Dana Loesch on HandTitty's propaganda hour

St. Louis' biggest moron appears on HandTitty's propaganda hour, known as Hannity. Also on are Liberal Bob Beckel and Conservative Hugh Hewitt.

Beckel tore the shit out of her.

Later, during the Great American Panel segment, conservative Hugh Hewitt complained about Eric Holder going to Zurich “to lobby for the World Cup” to come to the U.S. in 2020 in the middle of what Hewitt characterized as some kind of national security emergency.

But when Democrat Bob Beckel – outnumbered by three conservatives – tried to discuss the substance of this big crisis, Hannity refused. Beckel asked, “Could we talk about the substance of this for a second? For example, the Saudi Arabians, those gutless sons of – people who want us to take Iran out because they don’t have the guts to do it themselves who hold us hostage for oil, and we’re gonna sit back and take that from them?”

Hannity said, “I agree with their duplicity but you’re missing the point.”


From the 11.29.2010 edition of Fox News Channel's Hannity:


Dana Loesch has a hissyfit over the Paycheck Fairness Act, goes on sexist rant

On last Friday's The Dana Show, Dana Loesch went on a sexist tirade against the Paycheck Fairness Act. She thinks Liberal Femininsts are "offensive" and "sexist." Wow. What A Prude!!



Dana is a sexist liar.


Dana Loesch on AC360 and now on HLN talking more lies

The St. Louis Tea Party queen bee, Dana Loesch, was on yet again on CNN, and go ahead and add HLN's The Joy Behar Show to that list of shows that she's spewing lies on.

Dana on the 11.18.2010 edition of AC360:

ROBERTS: Ouch. The American people are the losers.

Joining me now, political analysts David Gergen and Roland Martin along with Tea Party organizer, Dana Loesch, she's also editor of BigJournalism.com and a radio host at KT -- KFTK, 97.1 FM.

Folks thanks so much for being with us.

David, let's start off with you, is it really such a big deal, this idea of cutting the earmarks, particularly when you look at how small a percentage of the total budget they really represent and the fact that this money's probably not going to get saved, that it'll just get spent elsewhere.

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, John this is a small amount of money, $15 billion is less than one percent of the budget but it's a big deal, because the -- the money has been used essentially as a piggy bank by a lot of members. They go off and do their favorite project back in their home district or their home states and then they seek voter credit for doing that. And you know and -- and they get into the habit of loose spending; undisciplined spending.

I think it's very wise in time, particularly in these -- when -- when we're so tight on the budget, to cut this stuff out. Yes, there are going to be some good things lost in the process but we've got to get back to essentials. And listen, if they don't need the $15 billion, cut it out of the budget. We've got to start somewhere.

ROBERTS: Dana, how much of this do you think is about members who truly believe that earmarks are a bad idea and how much is about members who simply want to get on a bandwagon?

DANA LOESCH, EDITOR, BIGJOURNALISM.COM: I think that any -- this whole -- this whole debate has really fascinated me simply because I think that those who are arguing in favor of earmarks I think it's sort of a smoke and mirrors situation. Because what they're essentially arguing for, John is -- is the opaque process that has been going on in Washington, D.C., for so unbelievably long. Earmarks as they're being argued for right now, they're talking about tacking on spending requests, un-vetted spending requests on to appropriations bill that bypass the -- the traditional typical two- committee approval process that earmarks are supposed to go through.

And so I think that these people who are -- who -- these Congressmen who are advocating for this, they're -- they're trying to shore up their political capital. This is how they trade powers, through this process.

ROBERTS: Roland Martin, Mitch McConnell in -- in supporting the ban on earmarks said, look, I don't really believe in this, because, three weeks ago he was against it, but gave to Tea Party pressure. But he said I'm worried about just giving more budgetary discretion to the White House and putting it in the hands of the president. Is -- is he right to be concerned about that?

ROLAND MARTIN, CNN ANALYST: No, that's utter nonsense. I mean, look and first of all, I disagree when we categorize this as, well, it's just less than one percent, because if you ask anybody when it comes to their own personal budget, when you need to make cuts, every little bit helps.

But it is clear that senator -- Senator McConnell and Republicans want to, to the American people, to try to make it all about Obama, he's going to somehow spend the money when you have Republicans and Democrats who want to spend, spend, spend. But in your opening, John, you're absolutely right. Where are they going to cut? Are they willing to touch defense?

You see right now Senator John McCain in a constant battle with fellow Republican, Senator Tom Coburn, when it comes to defense spending, when it comes to Rand Paul. That's going to be the real test of the political will. Will they touch Medicare, Social Security, and defense? That's where most of our budget comes from.



LOESCH: Well -- can I -- can I add something to Roland's point too?

ROBERTS: Go ahead Dana.

LOESCH: The argument that -- that came from Mitch McConnell who -- until very recently was against earmarks, the idea that somehow they are ceding power to the president, that they are letting go of the purse strings is a lie. Because when you write appropriations bills, unless they write it specifically to say that it is up to discretion of President Obama to decide how this money is spent, he doesn't get to decide. That is Congress's responsibility.

MARTIN: Right.

LOESCH: They're playing upon the ignorance of the American people and that's not going to fly anymore.

ROBERTS: David, there's a -- there's another point that some people make, and -- and that perhaps in supporting the ban on earmarks it will obscure that really tough choices that lawmakers will have to make if they want to really take a whack at the -- at the deficit and the overall debt. They can say, hey, look, we took action on earmarks. How much more do you want us to do?

GERGEN: I -- I think it'll go the other way, John. And I think this will help create momentum for more spending cuts. And one of the reasons if you couldn't do a deal with earmarks how in the world are you going to deal with -- as Roland says and I think he's right -- the really tough issues like Medicare and Medicare -- Medicaid and defense.

Listen, this money is basically incumbent protection money. It's -- it's -- it's you know, it's to help them back home. And sometimes it goes for good causes but it's often to increase the popularity of -- of the incumbent. We all know that. And they've got to start somewhere. And I -- you know, I think the argument is a phony one about it's going to give all this stuff to Obama. If they get this one percent, ok, let's go for the three percent --


MARTIN: Right.

GERGEN: -- let's go for the next five percent and --

MARTIN: John --

GERGEN: -- they've got to go -- I think Roland's right they've to go after Medicare, Social Security, and defense and put those on the table and let's thresh it out in a serious national debate.

MARTIN: Here -- real quick John --


MARTIN: -- here's the next battle and you're going to see it. When it comes to Medicare, Social Security and defense, you're going to hear members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans say, oh, this will cause us to lose jobs. Losing jobs is always Congress's way of preventing any kinds of cuts from being made. Watch that language. You will hear it from both sides.


LOESCH: Well --

ROBERTS: And there's one other point I'd -- I'd like to get Dana to ring in on here and that is Michele Bachmann is hedging her bets a little bit, she's saying well, maybe what we need to do is we need to redefine what an earmark is. For example, transportation projects, perhaps they shouldn't be considered to be earmarks. Which I guess if you looked at it in the purest sense would mean that because it was a transportation project, that bridge to nowhere was an earmark. Does she have a fair point?

LOESCH: Yes and no. I -- I think that there's a million things that we need to do. First of all, let's -- let's have things go through the authorization and appropriation committees as they're supposed to do in order to be vetted. Let's bring a competitive grant process in, and let's vet these earmarks before we just tack them on.

The point that I think that she is making is that the way that the earmark process stands right now is that we have a lot of pork going towards things like bike paths, yay, bicycles are fantastic but we have bridges across the country that are falling into disrepair. And so a lot of the super important stuff that needs attention is getting overlooked.

And a quick thing about defense, if we want to spend defense money wisely, we can start by reflecting upon the appropriations bill from 2009 that was loaded with earmarks that our president did approve.

ROBERTS: All right we want to take a pause here because we've got a lot more to talk about tonight, so Roland Martin, Dana Loesch and David Gergen, please stay with us.

And we want to know what you think as well. Join the live chat going underway right now at AC360.com.

Coming up next, more from our panel, we're going to get their take on Congressman Charlie Rangel's possible punishment for breaking House ethics rules. Does the punishment fit? And see how it compares to other members of Congress who've gotten in trouble in the past.

Plus our special series, "Amazing Animals, Smarter than you Think," inside the science of how dogs think.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We don't want to look at cute pet tricks. What we want to know is what does the dog understand about its world?



ROBERTS: On to "Raw Politics" tonight: a House ethics panel is recommending censure, what amounts to a public scolding, for New York Democratic Congressman, Charlie Rangel. That's after the committee found Rangel guilty on 11 counts, including failing to pay taxes for 17 years on a rental home in the Dominican Republic, misuse of a rent- controlled apartment in the Bronx for political purposes and improper use of government letterhead and government mail.

The 20-year Congressman pleaded for mercy today before learning his potential punishment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. CHARLIE RANGEL (D), NEW YORK: There's no excuse for my behavior, and there was no intent for me ever to go beyond what has been given to me as a salary. I never attempted to enrich myself, and that I walk away no matter what your decision, I'm grateful that I had this opportunity to serve.


ROBERTS: 20-term Congressman we should say. 40 years in Congress. You might recall on Monday Rangel walked out of his ethics trial when the committee rejected his request to delay the case so he could hire a new defense team. His original team member left him in September. This whole case has been full of drama.

Tonight a lot of people are questioning whether the suggested punishment fits. We want to show you how it stacks up against other politicians who are found guilty of House violations.

Only 22 House members have ever been censured, the last two were in July of 1983. Republican Congressman, Daniel Crane of Illinois who broke down crying, he was found guilty of sexual misconduct with a female House page years earlier. Congressman Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was found guilty of sexual misconduct with a male page years earlier.

Another type of punishment is a reprimand only eight House members have faced that, most recently Georgia Republican, Newt Gingrich in 1997 when he was Speaker of the House. He was slapped with an unprecedented $300,000 fine for allowing a member affiliate tax exempt organization to be used for political purposes. He also gave false information to the committee investigating the charges.

Now, the harshest punishment is expulsion, just five House members have been forced out of office. The most recent you may recall is Ohio Democrat James Traficant. He was kicked out of the House in 2002 after he was found guilty in a federal corruption trial of conspiracy to commit bribery and of racketeering among other things. Traficant had quite a message for the ethics committee back then.


JAMES TRAFICANT (D), OHIO: And I want to say to this committee, I love America but I hate the government. I love the elected members. I've met many of you and love you all and I mean that. That's not patronizing to get your vote. I don't expect your vote.

But we have an aristocracy in the judiciary that is afraid of the FBI and the IRS. They're scared to death of them. And they trampled all over my rights and I'll be damned if they're going to do it to me.

So I will take an upward departure and I will die in jail, because I did not commit these crimes.

(END VIDEO CLIP) ROBERTS: Of course he didn't die in jail. He's out.

Now for more perspective, you might be wondering what happened to Congressman Joe Wilson. He made headlines for this.


OBAMA: The reforms -- the reforms I am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.


OBAMA: It's not true.


ROBERTS: That was Wilson in September 2009 when President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress on health care reform. The South Carolina Republican dodged serious punishment. House members issued a resolution expressing disapproval of Wilson's actions.

So did Rangel get the right punishment?

Back now to our political panel: David Gergen, Roland Martin and Dana Loesch.

So David, start us off here, was 9-1 in favor of censure in the committee, first time as we said since 1983. Is it the right punishment?

GERGEN: I thought it was, John, because censure is usually for people who've done unethical things. Expulsion, the highest punishment is -- is actually for people who have been found to do unlawful things. And there's been no finding so far that Congressman Rangel has done unlawful things.

And a censure is a pretty powerful tool. It -- we've reviewed the House history, you remember one of the most famous incidences in the Senate was the censure of Senator Joe McCarthy, and it broke him. It broke his power. And -- and I dare say in this case that Charlie Rangel has basically seen his best days.

ROBERTS: Dana, you -- you disagree with David, you just think that he should be expelled from the House. You're in favor of expulsion.


ROBERTS: What did he do to rise to that level?

LOESCH: I think that the level of hypocrisy with Charlie Rangel is one of legendary proportions. And I -- I don't think that it -- I -- I don't think that comparing it to Joe Wilson, the censure and that -- and that situation, it's -- it's -- it's unbelievably different. I mean, this is a guy who is -- who was on the committee that helped write our tax code that that didn't go by the law himself but yet he would write it for other people.

This is a guy who, I mean, if they -- if they decide to investigate further and they think that there is -- it warrants criminal penalties or -- or what have you, then I just think that censure seems to be a super light way to go, considering all of the charges that were against him.

ROBERTS: Roland --

MARTIN: You know John -- I -- I think first of all that analysis is absolutely nonsense. Ok? It is nonsense. He -- he -- first of all, the lead attorney on this committee stated there was a corruption. The lead attorney on this committee said he did not believe there was personal benefit. I do believe that first of all he should have followed the rules.


MARTIN: I do believe there should be some penalty. But to sit here and suggest remove him from Congress when you just read a list of individuals who committed sexual acts with a House page and received censure and then you saw what Newt Gingrich did as Speaker of the House, utilizing a committee for political purposes and he doesn't get --


LOESCH: What, Charlie Rangel?

MARTIN: No, no, no, excuse me.

LOESCH: No, no, no.

MARTIN: Excuse me, excuse me. I didn't interrupt you.


MARTIN: You did not have censure in that case.

And so when you judge it based upon the history of the House, I believe it is ridiculous to say expulsion. I do not believe it has risen to the level of censure. I think the same level of rebuke that Gingrich got Rangel should get as well.

ROBERTS: Charlie Rangel stood before the committee and he basically begged for mercy. He said I'm 80 years old, I don't know how much longer I'm going to live. And -- and then he said this, let's listen.


RANGEL: And I recognized that you cannot deal with issues that's not before this committee. Or what the press has done to me and my community and my family is just totally unfair. Counsel knows it. All of you know it. And it's not your responsibility to correct them. But they will continue to call me a crook and charge me being corrupt. (END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: David, blaming the press, it's a tried and true tradition. But is it -- is it applicable in this case?

GERGEN: Well, I -- the -- the press actually did uncover some of this. Now, let's be -- let's be clear about this. We didn't know about this housing business and 17 years of unpaid taxes, had the press not gotten into it. That's the role of the press, is to play the watchdog. I don't think he was done in by the press.

Charlie -- he can make that argument and it's fine, but I don't think that's the real issue. The real issue is he had these violations and there's no -- there's no evidence to controvert it.

MARTIN: Right.

GERGEN: I mean, and it is -- it's a clear-cut case. It's a series of violations. I think they did the right thing.

ROBERTS: And we'll see where it all goes from here.

David Gergen, Roland Martin, Dana Loesch, thanks very much for being with us. I really appreciate it.

MARTIN: Thanks a lot.

LOESCH: Thank you.

ROBERTS: Still ahead, could there finally be a break in the case of Natalee Holloway? The Alabama teenager disappeared in Aruba five years ago. Forensic tests now being conducted could provide some much-needed answers. We'll explain just ahead.

Plus, why Tiger Woods says he is infinitely happier now than before the sex scandal that destroyed his marriage and tarnished his image one year ago.


Dana on the 11.17.2010 edition of The Joy Behar Show:


Dana Loesch: Certified Insane

As everyone knows, Dana Loesch is a certified lunatic and a modern-day version of Phyllis Schlafly. She was on her high horse being a baby when things don't go her way.

Dana The Diva doing her "Libel and Defamation Card" routine.

From the St. Louis Activist Hub's article entitled: Is Dana Loesch suing herself for libel
Dana Loesch was upset about my previous post pointing out her criticisms of third party candidates, so she went back to her dusty old bag of tricks:

Blah blah, libel, defamation, blah. At this point, is there anyone in St. Louis who hasn't been accused of libel and defamation by Loesch?

From the 11.03.2010 edition of The Dana Show:

Even prominent Conservatives went after Dana Loesch for her remarks about Hedrick and Ivanovich costing Martin a seat in Congress.

The tea party does not tolerate dissent, especially from other conservatives.Recently, a local conservative on Twitter criticized Loesch for attacking third parties. Loesch responded by claiming that he didn't know what he was talking about, and that he should listen to her radio show before he said anything. Here's the conversation (in reverse chronological order):

Bungalow Bill, another conservative, criticized Loesch for blindly supporting a "joke" like Ed Martin:
I first heard Dana Loesch speak at the Branson Tea Party earlier in April. I was inspired by her passion, but today I am conflicted with her blind enthusiasm for a GOP that also turned its back on the Constitution. Totally ignoring what a joke Ed Martin was claiming to be Constitutional conservative, Loesh blames the Constitution and Libertarian parties for Russ Carnahan's win.
He quotes Loesch as saying the following:
Good job constitution partry and libertarian party candidates. How does it feel to be solely responsible, along with massive fraud, in possibly handing a victory to a Carnahan? Livid at these foilers. LIVID. Your strategy sucks. You wanted liberty and you got socialism because you have no idea how the hell to win.
And then Bill responds:
It's no wonder the Tea Parties on a path to fail. They would rather compromise with a GOP guilty of killing the Constitution than take a real stand. I know I won't be attending another Tea Party in which Dana Loesch speaks at. It's just like Tera Sukman over at the Tea Party Patriot HQ who doesn't even have the clarity to see the sins of the GOP as she labels Roy Blunt as a Constitutional conservative.

God bless you Libertarians and Constitutional Party members for doing something most Americans don't have the guts enough to do. Vote against both parties which have violated our Constitution. I know I did this year and it felt great to break the shackles of the Republican Party. Screw Dana Loesch and her ignorant comments!

Loesch's fellow employee and former KMOV journalist Jamie Allman slams her and Hennessy.
From the 11.04.2010 edition of Allman In The Morning:

Dana may as well be getting coal for Christmas.

From the 11.05.2010 edition of AC360:

As expected, Paul Begala owned Dana Loesch. Loesch was repeating her own falsehood-laden talking points.

KAYE: It looks like job one, as they say in the auto industry, will not be jobs but health care repeal. Or else. The New York Times reporting the pressure is on from Dick Armey's FreedomWorks which was a big supporter of Tea Party candidates during the campaign. A FreedomWorks memo being sent to all incoming House Republicans, it says in part, "Politically speaking, your only choice is to get on offense and start moving boldly ahead to repeal, replace and defund Obama care in 2011, or risk rejection by the voters in 2012".

And one footnote, there is new economic data out tonight. It shows private sector job growth for the fourth straight month but the unemployment rate stuck at 9.6 percent.

Joining us now, Democratic strategist Paul Begala and Dana Loesch, blogger and talk radio host and co-organizer of the St. Louis Tea Party Coalition.

Paul, let's start with you. Will we see a fresh GOP move to repeal health care, do you think?

PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Oh, I think so. I think -- I -- I do think, in fairness to the Republicans, many of them and probably most of them, did campaign promising to repeal Obama care. They're not going to be able to do it, and they knew it when they said that. Our Constitutional system does not allow one Party and one House to repeal legislation. They know that the Senate would never pass repeal, these new House Republicans, so they know the president would never sign it.

So it's a bit of a false promise to begin with. But I do think they risk being wound around the axle of a year-long fight trying to undo or defund Obama care when in fact people do want jobs. I hope the president will step into that breach with the new ideas, with new proposals to create jobs and -- and make that contrast. Democrats can then be for jobs and let the Republicans be for trying to empower insurance companies to -- to have more control over your life.

KAYE: And Dana isn't this really what happened to President Obama? He said we could do both jobs and health care but the perception politically that his energy was split, it cost him, and the fact is, as Paul said, Republicans don't control the Senate. They can't repeal this bill. So was this really a genuine promise on their part?

DANA LOESCH, BLOGGER, TALK RADIO HOST: I do believe so. I mean, there's a lot of things that the Constitution doesn't necessarily provide for, including what we saw the -- the -- the thing with the commerce clause and the health control law.

But at the same time, when we listen to everything that Nancy Pelosi said and everything that President Obama said, Nancy Pelosi herself on video, it's all over YouTube, saying that the health care bill will bring about four million jobs or some such. Health care is tied so closely to jobs.

So while I think it's really important for Republicans to focus on the economy and make things easier, lessen up so that these businesses can create jobs, you also have to note that health care has been so unbelievably wound in with jobs that -- I mean you kind of have to address both sort of simultaneously.

KAYE: So if nothing changes, are you saying voters will be happy with just a symbolic gesture?

LOESCH: Oh, no, voters are not going to be happy with just a symbolic gesture. Republicans need to go whole hog with this. They really do. They need to put forth more than just a symbolic gesture. And I think their -- their speech has been strong, but whether or not they're going to follow that up in the next couple of years, that remains to be seen.

KAYE: And Paul, let's talk about --

BEGALA: And here's -- here --

KAYE: -- go ahead.

BEGALA: -- here's my proposal, and maybe Dana will agree to it -- with this.

These Republicans who ran, they said they hated Obama care, they hate government-funded, government-guaranteed, government-mandated health care. They can't repeal it but you know what they can do, repeal their own.

So repeal your own, Mr. Speaker Boehner, Mr. Speaker to-be- Boehner. They can decline to accept the Congressional health care package, which is a really generous package of health care coverage, paid for by the taxpayers, guaranteed by the government. So they could at least repeal their own. And they should become the change they seek. They should lead by example and reject government-funded health care for themselves and their family.

How is that, Dana? Don't you think they should do that? Because it's socialism you know.

LOESCH: Well, Democrats -- the Democrats exempted themselves from this law. Democrats already exempted themselves from this law.


BEGALA: Well, that's -- that's not true -- actually. That's actually not true. That's actually not true. But -- but shouldn't they --


LOESCH: Oh, so they are going to subject themselves to it, then?

(CROSSTALK) BEGALA: -- shouldn't they -- shouldn't repeal their own health care.

LOESCH: So you're saying that it's not true, so are Democrats going to subject themselves to this legislation then?


BEGALA: Right. Well, of course they are. They're covered by it. They're -- they're going to be covered by the law. There was --


LOESCH: So -- so if they choose to not go on government care, will they accept the penalties that go along with that when those are enacted?

BEGALA: Dana, here is my point. The Republicans say they hate government health care. Democrats like it, so of course they're going to accept it. Why don't the Republicans decline -- why does not John Boehner who has almost 20 years now been on government health care, why doesn't he decline it? Because it's good. That's why. It's a heck of a good policy.


LOESCH: Well, why don't we just actually -- why don't we rework it and make it -- Paul, why don't we rework it and have actual good health care that really addresses being able to have affordable insurance and across state lines.


BEGALA: It's fine, repeal their own law, it is -- it's pernicious socialism. Oh, scary.


LOESCH: Why can't we address that, let's be serious for a moment and let's really address the problem.

KAYE: All right, you two. Let me -- let me jump in here for just a second.

One thing the GOP could try and do is -- is defund health care. Could we see a government shutdown possibly, Paul?

BEGALA: Oh, definitely. Yes. You're going to see a government shutdown and then maybe, you know, impeachment. And there's nothing going to stop these folks.

LOESCH: Impeachment?

BEGALA: They -- they have -- oh, sure. You watch. Hide and watch. There's already -- Rush Limbaugh has called for it, Mr. Beck, who's this -- this TV clown over at Fox News has called for it. LOESCH: Oh, come on.

BEGALA: A whole variety -- by the way, about a third of Republicans back in March before the negative ads and everything, back in March, one-third of Republicans, 38 percent, actually, in a Harris poll said they wanted to see Obama impeached.

So they'll get to that. But they'll start with the government shutdown. Sure they will. Now, they -- they have that power under the Constitution. The president, I doubt, would go along with some of their kind of radical plans and so we -- I -- I think we definitely, late 2011, you're looking at a government shutdown.

KAYE: Dana --

LOESCH: I think it will be gridlock. I do think it will be gridlock.

KAYE: You do.

LOESCH: But shutdown, I'm not so sure. Yes.

KAYE: Do you think that -- that -- that -- I mean voters are saying, that we -- that we saw the numbers in the -- in the intro, I mean, a very small minority of the voters are saying that health care is their top priority.

LOESCH: Right.

KAYE: So is this a push that's really more about scoring political points than -- than really addressing the country's priorities?

LOESCH: Yes and no. I think one of the reasons that Republicans are prioritizing this is because the -- the Grassroots Movement which really sustained the life of the Republican Party this past couple of years I think that they're sort of -- it's sort of a gesture towards the Grassroots but at the same time I think that they recognize some of the unconstitutionality of the provisions that were included in the law to begin with.

But at the same time, it is unbelievably tight with jobs. You're talking about the Congressional -- the Congressional Budgetary Office is just -- I think like this year they released a report, their economic report, which said that this could cost up to 800,000 jobs. That's more than like Ford, GM and Chrysler combined. You have 550,000 union workers with those three auto plants. That's -- that's more than those -- that's more than that combined.

So that's, when you're talking about jobs, when you're talking about the economy, that absolutely has to factor in. But at the same time, I think that there's a million things that we could do in the interim before we really go aggressively and look at health reform, and -- and talk about remedying things to -- to increase jobs, and like the Bush tax cuts, for instance after the first of the year. That's -- that's one of many steps that could be taken. KAYE: All right, Paul, Dana, stick around.

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

Up next, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann has done plenty of complaining about money and politics. Tonight, he is on suspension without pay for injecting money into politics. We'll explain.

Later, the $200 million myth: conservative talk radio slamming President Obama's trip to Asia, saying it's costing $200 million a day. They don't have the facts to back it up and they also don't have our Ed Henry who will join us from Mumbai, India, after doing a little price checking of his own.


KAYE: We ordinarily don't talk much about the competition around here, but, tonight, it seems like everybody is.

Keith Olbermann, who anchors Countdown over at MSNBC, is off the air, suspended indefinitely without pay. You'll see why in just a moment.

First, you should know that he is a vocal critic of money in politics, especially big corporate money, especially undisclosed money.


KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST, COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN: Fox has not only employed numerous Republican politicians, at least two of whom actually were Republican governors, many of whom are active GOP fund-raisers on air and off, but many of its media employees have also raised money for the party or openly campaigned for or endorsed Republican candidates.

We now have another million reasons Fox News is the Republican news channel, correct?

Congressman Clyburn, is there a legislative response to the idea that there is a national cable news outlet that goes beyond having a point of view, and actually starts to shill for partisan causes and actually starts to donate to partisan groups of one party?


KAYE: That's Keith Olbermann railing against media figures spending money to influence politics without disclosing it. He gets pretty worked up about it.

With that in mind, take a look at a bit of some interviews he did with Raul Grijalva, a Democratic congressman from Arizona.


OLBERMANN: Congressman, good to talk to you again.

REP. RAUL GRIJALVA (D), ARIZONA: Good to talk to you, my friend.

OLBERMANN: Congressman Raul Grijalva, who is one of the great representatives of that state. Great thanks for some of your time tonight. Good luck with this, and we will stay in touch with you on it, if we can.

GRIJALVA: Thank you very much.


KAYE: Very friendly, very complimentary. In fact, you would be hard-pressed to find an interview in which the two men disagree on anything, which is not unusual. Congressman Grijalva is a friend of "Countdown" and, by all appearances Keith Olbermann is a friend of the congressman.

What is unusual and until undisclosed is this. Keith Olbermann was also a donor to Mr. Grijalva's campaign this year. In a statement to Politico, Olbermann writes: "One week ago, on the night of Thursday October 28th, 2010, after a discussion with a friend about the state of politics in Arizona, I donated $2,400 each to the re-election campaigns of Democratic Representatives Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords."

He goes on: "I also donated the same amount to the campaign of Democratic senatorial candidate Jack Conway in Kentucky."

The revelation, prompting quick action from his boss. Said MSNBC president Phil Griffin in a statement today: "I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay."

Before taking this any further, some disclosure of our own: All three parent companies of all three cable news outlets give hundreds of thousands of dollars to candidates and political parties, Democratic and Republican. As a matter of policy, neither CNN, nor MSNBC permit employees to do the same, with the exception of our political contributors. And, there, we try to be as up-front and open as we can about any conflicts of interest.

But Keith Olbermann was not up-front, while expecting others to be.

Back now with our panel, Paul Begala, Dana Loesch, also Joan Walsh, editor of Salon.com and, a few years back, Keith Olbermann's editor.

Paul, let's start with you once again.

Keith's criticisms of the -- of News Corporations' political contributions seem utterly hypocritical, now that it's clear that he's done the very same thing, would you say?

BEGALA: Well, I -- you know, I don't know. The guy, he's a liberal, obviously, and he gave money to liberals. Congressman Grijalva is the Chairman of the Progressive Caucus. And Keith's a progressive.

I suppose, you know, what's fair for one -- obviously, you know, he did criticize Fox News, which gave $1 million. And that was apparently legal under the Citizens United ruling from the Supreme Court. So, I guess it's -- you know, it's not my network. It's not my job. It seems to me an employment dispute. There was a rule there.

MSNBC apparently says he violated that rule, so I guess they are going to sanction him for it. But -- but I don't know. I just -- to me, it's not all that big a deal.

KAYE: You're not surprised at all? And you don't think anybody would be surprised --


BEGALA: Right. I would be surprised --


KAYE: -- given that he --


KAYE: -- views on the air?

BEGALA: Yes. I would be surprised if he gave money to Michele Bachmann, one of the leaders of the conservative movement in the Congress.

But it seems to me like, dog -- not even dog bites man. It's like dog barks. What the heck?

KAYE: Joan, you're the editor of a liberal publication, and you know Keith. But you think the decision to suspend him may actually be the right one. Explain.

JOAN WALSH, EDITOR IN CHIEF, SALON.COM: Well, I -- I think that there are still a lot of questions open, Randi.

There is a question about whether everyone knew that this policy of NBC News actually applied to MSNBC. There's some reporting on that today that said it -- it didn't necessarily apply. And Keith has not spoken since the Politico story. And Phil Griffin has not spoken. So, the actual clarity of the policy is now in dispute.

There's also a question, did it apply to CNBC? Because we've got plenty of hosts over at CNBC who -- Larry Kudlow, the main one, who have also contributed to Republicans.

So, you know, and I think NBC and -- and MSNBC are going to have to answer some more questions about whether this rule, if it was a rule, was applied fairly. There are other hosts. My friend -- again, my friend -- full disclosure -- Joe Scarborough, gave money to a Republican. Pat Buchanan gave money to a Republican.

So, there seems to be now a lot of murkiness about what NBC's policy actually was and when it began. And I'm not going to judge Keith at this point without having more answers to those questions.

KAYE: And Dana, we know you don't see eye to eye with Keith on many things, so it may come as a surprise to people that you actually don't agree with the decision to suspend him.

LOESCH: Well, I think as -- honestly, I'm trying to figure out what all the drama's about. For anyone to be surprised that Keith Olbermann would donate to -- to congressional Democratic campaigns is -- if you're shocked, I have a bridge to sell you.

And plus, GE owns NBC, and I know that they contribute to organizations and causes and campaigns and all of that nature. But, at the same time, to me, I -- I kind of side with Paul on this, in that this seems to be a rule that a private business had, and if anything, it would be insubordination, if that.

I think the thing that -- I don't know -- I don't really quite understand why anyone's shocked over this, unless they think it's a credibility thing. But I don't look at Keith Olbermann as a news anchor. I look at him as sort of an editorial-like figure. And so, I think, because of that, I don't understand the drama. I just don't see the need for it.

KAYE: Well, I think the drama or the shock goes back to the idea that he didn't disclose it. It wasn't that he gave money to these people.

LOESCH: Right. Well, yes, right.

KAYE: It was that he didn't disclose it after criticizing News Corporation.


WALSH: Right.


LOESCH: Yes, it was completely hypocritical. But --


WALSH: Disclosure is an issue. And I'll -- I'll just stand up for -- you know, Salon actually has a policy of not allowing editorial employees to contribute to political campaigns.

And I'll tell you why. It's important to us to be a news organization. And also, even though we are liberal, liberals disagree. So, you know, back in the 2008 campaign, I didn't want the problem of somebody reporting on Barack Obama, but having given to Hillary Clinton or vice versa. So, there are reasons to have those policies. But, if have you them, they should be crystal-clear and they should apply to everyone, and there should be no ambiguity.

So, is it in Keith's contract? I would ask that. I would just ask how widely this policy was known about and how -- how fairly it was enforced at this point.

BEGALA: Right and --


LOESCH: Well, and I have an addendum to this, too.


LOESCH: Go ahead, Paul.

WALSH: Paul.

BEGALA: Go ahead, Dana.

LOESCH: Oh, I was just going to say --

BEGALA: The reporting I have seen suggests that --


KAYE: One of you wrap this up for us.


BEGALA: I think -- the reporting I have seen says the policy is that not that one cannot donate, but that one must disclose it to MSNBC or NBC bosses and then get permission.

So, maybe that explains the disparity that -- the allegations are that apparently Mr. Olbermann didn't get his bosses' permission before he donated --


WALSH: Well, that's --


WALSH: My understanding, Paul, is that that's the NBC policy and so one of the disputes is whether that even applied at all to MSNBC.


WALSH: And I'm sorry to come on here and be, like, not as informed as I would like to be, but nobody's informed right now about this.

BEGALA: Right. WALSH: That's going to be the thing that we keep talking about.

LOESCH: Well, from -- from what I looked at it --


KAYE: Well, when we see their policy, I'm sure we will get some answers.


LOESCH: Well, the statement given by his boss --

KAYE: What was that, Dana?

LOESCH: -- the statement that was given by his superior said that it could also be applicable on a case-by-case basis.

But the bottom line is that Olbermann's bosses didn't know about it until the Politico piece ran.

WALSH: Right.

BEGALA: Right.

LOESCH: So, he possibly could have gotten permission from them. But --

WALSH: Right.

KAYE: Well, we will -- we will know when --

LOESCH: We don't know. We never will.

KAYE: -- when all sides start talking, we hope.

We'll -- we'll stay on this, I'm sure.

Dana, Joan, Paul, thanks very much, as always.

WALSH: Thanks.

KAYE: Up next: We're one step ahead of President Obama with a live report from India, where he will be staying and where critics are trying to claim it'll be costing taxpayers $200 million a day. We will separate fact from myth -- straight ahead.

Later, we'll talk with Sean Penn in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, about the storm coming through, on top of the cholera outbreak and all of that earthquake damage.



Dana Loesch in NYC: Day 2

Day 2: Dana Loesch appeared on Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld, with Pat Caddell, Ann Coulter, and Juan Williams.

Find more videos like this on The Activity Pit

Videos of Loesch on ABC's coverage

Tea Party Wins With Rubio and Rand

Republicans take over Facebook:

Why the HELL would ABC put on Dana Loesch to spew out falsehoods?


11.03.2010: Dana AGAIN states that she isn't a Republican, but she CLEARLY is.


Dana Loesch in NYC: Day 1

This past Saturday, Dana Loesch was on Geraldo At Large: Geraldo SLAMMED Roberto De Posada.

Why ABC should NOT put Liar-in-Chief Dana Loesch on air, via Adam Shriver:

ABC News set off a firestorm when they announced that professional media manipulator Andrew Breitbart would be part of their election coverage. After severely damaging their credibility as a news organization (after all, Breitbart's whole career is based on spreading misinformation, even when doing so destroys innocent people's lives), they tried to walk back their claims by issuing the following statement:

Since conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart announced on his website that he was going to be a participant in ABC’s Town Hall meeting at Arizona State University, there has been considerable consternation and misinformation regarding my decision to ask him to participate in an election night Town Hall event for ABC News Digital. I want to explain what Mr. Breitbart's role has always been as one of our guests at our digital town hall event:

Mr. Breitbart is not an ABC News analyst.

He is not an ABC News consultant.

He is not, in any way, affiliated with ABC News.

He is not being paid by ABC News.

He has not been asked to analyze the results of the election for ABC News.

Mr. Breitbart will not be a part of the ABC News broadcast coverage, anchored by Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos. For the broadcast coverage, David Muir and Facebook's Randi Zuckerberg will contribute reaction and response gathered from the students and faculty of Arizona State University at an ABC News/Facebook town hall.

He has been invited as one of several guests, from a variety of different political persuasions, to engage with a live, studio audience that will be closely following the election results and participating in an online-only discussion and debate to be moderated by David Muir and Facebook’s Randi Zuckerberg on ABCNews.com and Facebook. We will have other guests, as well as a live studio audience and a large audience on ABCNews.com and Facebook, who can question the guests and the audience’s opinions.
However, if ABC News is going to prevent Breitbart from appearing on air, they also should not tarnish their name by allowing Dana Loesch to appear. Loesch has many things in common with Breitbart. One is that she repeatedly spreads false information that is never corrected even after the facts are as plain as day. But just as important is her record of using misinformation to try to destroy people's personal lives and careers for the sake of advancing her political agenda and promoting her career.
If ABC News wants to retain any credibility as a media outlet, they should not allow Dana Loesch to be on their election night broadcast as an "analyst."
I agree with Shriver on this. Why the hell would ABC put on these 2 pea-brained assholes.
Loesch and Breitfart
are still lying about the Joe Miller/KTVA incident:

Unsurprisingly, given Loesch and Andrew Breitbart's history, the story they are pushing appears to be false. Greg Sargent of the Washington Post posted a response from the general manager of KTVA, the media outlet accused of trying to "sabotage" Miller:

Audio KTVA -

Breitbart lashes out at Media Matters, ABC News during radio interview

1 hour and 8 minutes ago

From the November 1 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:

@andrewbreitbart: You and @DLoesch are parasites to America. @EricBoehlert is correct in calling you out, you 2-timing bastard. via web from Pontoon Beach, IL

@DLoesch: a wave of Red isn't going to happen tomorrow night. You are a puppy killer, Ms. Dana! #MOSen #DLRS #KFTKCAM #MOPropB

Note to Dana Loesch: I'm going to be cheering if the Democrats keep both the Senate and the House. #DLRS #KFTKCAM

@Dloesch: the Left is NOT behaving like racists like you and people like your side. #DLRS #KFTKCAM

Note to Dana Loesch: Liberals are NOT "Fascists." Loesch loses -150,000,000,000 CPs + gets coal for XMas. #DLRS #KFTKCAM #DanaLoesch

@Dloesch is a corrupt lying bastard who has no business on ABC. Go back to FNC where you belong! #ABC #KFTKCAM #DLRS

Dana's starting off election eve with lies as always. She's making this stuff up about the KTVA controversy. #KFTKCAM #DLRS
Tweets by @JGibsonDem Tweets by @JPCTumblr