Dana Loesch on Parker/Spitzer and AC360 yet again

The highly insane Dana Loesch, fresh off a Real Time with Bill Maher appearance that happened to draw a lot of controversy, appears on CNN's Parker/Spitzer to spew more falsehoods on Health Care Reform.

From the 10.19.2010 edition of Parker/Spitzer:

Transcript of Loesch's segment of the show:

SPITZER: You know, trust me, I'm a coffee guy. The day you see me drinking green tea and granola, get me out of here. Not going to happen.

Now it's time to go into "The Arena," tonight we're talking with the smartest Tea Party spokesperson out there, St. Louis radio talk show host, Dana Loesch.

PARKER: Dana, thanks for joining us. We're two weeks from the election. What's your prediction and how well does the Tea Party do -- will they do, rather?

DANA LOESCH, TEA PARTY SUPPORTER: Oh, goodness. I think that we are going to do better than the media perhaps would have given us credit for, but really -- the House, I think it looks good for conservatives, for the House of Representatives. For the Senate, that's sort of the nail biter to me because we have a lot races that are incredibly close and that's sort of the one -- that's the chamber I'm most concerned about. But, I think at best, if anything, we would get gridlock. SPITZER: Dana, let's put the Senate aside. I don't think anybody can predict which way that's going. Let's presume for a moment that you and I'm glad you said we and I can say you -- you take the House. John Boehner is the speaker of the House. What's the first thing you're going to do? Are you going to try to repeal what you call Obamacare, what we call health care reform?

LOESCH: Well, I call it health control. I just like health control better. I don't really say Obamacare too much, because I don't think it was entirely Obama's idea. I think it was the congressional Democrats. But I would expect Boehner to definitely either defund or repeal the health control law. And it's interesting...


SPITZER: In its entirety or are there certain pieces? I mean, there are some things that I think every sane person likes which is, you know, pre-existing conditions won't prevent you from getting insurance anymore. I mean, that's a good thing, right? That's in the law. You're not going to repeal that, I hope.

LOESCH: Well, there's -- we just need to redo it entirely, because this is the thing. A lot of people were talking about the commerce clause and commerce -- the individual mandate, the penalties, that is completely unconstitutional. That's not one of the enumerated powers of the Constitution. I would like to see the commerce clause properly applied to lift restrictions on insurance companies being able to sell interstate policies.

SPITZER: I don't mean to be snarky about this, but we heard Christine O'Donnell today in, you know, your Senate candidate from Delaware saying separation of church and state was not in the Constitution, either. So, maybe the Tea Party's working off a different Constitution. We'll wait and see.

LOESCH: It's not. No, it's not. That phrase isn't in the Constitution at all. That phrase is not in the Constitution

SPITZER: Well, let me ask one more question. Do you want to repeal the provision that permits people with pre-existing conditions to get health insurance?

LOESCH: Do I want to repeal pre-existing conditions? Well, I think you have to look at health insurance, too, in this way, it's a policy against catastrophic situations. It's like, you don't go out and get homeowners insurance after your house is already on fire. So, you have to look at it in a proper perspective. But I do want to say that the separation of church and state wasn't in the Constitution. It was a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a group of Danbury Baptists.

SPITZER: Say that again. Wait a minute, there is this thing called the First Amendment in the Constitution. But so you do want to repeal pre-existing conditions? I just want to make sure the public understands this. LOESCH: Well, no. You're trying to frame it that I hate anyone that would have any kind of problems of getting health insurance coverage and that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that there are -- children, right now, the way the health control law is written, children are even exempt. There are massive loopholes in this health insurance that already discriminates against people that have pre-existing conditions, but that was one of the things that we didn't find out until we passed it, like Nancy Pelosi said.

PARKER: All right, Dana, I want to switch gears just a minute, here. I mean, what do you think of Sarah Palin's warning yesterday to the so-called "GOP machine" saying they must support this Tea Party or the GOP is finished? What do you make of that?

LOESCH: I think she was correct in delivering the warning. And I was sort of -- I alluded to the problem earlier. We have, what was it? Judd Gregg who said that he doesn't think, just sort of going back to health control, he doesn't think that that should be refunded or repealed. That's in complete contrast with the majority of conservatives out there who are really taking to task this GOP establishment. So, I think Palin's warning was to Judd Greggs and to these Mitch Daniels and Lamar Alexanders and folks like that who really aren't on board with a lot of thing that is these grassroots conservatives are demanding of their elected officials.

SPITZER: OK, can we go back to your other priorities? Are you going to also try to defund or repeal the financial re-regulation bill, Dodd-Frank is the technical name, you going to try to repeal that so we go back to the Wild West of Wall Street craziness?

LOESCH: Well, I don't know. Are Democrats going to try to keep control of Social Security and deny people the choice of investing their own money and growing their own nest egg? I mean, we can do that.

SPITZER: Whoa, whoa, if you're saying are we going to try to protect our seniors and not privatize which would have sent tens of millions of seniors into poverty, you bet we are, and I think anybody today...

LOESCH: Oh, it would have not have. There isn't any Social Security money, anyway. You're going off the presupposition that there's money in Social Security.

SPITZER: You guys don't know how to read a table. You don't know how to read an actuarial table.

LOESCH: It's already broke. Medicare's broke. The president even proposed to cut more from Medicare. There are cuts already in this law.

SPITZER: Answer the question. Are you going to try to repeal the financial regulation bill that imposed constraints on what the bank finally can do? Are you going to repeal that one, also.

LOESCH: I am not for any legislation where the government attempts to regulate the private sector because the government is horrible at stimulating jobs, that's not one of the enumerated powers of the Constitution.

SPITZER: Whoa, you just said something kind of remarkable.

LOESCH: So from that, if you can deduce my answer from that, then you can...

SPITZER: OK, so you want to repeal the civil rights laws?

LOESCH: What -- why would I want to repeal that?

SPITZER: Well, you said you want to repeal the laws that...

PARKER: Oh, come on Eliot, you know she didn't mean that.

SPITZER: No, no, no, she just said that. You said you want to repeal laws which where government tells the private sector what to do. It said you can't discriminate. The civil rights laws tell private sector companies they can't discriminate. You just said you want to repeal that. Yeah, well, some of your candidates have said that.

LOESCH: So you actually had to revert to a racism argument?

SPITZER: No, no, no...


SPITZER: Dana, I'm just understanding the plain, precise language of what you said.

LOESCH: I'm not Rand Paul. I'm not Rand Paul.

SPITZER: Well, but Rand Paul said repeal it.

PARKER: No, he didn't.

LOESCH: Rand Paul wasn't talking about the repeal of the civil rights -- Rand Paul was making an example of the government exceeding 10th Amendment rights and how certain things needed to be dealt with an a state level.

SPITZER: That is why he said he'd repeal...

LOESCH: If you want to be ignorant about the topics and completely gloss over that and say that, well, that's somebody's being a racist, then they are completely misunderstanding A, argument and B, the 10th Amendment practice and the context of that conversation.

PARKER: All right, Dana, I want to ask you, what I'm hearing in Washington is that what happens on November 3, that is once these Tea Party candidates move into Congress, what happens then depends on what President Obama does. And so, I wanted to ask you what would you like to see him do on November 3? LOESCH: Oh gosh, the very first thing that I would like to see is an extension of the Bush tax cuts. Because we're going into a new year and businesses, middle class Americans have no idea what's happening with their finances, because we don't know what's going to be coming down the track with this. I mean, this is going to be a huge tax hike by way of repeal of tax cuts, so that's something that has everyone really terrified. And I don't know if we have ever post election, have ever entered a period where we just honestly didn't know what's going to happen. That's really bad for business.

SPITZER: Well, let's get rid of this bogeyman. The Republicans are holding up the extension of the middle class tax cuts to protect the rich who don't need it. This is going to add $1 trillion to our deficit every year. So, where are you going to fund that trillion dollars? Tell me right now, where will you cut the budget? Where you going to cut?

LOESCH: Well, we'll cut stimulus and repeal...

SPITZER: That's not moneys in the budget. That's not money in the budget, Dana.

LOESCH: No, here's the thing...

PARKER: Let her talk, Eliot.

LOESCH: You're framing the argument in a crazy way, you're saying that they are trying to protect the rich with tax cuts. Do you not understand that when you heavily tax corporations that this ends up where you have higher unemployment than the unemployment that you originally had...

SPITZER: Dana, your economics is worse than voodoo economics. You're numbers don't add...

LOESCH: It's basic economics 101. I'm not talking about (INAUDIBLE)...

SPITZER: No it isn't. You're negative 101. Dana, answer this question. Answer this question: Where will you cut $1 trillion, every year, from the budget, to fund those tax cut extensions? What are you going to do?

LOESCH: I would cut out any excessive egregious spending that is unrelated to the enumerated powers that our government has in the Constitution...

SPITZER: That's gibberish, Dana, gibberish. It means nothing. I'm sorry.

LOESCH: That's not gibberish.

SPITZER: Means absolutely nothing.

LOESCH: Do you not know what government is allowed to do according to the Constitution? SPITZER: OK, there it is, hoax and hokum from the Tea Party.

PARKER: Well, in the spirit of this show I would like to lock Eliot Spitzer and Dana Loesch in a room and make them sort this out and find common ground.

SPITZER: I've never hears such silliness. I got to tell you. All right, OK.

PARKER: All right, Dana, thank you so much. We'll be back in 60 seconds.

LOESCH: Thank you.

Note than CNN spelled Loesch as "Loesh".

Loesch also appeared on AC360 tonight:

From the 10.19.2010 edition of Anderson Cooper 360, via Crooks and Liars:


COOPER: Again, a lot of people, including myself, get confused about constitutional amendments, but not a lot of people running for Senate based on their deep analysis and study of the Constitution.

Joining us now is Democratic strategist Paul Begala, Tea Party organizer Dana Loesch, and senior legal analyst Jeff Toobin.

Paul, is it a fair criticism? If she says she is running based on her deep understanding of the Constitution, and that's how she's going to govern, is it fair then to say, well, she didn't know what the -- you know, these amendments were?


I think you make a good point. People might get confused. I mean, how many of us have had to invoke the Third Amendment, for example, that prohibits the quartering of troops in our home? OK. I -- I get that.

But what bothers me -- and it's not just Christine O'Donnell, I think, who can plainly -- who can plainly plead ignorance as a defense -- but across the conservative movement, there is this schizophrenia, this claimed fidelity to the Constitution, when, in fact, they want to shred a whole bunch of it.

As you pointed, they want to repeal the 17th Amendment, the direct election of senators, the 16th Amendment, which allows an income tax. They want to change the First Amendment to ban flag- burning. They want to allow school prayer, which change the First Amendment. They want a balanced budget amendment, a line item veto amendment. They want to change the 14th Amendment, so that people who are born here, some would not be citizens.

I could go on. They want to ban same-sex marriage and put that in the Constitution. So they -- they don't really like the Constitution. It's a little like saying -- say you get married, and you're on your honeymoon, and turn to your wife and you say, honey, I love you, but you need a butt job, a boob job, liposuction. Could you put this wig on?

I mean, you know, if you love the Constitution, love it or leave it alone.

COOPER: Dana, is this a fair criticism of Christine O'Donnell, that -- that, you know, she's running on the Constitution and doesn't seem to know at least what two of the amendments are that are -- have been talked about a lot on the campaign trail?

DANA LOESCH, ORGANIZER, ST. LOUIS TEA PARTY COALITION: Well, I have to say -- and, Anderson, thank you for having me back -- I think Mr. Toobin's assessment of what conservatives think of the Constitution was grossly partisan.

Secondly, I don't know why anyone isn't talking about why Chris Coons wasn't able to mention...


COOPER: Paul Begala, not Toobin.


LOESCH: Oh, sorry, Paul. Sorry, Paul Begala.

COOPER: That's all right.


COOPER: Toobin is going to say something you're going to criticize also.



LOESCH: I don't have a monitor. Everyone's voices sound the same.


LOESCH: But, no, Chris Coons was unable to list...

(CROSSTALK) BEGALA: Sorry. I am grossly partisan. Toobin is -- is brilliant. But...

COOPER: Sorry. Go ahead, Dana.

LOESCH: Well -- well -- OK.

Chris Coons was unable to mention the five enumerated rights in the First Amendment in this debate. No one's discussing that at all. And you would think that someone who is running for Senate, the First Amendment, that's an easy. That's a gimme. That's stuff that everybody learns in seventh and eighth grade.

You would think that he would at least -- and I realize that we're not all constitutional experts, but if we're going to have the same standard applying to Christine O'Donnell, it also needs to be applicable to Chris Coons as well.


COOPER: Fair point.

TOOBIN: That's certainly a fair point. Everybody has to be judged by the same standard.

You know, it's hard to evaluate something like this in a way that makes -- that is fair criticism, but you don't want to sound like a jerk or a scold. I had to look up the 16th Amendment. I didn't remember the 16th Amendment off the top of my head.

COOPER: Right.

TOOBIN: But the 14th is a big deal. The First is a big deal.

COOPER: The 14th -- the thing about the 14th -- and -- and I was hesitant to be critical of this, but the 14th has been bandied about so much over the last couple of months with citizen -- birthright citizenship and the like.

TOOBIN: That's right.

And if you listen to the full context of the -- the debate about the First Amendment, it wasn't just that she didn't know the phrase separation of church and state was not in the First Amendment. She didn't know what the First Amendment was about.

I mean, that, I think -- you know, you don't need it to be...

COOPER: Well, her defenders will say, well, look, she was pointing out that term separation of church and state is not in the First Amendment.

TOOBIN: That's what her supporters would point out. That's not what the tape shows. What the tape shows is she didn't know anything about the First Amendment, at least as I saw...

COOPER: Dana, do you think that's true?


LOESCH: I don't agree with that.

TOOBIN: You don't think that's true?

LOESCH: No, I don't agree with that at all.

I think what she was pointing out was Chris Coons' unequal application of the establishment clause regarding the First Amendment, and how really, when you deny rights in the classroom to one group, when you deny rights to one group in favor of secularism, which is its own religion -- religion is not -- is not patented by just a faith in God or Christian principles. It's a devotion and a set of beliefs to a certain something.

You could be religious in your love of music or religious about green causes. But when you deny rights to one, that's -- that's unequal. It's just let it -- let whatever be represented be represented. That's a fair application of the establishment cause in first -- religion -- and if people -- really, that was put in the First Amendment to protect religion from government.

And this is really -- when you delve into Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist, the sentence following the wall of separation between church and state really sheds a lot light onto that.


TOOBIN: Well, I just -- I think the point O'Donnell was making and just -- was making right here -- is a lot of conservatives believe the courts have pushed God out of too many places in American life, that they have pushed God out of classrooms, they have banned school prayer.

And that is a perfectly legitimate widely-held view that I think O'Donnell held. Now, the Supreme Court has not really embraced that view much lately, but it is certainly not some exotic, crazy view. That's a view a lot of conservatives hold.

Paul, is...

BEGALA: But there -- there...


COOPER: Go ahead.

BEGALA: But there is an exotic, crazy view that some conservatives hold, at least Sharron Angle, the Republican candidate for Senate in Nevada.

And that is that Sharia law is coming to America, or even has come. Right? If -- if you don't believe there's a separation of church and state, then you could get Sharia law. So -- so, Ms. Angle and the other Tea Partiers have to choose. Are they more fearful of Muslims and Sharia law or more desirous of tearing down the -- the separation of church and state, so that maybe -- I guess they don't want the Mohammed law. They want the Jesus law.

But I don't think it's going to work that way. And I think we need that wall of separation.

COOPER: Paul, you're saying...


COOPER: You're saying the idea of separation of church and state actually prevents Sharia from becoming the law of a land?

BEGALA: Exactly. It's -- it's why we can't have Sharia law in America, because we have a separation of church and state.

LOESCH: Well, Sharia -- no, no, no. Sharia law allows for -- in fact they just passed this, I believe, over in Saudi Arabia, that it is OK under Sharia law to beat your wife, as long as there are no bruises. So I think we have basic assault laws that would prevent that, not the separation of church and state.

COOPER: Paul, you want to respond?


BEGALA: No, but, if you changed the law, then it wouldn't be assault anymore. I mean, come on.


COOPER: You're too much in shock.

TOOBIN: I'm too much in shock.

So what that Saudi Arabia -- I mean, Saudi Arabia's legal system is very different from ours.


TOOBIN: The case you're referring to I believe is actually from the United Arab Emirates -- Emirates, which said that you can beat your wife as long as there's no marks here. But that's there. And that's here. And the law is very different here. And I think we can all celebrate that.

LOESCH: Oh, no, but I was responding to -- to Mr. Begala's explicit remark about -- about Sharia law in the United States.

COOPER: Do you think any of this matters to -- I mean, Dana, obviously, voters -- Christine O'Donnell needs to get independents. She needs -- I mean, she's far behind in the polls. Do you think this -- I mean, does this end her campaign? I mean, is this a major deal?

LOESCH: I don't think it ends her campaign, but I think she needs to stop being reactionary.

That's just my particular take on it. Obviously, if I were advising her campaign, which I am not in the business of, I would tell her to stop being so reactionary with stuff. Quit allowing other people to put you in a particular frame when it comes to a particular issue, because she's spending her entire campaign being reactionary to whatever Bill Maher does or whatever Chris Coons does. And she needs to get out of that rut.

COOPER: Paul, does she have a chance?

BEGALA: Not much of one.

It's a Democratic state. Joe Biden held that seat for 36 years. She's a good 10 or 20 points behind. This probably doesn't help, but, you know, the -- the percentage of people who are for her, maybe this isn't going to move them off, but it's not going to get her any independent votes.

COOPER: Got to leave it there.

Paul -- Paul Begala, Dana Loesch, Jeff Toobin, appreciate it. Thanks.

Let us know what you think. Join the live chat right now at AC360.com.

Up next: the Senate candidate who says what an opponent did in college is fair game. He's sticking by an attack ad against Rand Paul, joins us next to defend it.

Just ahead, reaction also to tonight's breaking news: a judge reaffirming her ruling that the military's don't ask, don't tell policy is unconstitutional. We are going to talk with two former servicemen, both discharged from the military, one of them signing up again today.


==== To the Conservatives who accuse me of having Loesch Derangement Syndrome, you are all on kool-aid.

No comments :

Post a Comment

Tweets by @JGibsonDem Tweets by @JPCTumblr