swing vote here, is the liberal vote.

So liberals are the most prized voters in this three-way race in this very liberal state. And so Barack Obama, still beloved by liberals, he might have cost the Democrats this seat. He might have cost the Democrats the governorship in Rhode Island. And he's -- I think is still a Democrat, Obama -- Mr. Obama is -- it's unbelievable.

COOPER: Dana, do you think it was a calculated move though, for the candidate to say -- to "shove it" on the radio?

LOESCH: That's I -- I -- I do and I don't. I'm not quite sure. I -- I haven't obsessed over this race like I have others but everything that I know of Frank Caprio he's always been -- pretty well-represented. He's always presented his -- his viewpoints pretty articulately and he's never really just sort of tossed statements out off of the cuff like this which makes me think that this is calculated but then, why is it calculated? Why would he say something like this?

Is he worried? Is the gap closing between him and his opponent? Is he trying to make himself look more attractive to those independents and moderates out there? It raises a lot of questions. And then you have to think, well, if this was calculated is the president in on it, like in Missouri.


LOESCH: Robin Carnahan has totally run from Barack Obama; when he's in the states, she goes to the opposite end of the states. It's kind of chronicle, so I don't know if that is the same situation as with Missouri and Robin Carnahan or if he's just genuinely --


COOPER: Right.

LOESCH: -- just that upset and he was calculated in saying so.

COOPER: Paul, what are -- what are you hearing.

BEGALA: I checked with some Rhode Island Democrats Dana, and -- and they did say that they think, perhaps, Frank Caprio overreacted to this on purpose for -- for effect and to get some attention that, perhaps he is --


COOPER: It certainly got a lot of attention.

BEGALA: It did. It's not the language I would recommend. But he is a -- a -- by all accounts from Democrats, perfectly qualified. This is not, say this guy Alvin Green. Ok, the Democratic nominee for Senate in South Carolina, every Democrat has disavowed him.


BEGALA: Well, they have. He's -- he's not a serious or -- or qualified person to be in the United States Senate and I understand if President Obama doesn't want to support him. I agree with that. But this -- this -- Mr. Caprio, for Democrats, perfectly attractive candidate --


BEGALA: -- it's very odd to me.

COOPER: I don't know if you all saw any of the debate tonight in Kentucky between Rand Paul and Jack Conway.


COOPER: Obviously, the last time the debate was -- it was probably one of the nastier debates certainly I've -- I've ever seen Rand Paul refused at the end to even shake Conway's hand. I just want to show the little clip from this time because I've got to tell you, it was not heated at all. It seemed purposely, designed to be as dull as possible even though they were sitting right next to each other.

I guess one of the most heated moments came when Rand Paul was asked about statements he made to Rachel Maddow and others about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His opponent tried to pin -- pin him on it and then Rand Paul fired back. Let's play the clip.


JACK CONWAY (D), SENATORIAL CANDIDATE, KENTUCKY: I watched on MSNBC, 20 of the most painful and embarrassing moments I've ever seen on national cable TV as my opponent questioned fundamental provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His words were had he been -- had he been in the Senate then he would have been seeking to modify the lunch counter provision.

RAND PAUL (R), SENATORIAL CANDIDATE, KENTUCKY: I never said that I believe in anything remotely regarding segregated lunch counters. I never said I was for repealing the Civil Rights Act which is what Jack said over and over again on Chris Matthews show (Hardball). And then, Chris Matthews came back on the next day and said Jack Conway was lying. And it was false is what he was saying and he ginned up a lot of interest on this. So he had some success but he was being dishonest.


COOPER: Dr. Paul there is basically taking issue with his opponent's spin on a different MSNBC show -- MSNBC show which is not only the crux of his comments I guess to Rachel Maddow. I just want to roll that clip with the original comment.


PAUL: There's ten different titles you know to the Civil Rights Act and nine out of ten deal with public institutions and I'm absolutely in favor of -- one deals with private institutions and had I been around, I would have tried to modify that.


COOPER: It seems like Paul, for -- I mean, at this point in the race, you know, people have heard that plenty of times and have probably made up their minds about it. Why bring it up in the debate again?

BEGALA: Well, you're right. They've heard it. I'd say, I think that's where the moderator should have thrown the flag, blown the whistle or kept them honest, as you do, instead of just letting each one say "Well, you're a liar." No, you're a liar.

I watched the debate and it was both boring and unedifying. But Dr. Paul does have -- he did at least have this view that the government -- the federal government is powerless to stop private actors, lunch counters is the classic example from discriminating on the basis of race. That's an eccentric position but it is one that's held by libertarians like Dr. Paul.

And -- and I don't think the moderator should have let him get away with --


BEGALA: -- walking away from that.

COOPER: Dana, at this point do you think it matters?

LOESCH: I don't it matters. I think people heard it enough. I think that it was framed a certain way and I thought it was weird the way that it was allowed to kind of go on in this debate which I also found at the same time, boring but then I kept waiting for them to get amped up and reach behind their chairs and grab pillows and start girl-fighting because it was just getting right to that line.

BEGALA: That's sexist, Dana.

LOESCH: But -- well, no. Because they what are you saying? Boys don't use pillows when they fight, too? I'm kidding --

COOPER: I saw Rand Paul reaching for something at one point but I think it was just a glass of water.

LOESCH: His pillow.


LOESCH: Well, but that was a really weird moment. There were a couple of really odd moments where they spent the entire portion of that time going back and forth, yes, I did. No, I didn't. Yes, I did. No, I didn't.


LOESCH: So, I don't know if we got anything new from this debate.

COOPER: Yes. Yes. I don't think we did.

Dana Loesch, I appreciate you being on.

Paul Begala, as well, thanks.

Coming up: on a week until Election Day, tonight on PARKER SPITZER: their guest was Nate Silver, who predicted the outcome of the '08 election with almost perfect accuracy.


KATHLEEN PARKER, CO-HOST, PARKER SPITZER: Is there anything candidates do at this point, or is it sewn up, do you think?

NATE SILVER, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT.COM: Really, first of all, a lot of people have already voted, right, because you can early-vote now in a majority of states. And, second of all, you know, most people have made up their minds.

And so, really, you're dealing with a universe of 5 percent of the electorate is really undecided. If you sweep those voters, it's still not enough if you're down by more than five points, which plenty of candidates are.

ELIOT SPITZER, CO-HOST, PARKER SPITZER: And, you know, that -- that is the interesting point. I was in this game for some period of time. And it used be that, going into the last week or two weeks, there was still a significant bloc of undecided voters.

SILVER: Right.

SPITZER: And you could make a play and make your last closing argument to them.

It seems as -- as though there is -- is greater polarization and there are very few less undecided voters still left to capture.


COOPER: That was Parker/Spitzer. You can see it every weeknight 8:00 p.m. Eastern time.

Up next: money and politics. You heard everyone from the president on down railing against secret money funding Republican campaigns. The question is, are Democrats guilty of doing the same thing? Well, the answer probably is yes. We're "Keeping Them Honest," both sides.

And later: my interview with Sean Penn about the totally preventable tragedy now unfolding in Haiti, the cholera outbreak. What about all that money pledged to help rebuild the country? Why has so little of it actually been delivered?

Plus, this:


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are in a tornado. We are in the tornado, in the tornado.


COOPER: We are going to talk to the guy who shot these images, find out what it's like to be in the middle of a tornado and get out alive.


== Same old, same old for Dana Loesch: more lies spewed on National TV.

Here was Monica sending a letter calling her out on her lie about Abortion.
Background: So I was flipping around the radio on Friday on my way home from work, and I happened upon The Dana Show on 97.1. She was telling this absolutely horrendous story out of China about an 8 month pregnant woman violently beat by Chinese police and then forced to have an abortion. As Loesch was railing against the Chinese officials, I actually thought I might agree with her about something. But then, alas, the crazy came out. It went from Chinese officials assaulting a women and forcing her to have an abortion is evil to American feminists and pro-choice individuals want this to happen in America. Sigh. Then, excitement! We are discussing rhetorical and logical fallacies in my comp class, and Ms. Loesch just gave me about 5 different real world examples for my class. Woo-hoo! So, nice person that I am, I decided to email Ms. Loesch and let her know that she may have, unwittingly of course, used several different rhetorical and logical fallacies during the course of her argument. I even attached the handout I give to my class so that she won't continue to repeat these errors, which as all my students know, weaken rather than strengthen an argument. And in my email, I modeled for her what "fair and balanced" actually means. Email below. Enjoy!



I just wanted to thank you. I teach composition, and you give me so many great examples of logical fallacies for my class.

I would like to point out that saying that the Chinese government violently assaulting and forcing a woman to have an abortion is the same as being feminist and/or being pro-choice is an example of a false analogy, a non sequitur, and a scare tactic all in one. Wow! Thanks for the great example!

It has actually been feminist scholars and activists who have fought against the forced and coerced sterilization and abortion of women of color and poor women (and any woman at all for that matter). There have been several conservative groups discovered coercing poor women and women of color to be sterilized or have abortions. I have never heard a feminist or a person who is pro-choice say that a woman should be forced to have an abortion (possibly with the exception of Margaret Sanger, who was unfortunately a member of the eugenics movement in this country, a fact that most feminists are willing to acknowledge and criticize).

The argument that being feminist or pro-choice means you want to violently force women to have abortions is just a logically fallacious statement. The opposite in fact is true. Feminists believe that women should have the right to make their own choices about when and how to have children, whether that means choosing to have an abortion or choosing to have a baby, or even choosing to work or choosing to be a stay-at-home mom.

I'm not surprised you didn't take my call; I have never once heard you take a call with a viewpoint that significantly opposes any of your own, though in all fairness, I have not listened very often. As I tell my students, you can have any opinion you want, but when you engage in an argument, you need to be "fair and balanced," support your claims with sound evidence in a logical way, and keep an open mind. I would give the same advice to you. Mischaracterizing your opponent's argument or trying to scare your audience is at best lazy argumentation and at worst overt manipulation. I have attached a handout on rhetorical fallacies in the hope that in the future you will avoid faulty arguments and be a more effective speaker/writer, not because I agree with you, but because no dialog or open exchange of ideas can occur otherwise.

Thank you for your time,


1 comment :

  1. Get all the best spirits and wines on Duty Free Depot!

    All the world famous brand name drinks for unbelievable discounted prices.


Tweets by @JGibsonDem Tweets by @JPCTumblr