Boehlert vs. Loesch: The NYC/NJ Snowmageddon and Chris Christie

Looks like one of Andrew Breitbart's cronies-in-chief at Big Journalism is making up distortions about how the "unions in NYC did worse than Christie with the snow removal" garbage. Her name is #7 on my 2010 Worst Persons list, and it is St. Louis's own lie peddler Dana Loesch.

Here are Eric Boehlert's tweets that call out Loesch's distortions:


Dana the Fibber digs a deeper hole for herself:

No, “NJ” didn’t call out the National Guard. Chris Christie called out the National Guard because that’s the job of the governor. Of course, I don’t expect a “senior fellow” who so zealously attempts debate on the matter to actually know what he’s talking about if he comes from Media Matters. Soros pays him to be persistent, not knowledgeable, folks.
She was crazy enough to blame the unions in NYC in her tweet:
Dana Loesch
NYC slow snow cleanup really a union protest: Have blood on their hands:
Her boss, Andrew Breitbart, was even more batshit crazy:
Not that Im paying attention, @, but your snow plow duty reminds me of your Gladney hit job. Pay to play Union propaganda!

Here's a perfect song for Dana Loesch:

Cee-Lo Green
"Fuck You"


Indianapolis gets brainwashed by Dana Loesch, comes to WIBC

Some Dana Loesch-related news: her lie-filled two-hour propaganda show, The Dana Show, comes to Emmis-owned WIBC-Indianapolis at 3PM EST/2PM CST, after the biggest racist on radio, The Drugster's Excellence In Bullshit Program (aka The Rush Limbaugh Show) on 01.10.2011.

She surely got a lot of coal handed to her this christmas.


Dana "I Hate Unions" Loesch accuses the carolers of "thuggish intimidation"

Dana Loesch, the queen of "I Hate Unions," was trashing Unions for alleged intimidation on Private Property, when they are in fact doing nothing wrong. WGEM, the NBC affiliate out of Quincy had this:

QUINCY, Ill. (WGEM) -- It's Christmas caroling with a message.

Wednesday night, locked out workers from Roquette America in Keokuk staged a very unique protest.

They took a break from the picket lines to go caroling outside the homes of top Roquette executives who live in Quincy.

The union workers have been off the job for almost three months now.

Roquette locked them out on September 28th, and contract negotiations have pretty much stalled ever since.

Wednesday's event hoped to grab the attention of company leaders. The singers carried signs that read "bah humbug" and "Seasons Greed-ings". They sang "Let Us Work" to the tune of "Jingle Bells" and "God Rest Ye Locked Out Laborers"

According to union members, Roquette's contract offer would slash wages and benefits.

WGEM was right on the money with this article. Sure looks like Loesch will be getting tons of coal in her stocking for Christmas.

Dana's fact-free spin on BigJournalism.com:

Are you kidding me? A caravan of 80 people to sing insults and, according to eyewitnesses, shouting “F*CK YOU” at various houses right before Christmas? This isn’t “caroling,” this is intimidation. On private property. I’m told by locals that one of the houses they visited was down a private lane of an elderly couple whose granddaughter often stays with them (and luckily wasn’t the night the union struck) – the union trespassed.

When union thugs – because members don’t show up to people’s houses but if you do you’ve crossed the line from member to thug – show up to the homes of private citizens, it’s all but ignored.
Loesch, of course, offered no facts, but a lot of "Unions are ruining America" crap. The unions are helping America and ARE needed more than ever.

Here's even more of Loesch's coal-receiving fib:

Unions to not have the right to trespass onto private property to terrify private citizens into behaving in ways that could harm their business. If they are unhappy, go work somewhere else. Unions do not have the right to employment; they only have the right to seek it and if they are upset with their circumstances then they should take it up with their wealthy bosses who use them like they are minions to enforce policy that is incredibly detrimental to their jobs. It’s unfair and malicious to mischaracterize every business owner in America as some rich fat cat. The couple on the private lane upon which the union trespassed? The gentleman, say the locals, got his start as a union member on the shop floor and worked his way up to achieve the American Dream, using the same right to pursue happiness that everyone else has. But once you achieve too much in America, you’re a target. There is no American Dream – just a nightmare of envy and penalties. It’s a gimmick to get you to earn money and once you do, the class warfare is invoked against you. Because somehow you’re a bad person for working hard and providing jobs.

People like Andy Stern have more power than most of the targets on their near-home invasion hit list. But they won’t tell their workers that. If ever union members ever realize that they outnumber, and are more powerful than, their bosses, it would be a very bright day in labor.
Dana The Elitist is defending the Fatcats, and not the workers.


Dana Loesch acting in an Un-American manner over the 9/11 First Responders Bill, will end up with coal for Christmas

On Anderson Cooper 360, with Dr. Sanjay Gupta filling in, regular CNN Conservative Contributor Dana Loesch makes up excuses for denying the 9/11 First Responders their health care. This woman is a phony un-American patriot, whines about Conservatives get beaten up by Liberals and Thugs," in fact when it's the opposite and loves to keep on harping about the Pigford case and agitating Eric Boehlert on Kelly Owens. She wants to claim she's a "deficit hawk," when in fact she wants to help herself all the way to the bank.

From the 12.21.2010 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:

Obviously, a lot to talk about. We're going to try to keep the volume town ourselves with Steve Kornacki of Salon.com and also Dana Loesch, editor of BigJournalism.com and host of Saint Louis radio station KFTK 97.1 FM.

Boy, some obviously impassioned discussion.

I think Dana is going to be joining us by phone, Steve. But let me start with you.

One of the big things we keep hearing about is this is being rushed, that it's sort of being dealt with at the 11th hour. Is there some validity to those arguments?

STEVE KORNACKI, SALON.COM: Well, it is sort of being rushed right now, but let's not forget that this bill actually came up a few weeks ago in the Senate, and this could have been dealt with at a time when there was more time to have a debate, more time to discuss, more time to have all of this procedure that -- that Coburn is talking about right now.

The Republicans all stood together and filibustered it a few weeks ago. Their -- their -- you know, you know, the grounds that they provided at that time were, you know, we're not going to take action on any bit of legislation until we address the Bush tax cuts. So, they basically said that this lame-duck session, all of it, is sort of subservient to getting a deal on the tax cuts.

Now, a deal on tax cuts was reached, and then Democrats began sort of ticking through the rest of the items they wanted to address, whether that was the repeal of don't ask, don't tell, the spending bill, the DREAM Act, which went down over the weekend.


GUPTA: ... yesterday, yes.

KORNACKI: And here you are now with a bill that -- now, the stakes are really high, obviously. It's very important in terms of health care for these workers, but when you look at the -- the budgetary impact, when you look at the money that is actually involved, in the scope of the entire federal budget, in the scope of all of the money that's spent every year, this is now down to about $6 billion.

So, it's small in a way. The price tag is awfully small. Now, so when you leave it to the last minute like this, a small amount of the calculation is, you know, it's a big impact, but it's a small price tag.

GUPTA: So, now you just will be able to get it through given the small price tag.


GUPTA: I think, Dana, are you -- are you on the phone with us, Dana? OK.



GUPTA: Dana, you -- you -- I think you heard most of what we were just talking about there.

I mean, what do you think overall of Senator Coburn's strategy? I mean, there have been changes to this bill, changes to the funding, changes to the price tag. It's not perfect, as most bills aren't, but are those flaws worth killing it for? LOESCH: Well, and I think it's -- it's -- it's perfectly -- I think what Coburn's doing is, he's being legitimate in his hesitancy, believe there is not a single person to whom I have spoken, nor I myself, concerning perspective on this, believe that this -- that the people who committed heroic acts on 9/11 and that were there, our first-responders, no one in their right mind believes that they shouldn't have help with dealing with what was the worst terrorist attack, worst at on our country's soil.


LOESCH: But the thing is, is that, even though it is the -- it's a great cause, the right cause, that doesn't mean -- and I think that the people who are going to be helped from this, they deserve a little bit more than having a piece of slipshod legislation be thrown in.

And one of the biggest concerns that I know Coburn has, as well as a lot of other Republicans, is that this remains unfunded. They have no idea how they're going to fund this. And my -- my bet is -- or my suggestion, rather, is...

GUPTA: Right.

LOESCH: ... let's find something to cut immediately, so that, A, we can make sure these people get the help they deserve, and, B, let's make sure that the people who have been injured and are dealing with bad health issues and are dealing with bills, make sure that they can get funded, and that what they're receiving doesn't get looted by people who are committing fraud.

And we saw such a precedent already go down this month with the passing of the second Pigford settlement, because there's a ton of fraud in that. So, I think those concerns are legitimate. And no one's arguing that this shouldn't be done. They're just saying, you know what? Let's make sure that these people get the help that they need...

GUPTA: Right.

LOESCH: ... and that it's done the right way.

GUPTA: And -- and -- and, Steve, I mean, obviously, we are talking about health here. So, waiting can be problematic. People are waiting right now. Dana called it slipshod legislation.

It's been through committee. I mean, what -- what -- is it something -- again, the same question -- is enemy -- is the perfect the enemy of the good here in terms of getting something done?


Well, I think, on the issue of Tom Coburn and his motives, I think it's fair to say, I mean, he's -- he's been consistent in this regard. Just about every piece of legislation that comes before the Senate, no matter how big or how small the price tag, he does ask questions like this. GUPTA: Mm-hmm.

KORNACKI: He does, you know, talk about using his power to delay things, so he's being consistent in that regard.

But what I think is the most revealing thing on this is, if you look outside of the Senate, you have Republican voices, you have conservative voices now, like Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, you know, a host on the FOX News Channel who is now basically devoting a segment to this every night, who have really embraced this, the idea of passing this bill, as a real cause.

This is not a typical sort of left/right, Democrat/Republican divide. You know, a lot of Democrats are upset that Barack Obama really hasn't been front and center on that. And I think one of the reasons is the Democrats were -- in the Senate were able to cut a deal with just about all of the Republicans to bring the price tag down to $6 billion -- it was $7.5 billion -- to change the way it's funded.

GUPTA: Right.

KORNACKI: And the Republicans basically said they're OK with it.

GUPTA: And they get a lot of support.

KORNACKI: So, this really is down to -- this really is down to Tom Coburn and maybe a couple sympathizers in the Senate...

GUPTA: Right.

KORNACKI: ... vs. the Republicans and the Democrats.

GUPTA: Dana, is Senator Coburn, do you think, getting a lot of calls from his Republican colleagues in the Senate, you know, trying to persuade him?

LOESCH: Well, you know, I think that he probably is at this point, but he's also probably getting calls of support from people saying, look, we understand what your strategy is in this, because there is nothing that is more dangerous I think with passing this legislation than passing something where we have no idea where the money's coming from.

And, again, just there's -- there's several concerns that I think are really valid here. And I understand where Giuliani and I understand where Huckabee are both coming from as well. And I also understand that Democrats were even struggling to get a lot of their own in line behind this piece of legislation.

I think it was just January 28 of this year that the president, he made a remark to the New York delegation saying that he wasn't exactly on board with the funding of this thing. So there was a lot of discussion on the left, as well as a lot of discussion on the right.

But the bottom line is, there's some -- I can think of at least six things that we can cut right now and get this thing moving and get it passed and also make sure that there are safeguards...

GUPTA: Right.

LOESCH: ... in place to make sure that people who need help with -- with health, need help with medical bills can get that, without it being looted.

GUPTA: Any possibility of them coming back after Christmas, Steve, do you think?

KORNACKI: Well, the real question right now is, let's say that this passes the Senate tomorrow. Let's Coburn relents and it passes the Senate.

There's a question right now -- forget about after Christmas -- right now -- if there are going to be enough people left on the House side in Washington tomorrow who can vote on it then. The House leader says they're ready to vote on it. They had a vote tonight -- 80 people had already left town. Let's see where we stand 24 hours from now.


GUPTA: ... until Christmas, for sure.

Steve Kornacki, Dana Loesch, thanks so much for joining us.

I want to hear from you as well at home, what you think. Join the live chat now under way at AC360.com.


Dana The Diva, of course, had a senile fit about criticism about her:

Yet another juvenile tweet from Dana Loesch.
I love these tolerant progressive men. When they realize a girl knows more than they do they turn into cousin-humping wifebeaters.
I told Loesch this, in response to her tweet falsely accusing us Progressive/Liberal men of being "cousin-humping wifebeaters." We are anything but that.

@: You are going to get coal in your stocking for Christmas for such deranged talk, Ms. Loesch!

Loesch's mentor Andrew Breitbart makes up stuff, as always.

@ @ I think we got a little insight tonight how rough word play w the ladies was single Eric's M.O. with liberal chicks.

Shame on Dana Loesch for her un-American actions about the 9/11 First Responders, and she will end up getting coal for Christmas.


Parker and Spitzer give Dana Loesch unnecessary credibility

St. Louis's own Tea Party Conservative hack Dana Loesch was asked five off-set questions by Parker/Spitzer producer Jay Kernis.

Here is one of those five questions :

Are you raising your sons with what might be called Tea Party values? If so, what are those values?

If a desire to adhere to the Constitution, be self-sufficient, and take pride in our protected freedoms is considered such, I suppose I am. In my household we avoid party labels and stereotypes when discussing politics, even just my husband and I in front of our boys, because I want their allegiance to liberty, not to party, a marketing gimmick, or rhetoric.

Parties are infallible and make mistakes and we often make the mistake of measuring Democrats against Republicans or Republicans against Democrats instead of measuring candidates against the Constitution.

The biggest, most important value with which we're raising our sons is care for their fellow man through faith. The criticism against big government stems from government acting to serve when people have failed to do so for each other. I don't believe that you can advocate as a limited government person of faith without seeking to do for your fellow man that which you forbid of the government. People's failure to care for their fellow man as instructed to by faith opens the door for expanded, often oppressive, government.

More proof that people like Loesch have ruined CNN for us Liberals and Moderates, and even a few Conservatives.

Dana Loesch was just on Parker/Spitzer tonight. She thinks it's "kittens and sunshine," but it is not. Loesch is still defending the rich and loves to play the "Article 1, Section 8" card. She is repeating discredited screeds and ducking tough questions as always. At least this time they spelled her name right.

From the 12.20.2010 edition of CNN's Parker/Spitzer:


Why the hell is CNN letting Loesch get away with her crap with little or no pushback? A REAL news organization wouldn't allow her on solo, or at all. She has done more harm to St. Louis than even the ultra-Conservative Phyllis Schlalfly ever did. Dana, I heard that there will be coal this Christmas for you.


Loesch defends DADT's retainment on Joy Behar and was on AC360 last night

Dana Loesch was on tonight's Joy Behar and was worried about getting her tax cuts for the rich more than getting our openly Gay troops to serve honestly. Ron Reagan was spot on with his arguments.

Loesch defended DADT's policy and made homophobic excuses to defend the policy and to deny openly LGBT troops the right to serve, much like I'd expect with Dana The Diva's rival, Dr. Gina Loudon. She loves to play the "Will Of The [Conservative] People" card when it suits her, such as the Health Care Reform and the Park51 building. Dana, I have news for you, the ACTUAL "Will Of The People" and about 7/10ths to 3/4ths of the active Military service members support DADT's repeal.

From the 12.16.2010 edition of HLN's The Joy Behar Show.


BEHAR: "Don`t ask, don`t tell" the controversial law banning gays from openly serving in the military could soon be a thing of the past -- I hope. The House voted yesterday to repeal it and now it is in the Senate`s hands. Some Republicans there have changed their minds to support the repeal but will that be enough?

Here now to discuss this and more are political commentator Ron Reagan and Dana Loesch, editor of bigjournalism.com and radio host on KFT 97.1 FM.

You know, I`m sorry I say Reagan. I get confused.


BEHAR: There was a Don Regan. There is a Ronald Reagan. There`s a Ron Reagan.

REAGAN: We used to be Reagans. We used to actually -- back in Ireland we were the O`Reagans.

BEHAR: See, I just went back to Ireland for a second there.


BEHAR: So, Ron, the Senate is going to vote to repeal DADT?

REAGAN: We hope so. Now, Harry Reid says he is going to allow this to come up for a vote. We really have to watch to see whether he schedules a vote and whether that vote is scheduled before Christmas.

If he waits until after Christmas, which the Republicans would like him to do, it`s possible that some Democrats could not come home from Christmas vacation or come back to Washington from Christmas vacation and you`d lose votes. We`re at 60 right now, apparently, with four Republicans now onboard or three Republicans and Blanche Lincoln now back in the senate.

BEHAR: That would be Senators Snowe, Brown, and Murkowski?

REAGAN: Right, exactly. Exactly. So, you know, if Reid can schedule a vote now the votes seem to be there; 60 votes for the repeal.


REAGAN: But it`s all about the timing.

BEHAR: Ok. Dana, now, why are most Republicans not willing to appeal it, despite the polls showing almost 8 in 10 Americans support gays openly serving in the military? Why can`t they just do it?

DANA LOESCH, BIG JOURNALISM.COM: I think right now, Joy, it`s not so much as substance but looking at this from a procedural point of view.

And that you have to remember Republicans back before the lame duck session started they said, look. These are some of the things that we need to have done. The tax extension -- the tax rate extension must be passed before we start considering other pieces of legislation. So if they flinch at all it`s going to look very bad in public relations terms for the GOP.

I think that they`re just looking at it as to what is immediately going to impact people after the first of the year.

REAGAN: They`re playing all sorts of games, Joy. Jim DeMint wants the entire 1900-page omnibus spending bill read aloud.

LOESCH: Why not? They haven`t read it. They haven`t read it.

REAGAN: I think it`s probably they don`t need to read it.


LOESCH: Ron, are you telling me that they don`t need to read legislation before they pass it?


REAGAN: Do you think that senators actually read 1900-page bills, Dana? You really think that they do?

LOESCH: Well, they ought to.


REAGAN: Ordinarily? Do you really think that Jim DeMint wants to educate the senate by having this bill read or do you think he is trying to push things back into the next term?

LOESCH: No, no, no. So you support passing a trillion dollar legislation without reading it?


REAGAN: Yes. In this case.

BEHAR: Ok. What about Senator McCain? Who is he pandering to, Dana?

LOESCH: McCain, I don`t -- I don`t really try to pretend even to want to get into John McCain`s mind. He is not one of my favorite people on earth.

BEHAR: Why not?

LOESCH: Well, I haven`t been very impressed with his big RINO record. I think that a lot of the stuff that he does is pretty much just advantageous. He is not one of my favorite Republicans.

BEHAR: Is he not conservative enough for you?

LOESCH: No, he`s never been conservative enough for me.

BEHAR: Well, he is on this topic. Even though, you know, Defense Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen support repealing, he still doesn`t want to appeal it. He should know better.

LOESCH: Well, then again, too, Joy, I look at it like this. Personally, "don`t ask, don`t tell", when I look at what this is, what the military should be, when you go into the military when you volunteer to be a part of the military, individuality ceases to have any significance once you join the military.

It does -- nobody cares or should care what your sexual orientation is. They shouldn`t care what music you like, what your favorite food is, nobody gives a crap. People need to get over self-importance.

REAGAN: But apparently they do.

BEHAR: To me it`s bad policy. I mean I was reading that dozens of Arabic translators were kicked out of the military because they were gay. That`s really stupid. That is just stupid and dangerous.

REAGAN: It is. What is amazing is to recognize the low opinion the people who support "don`t ask don`t tell" appear to have of our fighting men and women. You would really think that the people in the Marines, if you listen to General Amos, are all a bunch of juvenile bigots, that they can`t handle the stress of having a gay person or a gay man or lesbian anywhere near them.

LOESCH: Well, that`s not -- that`s not the perspective that I hear.

REAGAN: Well, it`s the perspective I hear.

LOESCH: What I hear from people and just on my show today I had a ton of veterans who called in from all branches of the service and they were saying, look. We don`t care. We served with gay people. Gays have served before "don`t ask don`t tell" which I don`t know why Democrats put it into effect in the first place.

REAGAN: I don`t either.

LOESCH: But they`re freaking out trying to get it out of the way.

REAGAN: Yes, I don`t know.

BEHAR: That was a bad idea.

LOESCH: Gays will serve after "don`t ask don`t tell".

The point that I heard from every single veteran who called into my show today was, look, the most important thing is, can you serve? Can you serve? Can you serve well?

REAGAN: Exactly.

LOESCH: We don`t care what you are. Quit putting the focus on individuality. It`s all about breaking a person down, rebuilding them up to be a part of a cohesive unit.

REAGAN: That`s what I`m saying Dana.

BEHAR: But it`s they`re out -- if people find out you`re gay, you lose your job. It`s a job, too, you know.

LOESCH: It is a job, too. But also, infidelity is illegal. You can get court-martialed if you cheat on your wife in the military. There are a lot of things in the military.

BEHAR: This is different. This is about who you are. It is very difficult I think to be in the closet all day and all night constantly. It is very unfair.

REAGAN: Well, it also forces people to lie, which would seem to be against, you know, military ethics.

BEHAR: One would think.

REAGAN: Yes. One would think. But again, Dana was making my point. I don`t think our military personnel, our fighting men and women if you will are all, really (INAUDIBLE), as Sarah Palin might say, about serving alongside gay people. They know they already do. It is just some of the people that are fighting this repeal who seem to think that they`re such juvenile bigots that they can`t handle it.

BEHAR: Let me ask you something, Ron. Yes, Ron.


BEHAR: President Obama released this statement. "We must ensure that Americans who are willing to risk their lives for their country are treated fairly and equally by their country."

If this gets repealed do you give any credit to the President or do you blame him for taking so long?

REAGAN: Well, I don`t think he got out in front of this parade if you will. He may have made a political calculation in that, though, that if he did get out in front too much on this that the Republicans would get even more obstructionist about it, would dig in their heels even more about "don`t ask, don`t tell" because they would see it as a signature issue for him and of course they want to stop anything that he`s going to do.

So he may have made that political judgment. I`m not sure. I don`t know what --


BEHAR: The Tea Party seems to be all about the will of the people. Well, this is the will of the people. It`s time to move on from this. Don`t you think, Dana?

I`ve got to go. Thank you guys very much.

REAGAN: You bet.

BEHAR: We`ll be right back.


Last night on Anderson Cooper 360, Paul Begala and Loesch were on, and you guessed it, making excuses for supporting the Republican Party's obstructionist tactics while claiming to despise all political parties.


I spoke about -- about repealing don't ask, don't tell, as well as the congressional work ethic, earlier tonight with Democratic strategist Paul Begala and Dana Loesch, editor over at BigJournalism.com and host of KFTK Radio in Saint Louis.


COOPER: Paul, we just heard Senator Lieberman sounding very optimistic about the chances for repeal. But, obviously, he and other supporters sounded optimistic before last week's vote as well. How confident are you about the -- the chances now?

PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: You know, it's -- it's usually a safe bet that things die in the Senate. That's been the pattern for many years now.

But, you know, Senator Lieberman's been working this issue hard. I'm impressed that Senator Snowe has come out in favor of it. I -- I -- President Obama, I know, called her last week and personally lobbied her on this. So -- so, with her addition -- the don't ask, don't tell repeal lost by three the last time around. So, she comes around.

So, now the supporters only need two more. Well, Lisa Murkowski, the senator from Alaska, Republican, has said she supports repeal. Scott Brown, the senator from Massachusetts, Republican, he supports repeal. Blanche Lincoln, the Democratic senator, outgoing, but the still the senator, from Arkansas, she supports repeal, but was at the dentist when they cast the vote.


COOPER: Right. She was at a dentist last time.

BEGALA: So you could pick up -- and maybe even Joe Manchin, the new Democratic senator from West Virginia. So you just need two out of those four. It's getting awfully close. So, forgive me for being a little optimistic.

COOPER: Dana, what do you make about the brouhaha over schedules, people's schedules? I mean, basically, you know, there's -- there's more than a week until Christmas. I'm working today. You're working today. Most of the country is working today.

You know, firefighters, policemen, people who have really important jobs, work on Christmas Day, work on Christmas Eve. Are senators' complaints making any sense here about -- you know, about -- I mean, is this really the kind of argument that's going to fly with most Americans, that they don't want to work up until Christmas?

DANA LOESCH, EDITOR, BIGJOURNALISM.COM: Yes, I don't think so, Anderson.

I have no sympathy for elected officials. They knew what they were signing on for when they decided to run for elected office and when they were campaigning. They're in it for the long haul. This is about the future of the country. There's a lot of huge things at stake here.

And it's not like they're on the street in the cold in Washington, D.C., under a cardboard box. They're -- they're in -- they're in the Capitol Building. They have nice accommodations. So, I don't feel -- I don't feel sorry for them at all.


COOPER: Paul, any time, like, I complain about my job or listen to these people on Capitol Hill complain...

BEGALA: Right.


COOPER: ... about their jobs, like, you know, there are folks working in coal mines around the clock. There's, you know, people working all night long in bakeries, you know, and, as Dana said, delivering newspapers out in the cold. It just -- it kind of makes my head explode.

BEGALA: Well, and, in fact, this is -- you know, it's Senator Kyl of Arizona, Republican, who's like the chief whiner about this.

And Senator Kyl and all of his Republican colleagues are the guys who blocked even debating the 9/11 health care bill. I mean, this is for -- there's 58,000 men and women who inhaled -- frankly, inhaled the pulverized particles of the World Trade Center. Many of them are ill. They need health care. It's a national priority.

The Republicans filibustered against that. I guess that's in keeping with the Christmas season, as Senator Kyl is very concerned about offending his -- his Christmas celebrations. Of course, Jesus would have wanted those 9/11 first-responders to not get any health care.

LOESCH: Oh, come on. I have heard... BEGALA: And let's -- let's kill the nuclear...

LOESCH: I have heard Harry Reid invoke Christ: What would Jesus spend? I already heard him talk about Christ on the floor earlier.


BEGALA: This was the Republican talking point. See, they're saying that, if the senators have to work, somehow, that offends Jesus. So, they're going to -- they're going to...

LOESCH: That's not all Republicans' talking point.

BEGALA: They want to go home -- yes, that's...

LOESCH: Paul...

BEGALA: It's the Republicans who are saying this. They want to go home because Jesus would want...

LOESCH: We would not in this position. Democrats had two years. What were they doing, twiddling their thumbs?

BEGALA: What they were doing was...

LOESCH: I mean, come on, we wouldn't even be having this decision -- this discussion...

BEGALA: What they were doing was...

LOESCH: ... if they had been doing something.

BEGALA: What they were -- what they have been -- this is like -- Lincoln told a story about the man who murdered his parents and then threw himself on the mercy of the court because he was an orphan.


BEGALA: The Republicans caused this. They delayed, delayed, and delayed. And this -- now they want to invoke Jesus because it will offend Jesus if we have like a nuclear arms treaty. Jesus, hey, he loved nuclear weapons. Jesus would want us to not control nuclear arms with the Russians. It's nuts.

COOPER: I just think, in a day and age where you have, you know, tens of thousands of U.S. forces serving overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan, for people to be complaining about their work schedule, for public officials to be complaining about their work schedule, just boggles my mind.

LOESCH: No, I...


COOPER: But -- but, Paul, realistically, though, time is running short. There is a whole lot left on the Senate's plate. Even if they work every available minute, can they wrap up their -- their -- their lame-duck agenda?

BEGALA: The problem is, the majority doesn't rule in the Senate. The Senate is supposed to be deliberative and slow and difficult.

But it also -- and I have checked the Constitution -- it's supposed to run on a majority, not 60...


BEGALA: ... 50.

And the Democrats have tried in good faith to bring up this legislation. The Republicans have, using the filibuster rule, which only used to be used once or twice a year...


LOESCH: It used to be 67 votes, instead of 60. And it was a Democrat who changed it.


BEGALA: They even filibustered -- they even filibustered the -- the -- the help for these 9/11 first-responder responders. They will filibuster anything in order to get their tax cuts for the rich.

And that seems to be their one agenda.

LOESCH: Oh, don't even go down the "tax cuts for the rich" road, Paul.

BEGALA: ... which, of course, in the Christmas season, again to come back to the baby Jesus...


LOESCH: Come on.

BEGALA: No, Jesus said...



BEGALA: Didn't he say it's more difficult...

LOESCH: What would Jesus spend?

BEGALA: ... for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a poor person to get a tax break...


LOESCH: You know what? That's -- that's -- that's the little-known 11th Commandment.

BEGALA: Yes. No, it's just silly.

LOESCH: Paul, did you know that? That's the little-known 11th Commandment. It was written on the side margin of the tablets that Moses had.


LOESCH: Thou shalt not pimp Jesus for the sake of an argument.



LOESCH: Nobody -- nobody -- because it was written on the side, because there wasn't enough room, nobody remembers that.


BEGALA: I'm simply -- I'm picking up the motif the Republicans have given us. Senator Kyl has said that...


BEGALA: ... somehow, it's going to offend the baby Jesus if these guys have to work over the holiday. And I -- I just don't -- I have been talking to Jesus about it. I haven't heard back from him, but...

LOESCH: Harry Reid said that: Do it for Jesus.


LOESCH: Pass the big porker omnibus bill for Jesus. What would Jesus spend?



COOPER: I haven't heard Jesus mentioned so much in a political debate in quite some while...


COOPER: ... from both the left and the right.


COOPER: I think we're going to leave it there.


COOPER: Paul Begala, Dana Loesch, thank you.

BEGALA: God bless you.





Dana Loesch and other Conservatives complain about Tea Party's so-called snub for Time's Person Of The Year

We have more whining from selfish spoiled brat Dana Loesch, this time whining about how the Tea Party didn't get Time's Person Of The Year award for the 2nd year in a row. Her Big Journalism blog had a crow over Mark Zuckerberg being named Person of the Year, which he deserved.

A nice, safe, inconsequential choice? Time couldn’t bring themselves to award information distributor, worshipper of hubris, self-styled rockstar Julian Assange the nod, though he dominated Internet voting. Of course, they couldn’t bring themselves to give the award to the tea party even though the tea party changed the course and discourse of a nation in a single year.

Media Matters and Time magazine itself debunks the spin that that "Tea Party was snubbed," by pointing out that they were also in the running for Time's Person Of The Year.

The surprising thing about the Tea Party movement is how many experts were surprised by it. The U.S. has always been home to a large group of people who think the government is too big and spends too much. Why wouldn't those people rise up when the already gargantuan federal deficit more than tripled seemingly overnight? Some lexicographers say refudiate was the word of the year, but for sheer political impact, it's hard to top the word trillion.

The Tea Party victories didn't magically heal the age-old divisions of the right. Senator-elect Rand Paul, the movement's flag bearer in Kentucky, is the son of libertarian icon Representative Ron Paul of Texas. Dad has often split with the neocons of the Republican Party over military interventions around the world. Like father, like son? For that matter, how will the hands-off libertarians get along with the factions of the GOP that want to enforce drug laws and ban abortion and same-sex marriage? Already the self-proclaimed Tea Party Caucus of the House of Representatives is clashing with GOP leaders over how to pursue repeal of the Obama health care law. Should the new Congress propose an alternative medical system or take a harder line: Just keep the government out?

Far more likely is a long, closely fought race, which means sharply targeted efforts by skilled, well-funded candidates to split the GOP into blocs and win voters one faction at a time. Today's cracks in the Tea Party facade will be probed and wedged open. Traditional conservative divisions — libertarians, Evangelicals, corporate interests, Joe Lunch Bucket — that were masked while everyone banded together against Obama could return. Only now, every faction will be able to stake a claim to the Tea Party mantle, having served the movement in the Great Midterm War.

MMfA notes that the Tea Party was a runner-up, in lieu of being on the Finalists list.
Tea Party Was Chosen As Runner-Up Even Though It Was Not On Finalists List. The Tea Party was not on Time's list of 25 finalist candidates, though the other three runners-up were.


Loesch on GMA defending Judge Hudson's ruling on HCR

Yesterday on ABC's Good Morning America, St. Louis Tea Party hack Dana Loesch was on. Of course Loesch was going to call the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Health Care Reform Act of 2010 as "health control law" and defend Judge Hudson.

From the 12.14.2010 edition of ABC's Good Morning America.

Bush-appointed Judge Hudson (R) was wrong in his ruling, as people found out. It is NOT the entire PPACA that is thrown out, but requires that Americans to pay insurance or be penalized the portion that has been ruled unconstitutional.

The Health Care Reform may have a rocky road ahead.

Back to Ms. Loesch, she call call me a "momma's basement troll" all she wants and nominate me for Tool Of The Week, but that doesn't change the fact that she's a deranged liar with no proof of evidence or regards for ethics. She will be getting coal for Christmas.


Dana Loesch defends the rich yet again on AC360

St. Louis Tea Party darling (or head grinch) Dana Loesch was on AC360 yet again. She was paired with Paul Begala on the program.

From the 12.09.2010 edition of Anderson Cooper 360:

Up next: more on Harry Reid and his passion for tackling a bill legalizing online poker, tacking that on to the vital tax deal President Obama worked out with Republicans. Four years ago, he was against online gaming. Now he's for online poker. We will talk about that with Paul Begala and Dana Loesch, who also square off against over extending tax cuts for the wealthy.


DANA LOESCH, EDITOR, BIGJOURNALISM.COM: These -- these are -- these are people who create jobs.

BEGALA: That's what we're doing.

LOESCH: These are people, by the...


BEGALA: No, they don't create jobs. They ship jobs overseas. Oh, nonsense.

LOESCH: A lot of individuals have to fly -- have to file -- well, no, that's because you guys raise taxes and you run companies out of -- and you run companies out of the country, and then you're like, oh, my gosh, why are they leaving?


COOPER: And later, "Keeping Them Honest": The lawmaker who will be in charge of consumer protection in the next Congress, guess where he gets the biggest percentage of his campaign contributions, and guess who else is getting big money from big money? We're "Keeping Them Honest."


COOPER: Well, as you heard, Harry Reid said they're out of time for voting on don't ask, don't tell, but, apparently, there's enough time to pass the Internet Poker Act of 2010. It's a bill legalizing online poker at the federal level.

Now, wait a minute, what about, you know, all that other stuff?


REID: We have a lot of things to do in a short period of time.

Let's run over what we have to do. We have a tax issue. We have got the funding issue. We have got the START treaty. We have got the defense bill. And we have the DREAM Act. We have the firefighters issue. We have the funding of the seniors for their COLA that they deserve.

We have the 9/11 situation regarding the people in New York who are -- been harmed, damaged and are sick. So, we have lots of things to do.


COOPER: That was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Funny, though. He didn't mention the Internet Poker Act of 2010. And it's hard to imagine why he left it off the list, considering that he's the one pushing to pass it. He's trying to attach it to the tax bill, putting out a statement tonight saying -- quote -- "The online poker bill I'm working on is good for the country and for Nevada."

He goes on to say the bill would provide consumer protection and respect the decisions of states that don't support gambling. He concludes, saying -- quote -- "Finally, the revenue and jobs from this multibillion-dollar industry will stay where it belongs, here in America."

So, he's pushing the bill, but, interestingly, four years ago, he was against online gaming. You might wonder what's changed. Well, back then, he said Internet gaming couldn't be adequately regulated. Now he says it can.

But what's also changed is the revenue. Four years ago, the big Nevada casinos thought of gaming as the competition. Now they're realizing that, with their brand-name recognition, they can maybe get a big piece of the online action.

Take a look at this from the Union Gaming Group, which follows the gambling industry, quoted in "The Las Vegas Sun": "We believe there will be a billion dollars in earnings generated by licenses," earnings the industry watchers say, for big names like MGM Resorts International and Caesar's Entertainment.

According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, they have been the number-one and number-three donors to Senator Reid over the last 21 years.

Now, in fairness, those big donors are also huge employers, and unemployment in Nevada is sky-high. Senator Reid was elected to serve the interests of his state, certainly, which include the people and the businesses in it. As a majority leader, however, he also serves the country. So our question is, is there a conflict?

I talked about it earlier tonight with Paul Begala and Dana Loesch, editor of BigJournalism.com and host of Saint Louis radio station KFTK.


COOPER: So, Paul, given all that Harry Reid has on his plate, the tax cuts, don't ask, don't tell, the START treaty, why would he be trying to slip an online poker bill into this session? He's not some obscure member who might be able to go unnoticed. He's the majority leader.

BEGALA: Right. And he's also the senator from Nevada. The biggest employer in his state is the gaming industry. The biggest taxpayer in his state is the gaming industry.

I think he and his supporters believe that there are a lot of Americans getting ripped off on online gaming, and this would set some consumer protections and some regulation in there. So, obviously, a senator from Nevada is going to be for that.

COOPER: Dana, do you buy that, that it's just about, you know, wanting to help folks -- stop folks from being ripped off online?


LOESCH: Well, that's the -- that's a kind of kittens-and- sunshine sort of explanation for it, I think.

Really, and the reality of this is that there's...

COOPER: Kittens and sunshine?


LOESCH: ... there's -- there is a lot of tax revenue to be had over this.

Seventy-five percent of the revenue is going to be going back to Nevada, going to be going to New Jersey as well. So, that's -- they look to make a lot of money off of this.

COOPER: So, it's smart politics for Harry Reid?

LOESCH: Oh, yes, completely.

He's using his senatorial power to go and pay back the people who have donated the most to his campaign. And there's a lot of politicians who do it, but let's just be honest and call it what it is.

COOPER: Let's talk about this tax deal now.

It's obviously unclear what's going to happen, ultimately, with the tax cut extensions. Does it make sense for House Democrats, Paul, to take on President Obama in such a -- a defiant and public manner?

BEGALA: You know, I don't know. It probably feels good for them.

I would actually reverse this. It's the president who took them on. I -- I didn't think it was a good deal. Most House Democrats didn't think it was a good deal. But set that aside.

The president seemed to go out of his way to stick a thumb in their eye. He said people in his own party who disagreed with him preferred symbolism over substance, fighting over getting things done, that they were sanctimonious, for goodness sakes.

He would be much better served if he said, look, I -- I'm the president. I think this is the best thing for the country, but I understand there are principled people in my own party who disagree with me. I admire that principle, but I want you to work with me to try to do what I think is best. Wouldn't that be nicer than just going out there and sticking a thumb in the eye of people, many of whom lost their jobs in part because of Barack Obama?

COOPER: Dana, does it make sense, do you think, for the president to have made this deal politically? Because now it's going to come back -- it's going to be another big issue in 2012 during the presidential election, because these tax cuts will be set to expire then.

LOESCH: Absolutely.

And we're going to see this being used on campaigns. It's going to be the -- it's going to be this campaign season, but just repeated again in a couple of years.

I -- I think that this was the best that he could have done, but what I don't understand is, this is all theater. We wouldn't even be having this problem at all if Democrats, who had a filibuster-proof majority, if they had done something about taxes earlier, perhaps, before the election, like way back when they -- when they had all this political capital and they were shoving through health care and everything else.

If they would have actually paid attention to -- we wouldn't even be in this situation. It just seems a little bit comical to me now, because they waited for so long. And now here it is, the 11th hour, and, suddenly, they're all concerned.

COOPER: Paul, did Democrats make a mistake?

BEGALA: Yes, I think -- I think Dana makes an important point, and a legitimate point.

I would have one important correction. They didn't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, or they would have done this. But it's a fair point.

LOESCH: Well, they had it in the House, though.

BEGALA: They had a chance -- they -- they had a chance -- right. They had a chance in September. The Senate Democrats decided not to put this up right before the election. I do think that was a strategic mistake.

COOPER: Well, it does seem that Barack Obama ran as a candidate as the guy who could bring both parties together in a room and come up with compromise and a deal.


COOPER: Isn't that what he's done? Why, then, are liberal Democrats surprised that he's made a deal?

BEGALA: Well, he -- he -- oh, he didn't say that. He said, I don't just want to play the game better in Washington. I want to change the game.

He didn't say that he would just make cynical political deals. And I think that's what this is. It may be the better thing for him to do. I tend to disagree with that. But, no, I think this runs very contra to the Obama brand. If tax cuts for the rich generated jobs, we would have more jobs.


LOESCH: This isn't tax cuts for the rich.


BEGALA: ... because that's all we have done for 10 years.

LOESCH: That's misframing the argument.

BEGALA: I mean, it's just -- I mean, I'm sorry. You know, look, I believe in lots of crazy stuff, and I believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, but it -- you just can't persuade me to believe, after 10 years of...

LOESCH: Really?

BEGALA: ... shedding jobs and cutting taxes for the rich, that somehow now all we have got to do is cut taxes for the rich, and now, all of a sudden, after failing to create jobs for 10 years...

LOESCH: What is this cutting taxes for the rich? These -- these are -- these are people who create jobs.

BEGALA: That's what we're doing.

LOESCH: These are people, by the...


BEGALA: No, they don't create jobs. They ship jobs overseas. Oh, nonsense.

LOESCH: A lot of individuals have to fly -- have to file -- well, no, that's because you guys raise taxes and you run companies out of -- and you run companies out of the country, and then you're like, oh, my gosh, why are they leaving?

It was because you're making it impossible for them to do business in the United States. Why -- why is there no explanation or address of that?

But it's not tax cuts for the rich.

BEGALA: I just...

LOESCH: These are job-creators. These are people who create jobs, those evil businesspeople that employ everyone.


BEGALA: First off, Dana, cutting taxes for the rich does not generate jobs. Second, those big businesses and those CEOs...

LOESCH: It -- it absolutely does. It absolutely does.

BEGALA: Excuse me for talking while you're interrupting.

LOESCH: Statistics support it.

BEGALA: Those big businesses and those CEOs...

LOESCH: I just had to correct...


BEGALA: ... who ship jobs overseas, they're the ones who are getting these tax breaks. And if it worked, we would have -- when Bill Clinton was president, we raised taxes on the rich.

And I know it was a socialist paradise -- 39.6 percent, that's tyranny -- 35 percent under Bush, that's freedom.


BEGALA: So, the line between freedom and tyranny is a very narrow and perilous one, because we were free under Bush, and everything was great under Bush with 35 percent top marginal rate for the rich...

LOESCH: Let me ask you this question. This will -- this will settle it.

BEGALA: ... but 39.6 that Obama wants -- I mean, come on.

LOESCH: Let's boil -- let's boil it down to one quick question. Paul, Paul, Paul...

BEGALA: Who would you rather have -- or whose economics would you rather have, the economy we had under Clinton or the economy we had under Bush?

LOESCH: ... do you believe that this -- do you believe that the state can control the output of the individual? Do you believe that it is the state's right to claim the fruits of the labor of -- of you or anyone else? Because that, ultimately, is what it comes down to.

BEGALA: Do I -- oh, I believe in a democracy. All of us have a moral obligation to support our country.

LOESCH: Oh, there we go. No, no, no.

BEGALA: Some of us -- go to Walter Reed. There are men and women at Walter Reed who have given...

LOESCH: Answer the question. Do you believe the state can control the output of the individual?

COOPER: One at a time. One at a time.

Paul -- let Paul answer.

LOESCH: Paul, you're deflecting.

COOPER: Let Paul answer.


BEGALA: I believe in a democracy. It is the sacred obligation of every citizen to support and defend and protect its country.

Some people do it with blood and limbs. And it really is nauseating for me to see rich people to say, I don't even want to write a check, when I -- I know people who have lost two legs wars that they didn't even support. So, I'm sorry. Don't give me all this high and mighty nonsense that somehow rich people are better than working people, because I think that's a load of hooey.

LOESCH: I'm not. You're putting words into my mouth. That's a straw man argument right now.

BEGALA: You say, oh, rich people are great. They create all the jobs.

They don't, actually. Middle -- this -- this whole economy is driven by middle-class consumers, Dana.

LOESCH: No, I was talking about business owners. Don't do this class warfare stuff.


COOPER: All right, Dana, I want to give you the final thought, and then we have got to go. We have got to go. I want to give you the final thought, Dana. Go ahead.

LOESCH: This -- the bottom line is that Paul's argument rests upon the false premise that people who are in a particular income bracket have no opportunity or reason at all whatsoever to leave that particular income bracket.

And that is the thing that Democrats like to exploit when they like to say, oh, let's -- let's do this class warfare. Let's attack the rich. Let's attack the people who create jobs.

That's just -- that's false. And I think that we need to stop framing the argument in that way and -- and quit being so adversarial towards businesspeople.

COOPER: Paul, your furrowed brow...

LOESCH: They create the jobs, help the middle class.

COOPER: ... and -- and smirk says it all. So, I'm going to let Dana have the last...


COOPER: ... the last word here.

Dana Loesch, appreciate it, Paul Begala as well. Thank you.


LOESCH: Thanks.


In the end, Dana's still being a hypocrite as she and her husband (Chris) are in the rich income maker category.


Loesch on AC360 and Joy Behar Show

Dana Loesch on the 12.01.2010 edition of The Joy Behar Show:

BEHAR: Senate Republicans have pledged to block every Democratic bill until the Bush tax cut issue is resolved. And they`ve evidently kept that promise by blocking an extension of unemployment benefits which expire today, just in time for Christmas.

So how is that for compassionate conservatism? Ok.

With me to discuss this and more is John Fugelsang, actor and comedian; and Dana Loesch, editor of BigJournalism.com and radio host at KFTK 97.1 FM.

Ok, John, does this make the GOP look like the party of no yet again?

JOHN FUGELSANG, ACTOR/COMEDIAN: Well, I mean, I like the GOP. I don`t like who they vote for. But the GOP is good at two things at this point -- the modern GOP is good at two things, redistribution of wealth to the upper two percent and convincing nice Republican folks that this is a good thing.

BEHAR: I know. How do they do that?

FUGELSANG: It`s easy because they blame the poor, they blame the less fortunate. Rich people pay Fox people to make middle class people blame poor people.

BEHAR: How do they do that? Dana, how do they convince poor people that they should admire the two percent that make all the money in this country and let them off the hook every time? How do they do that?

DANA LOESCH, TALK RADIO HOST: Well, what I don`t understand and I think that`s funny that -- that John mentioned redistribution of wealth. Because I thought that that was the Democrat platform but I guess we disagree on that. But I look at it like this, the Bush tax, this -- this is -- we need to start calling this tax cuts. This is essentially an extension of the current tax rate. Because regardless of whatever party does what, if this does not get continued after the first of the year, we`re looking at a massive tax hike in a quasi recessionary period -- which is not good.

FUGELSANG: For whom?

LOESCH: A massive tax hike for all Americans.

BEHAR: Oh that`s not the true.

LOESCH: And you keep talking about -- you keep talking about -- John, you mentioned like the upper two percent. You have to realize too that a lot of individuals, including my husband, files as -- as in -- his small business files as an individual. When you look at what the gross net revenue of what some of these businesses make sure it`s over $250,000. But what is their actual take-home pay? You have to look at the facts of the matter, ok.

BEHAR: Ok we got it.

FUGELSANG: Right, so the upper two percent, like we said. Here is the thing --


LOESCH: The people who create the jobs.


FUGELSANG: Right. Because they`ve done --

LOESCH: Because you want to penalize the people who create them?

FUGELSANG: Yes, because they`ve been doing such a good job of creating so many jobs over the past nine years haven`t they?

LOESCH: No that`s the government who gets involved and decides to put all of these regulations --

FUGELSANG: So Bush`s tax cuts that didn`t create the jobs are actually creating the jobs. We just haven`t heard that?

LOESCH: But what about -- we have like this $3 trillion stimulus here; all of this -- this huge massive deficit. Where are the jobs for that? We`re looking like at 10 percent unemployment rate.

BEHAR: All right, let`s -- let`s can we talk about unemployment insurance a little bit? Why would the Republicans want to block the extension on benefits? I mean, people are out of work. They have come up with no solution. They are the party of no, as we just discussed. They have -- they have no compassion for people who are out of work apparently except let it trickle down from the top. And then they cut off people`s unemployment right before Christmas. Answer that, please. Answer me.

LOESCH: There are so many false premises with that statement but what I`m going to look at is this --

BEHAR: All right, let`s -- don`t -- don`t filibuster now Dana, just answer my question.

LOESCH: No, I`m not filibustering.

BEHAR: Go ahead.

LOESCH: I`m going to -- Joy, you -- you think apparently that it`s -- it`s cool to pay people for doing nothing. When it`s the government backed --

BEHAR: No, no, no. It`s unemployment insurance.

LOESCH: If the government got out of the way of job creation and stopped taxing the crap out of people who create jobs we would actually see a rise in employment. That is --


BEHAR: But that didn`t work on the Bush why would it work now? It didn`t work.

LOESCH: That is history, it worked under Reagan and --


BEHAR: That was then.

FUGELSANG: And here`s the thing --

LOESCH: -- and Bush administration in 1916 -- and you can you can go back. There are cycles of this.

BEHAR: Wait a second. Let me get you on that -- I want to just ask you.


BEHAR: What would you say to somebody who`s unemployed now who has four children who is now -- now broke. What is he supposed to do this Christmas? You tell me. Tell me.

LOESCH: I would ask, if I were that person -- and I grew up with a single mother in that environment -- I would be asking why the administration is making it difficult for job creation by way of taxing --

BEHAR: Oh that`s what you --

LOESCH: -- people who create jobs. That`s where it starts. That`s where it starts.


When you have less discretionary income, you`re not going to -- employers aren`t going to be spend money on things like job creation or benefits.

BEHAR: Ok go ahead.

FUGELSANG: Can I add please?


FUGELSANG: Ok, now I would love to see the Democrats force a filibuster on this. I`d love to see the Republicans filibuster and the Democrats actually call their bluff and make them do it. However, the modern Democratic Party is like an S&M slave that forgot its safety word --

BEHAR: A bunch of wimps.


BEHAR: I agree with you.

FUGELSANG: I mean, I love Obama.

LOESCH: So do I.

FUGELSANG: -- but the guy is like -- he`s Clark Kent without a phone booth.

But here`s the thing, getting back the -- getting back to this tax continuation, it`s actually a tax increase. And because Bush made those tax cuts designed to expire at the end of 2010, let`s call it what it is. It`s Bush`s tax increase and nothing else, ok?

LOESCH: Why is it Bush`s tax increase? It would be Obama`s tax increase?

FUGELSANG: Because he designed it. Because no, sugar because Bush designed these tax cuts.

LOESCH: Excuse me, sugar? I`m sorry, did you buy me a drink and take me out to a movie, first.

FUGELSANG: Well, I was hoping you would be here in person, Dana. Ok so forgive me for that.

LOESCH: Because you know don`t call me sugar, you`re like, I think, I was still in high school when you were on -- when you were on VH1. So you`re a little old for me.

BEHAR: We`ve had 10 years of tax cuts and still no jobs. We`ve had tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. The discrepancy between the very rich and the very poor in this country has never been bigger. You keep saying the same thing over and over again. It`s like Groundhog Day. I`m tired of that crap.

LOESCH: No, no. Tax --


LOESCH: Big government is expensive.

BEHAR: All right. We`ll be back in a minute. Take a break.


BEHAR: Part-time governor Sarah Palin seems to be showing which party she`s running for and it`s the party of Palin. She`s not just attacking Democrats but Republicans too. She dismissed the Ronald Reagan as an actor, calling the Bushes a bunch of blue bloods and blamed W. Bush for wrecking the economy.

I`m back with my panel.

Ok. You know, Dana, she`s the patron saint of the Tea Party of which you are a part, I presume, right?


BEHAR: What do you make of this assault on Republicans all of a sudden?

LOESCH: I think it sort of -- Sarah Palin really identifies I think with the grassroots movement that is taking place, within the right and even within moderates on the left as well.

And I thought the little back and forth that she had over the air waves with the Bushes was really interesting. Because the Bushes represent for a lot of people, including myself, the sort of Republicanism that we don`t like to see. We don`t like the old Belt Way big spender type of Republicans. I think for a lot of people they look at the Bushes as being representative of that. But I`m wondering too --

BEHAR: Maybe she`s ticked off because of what Barbara Bush said about her, that she should stay in Alaska. And maybe this is just personal retaliation, you know, because that`s what she`s about.

LOESCH: Well, or it can be they`re setting up for -- they`re trying to clear the way for Jeb Bush. He said no --

BEHAR: Clear the Bush for Jeb Bush.

LOESCH: Right. They`re trying to clear the way for Jeb Bush. Maybe this is going to be like a Jeb/Palin thing, who knows?

Well, Joe Scarborough, a very interesting conservative --

FUGELSANG: An actual conservative.

BEHAR: An actual conservative who things about issues I think. He calls Palin`s potential 2012 candidacy a dopey dream and it`s time for the GOP to man up and shut her down. Will they shut her down? Maybe they should send her hunting with Dick Cheney? Go ahead.

FUGELSANG: Well, I wasn`t surprised that Joe threw her under the dog sled this week. And Dana, I do want to apologize for calling you "Sugar" if you took offense. I`m half southern, it`s how we talk. So please don`t get the wrong idea about me.

LOESCH: I`m southern too. But I just --

FUGELSANG: But what he had -- here`s the thing about Sarah Palin. It`s the same week that Sarah Palin said she could have stopped WikiLeaks from happening. Sarah Palin couldn`t stop her own daughter`s baby-daddy from leaking in "Playgirl". Ok.

BEHAR: That`s true.

FUGELSANG: That`s not going to happen. But here`s the deal.

Sarah Palin is sort of like, to the GOP what Jar Jar Banks was to Star Wars Episode 1. In that --

LOESCH: No, no. That`s -- no, I disagree with that.


FUGELSANG: May I finish Dana please? Well, let me give you my point. She`s there to distract the easily amused from a complete lack of narrative.

BEHAR: That`s right.

FUGELSANG: Ok. She`s a shiny thing we wave. People like it. And the only people who want her to run for president are gullible conservatives, smart liberals and comedians like me.

BEHAR: That`s right. And me, too. I can`t wait to see that.

But I mean she call the family blue bloods.

FUGELSANG: She was right.

BEHAR: Well, but the thing about it is that George Herbert Walker at least is a -- was a veteran of World War II.

FUGELSANG: Sure. But he was also --

BEHAR: He was shot down many times.

FUGELSANG: He`s a millionaire at birth. His son was a millionaire at birth with a fake Texas accent. I mean George W. Bush went to Andover, Harvard and Yale.


BEHAR: And the same people who love Sarah Palin worshipped at the shrine of George Bush. Let`s get clear.

LOESCH: Oh, no, no, no. No they don`t. A lot of it. The very first people in fact that there were out there for the Tea Party movement, these were the people who were complaining about all of the poor under the last eight years, of which four of those were Democratic rule with Congress.


BEHAR: She told Barbara Walters that she could beat Obama. Is that chutzpah or stupidity?

LOESCH: Well, no. I don`t know if it`s -- I mean look -- you have to look at some of the polls that have been released from the past several months --

BEHAR: She`s going down, down, down, baby.

LOESCH: Neck and neck -- it either shows them neck and neck or showed her beating him because his unfavorables are really, really high right now.

FUGELSANG: So are hers in her own state. What Joe Scarborough --

BEHAR: Don`t you think that it`s not going to pay to attack Ronald Reagan in Iowa. I mean really -- St. Ronald Reagan of the Republicans.

FUGELSANG: She didn`t so much attack Reagan. And I`ll defend her on calling the Bush family blue bloods because they are. But here`s the thing --

BEHAR: Blue hair, I think she meant --

FUGELSANG: What Scarborough`s right about is that the GOP leadership are afraid to criticize her until she announces whether she`s running or not. Until then, no one`s going to stand up so maybe Scarborough`s running.

BEHAR: Thank you very much guys.

Back in a minute.


Dana Loesch on AC360, spewing out more nonsense:

COOPER: Well, that's Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona saying that 80 percent of the American people do not want to see taxes rise.

In fact, it's not exactly true. According to that very poll he cited, the Gallup poll, just 40 percent of Americans want to keep all tax cuts for all incomes. Forty-four percent want to keep tax cuts, but set limits for wealthy Americans. And 13 percent want the tax cuts to expire for all Americans.

Joining me now is editor of BigJournalism.com and radio talk show host Dana Loesch and Democratic strategist and pollster Cornell Belcher.

Dana, this -- all this talk from yesterday of working together, I mean, is that all just complete hooey?

DANA LOESCH, EDITOR, BIGJOURNALISM.COM: Well, I don't think it is. I think that they -- I think both sides do need to work together. And they immediately need to start with figuring out what they're going to do with this tax rate.

It's not really so much a tax cut as it's talking about extending the current tax rate, which, when you look at our economy, you look at our unemployment, you look at where everything is, we cannot afford to pay more. We cannot afford right now to have the government take more discretionary income from people, especially the people who create jobs, and attempt to redistribute. That -- it just doesn't work that way.

COOPER: And, Dana, you -- and you support them...


COOPER: ... sending a message nothing else gets done until a decision is made on these Bush tax cuts?

LOESCH: Honestly, Anderson, I don't know how we can really act on anything else at this point, until we figure out what's going to be happening with people's bank accounts after the 1st of the year. That is supremely important.

And that's going to affect everything -- it's going to affect everything, everything, every aspect of American life.


Cornell, what...

LOESCH: And I think, once we figure that out, we can move forward.

COOPER: What about that? What about the fundamental argument that conservatives like Dana are making that the only way to fix the economy is to give more Americans more control over their money? A lot of voters like that.


I mean, before I try to go off to score just usual cheap political points, let's be -- try to be informative. I think what's happening actually right now is, you have five different parties, and they all five need to get to different places.


COOPER: What are the five different parties?

BELCHER: It's very -- Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans, House Democrats, House Republicans, and the White House.

Look, arguably, from a political -- purely political tactical standpoint, House Dems right -- right now have more in common with -- with the Senate Republicans. And look what -- because -- because, quite frankly, now you can see Mitch McConnell picking up the playbook of no, no, no, a day after saying, you know, we're going to be bipartisan, a very successful playbook.

And at the same time, you have Speaker Pelosi, you know, saying the other day that, you know, I'm -- I'm going to -- I'm not afraid to be the -- the sole voice standing out for -- for -- for the middle class, because now, all of a sudden, Boehner has to come in, and he -- and he has -- he has to govern.

Now, can Speaker Pelosi now pick up the -- the Boehner playbook and dust it off, because now she doesn't have to govern, and, from a purely political standpoint, be more in line with what you see Mitch McConnell doing right now, which isn't about governing; it's about politics?

COOPER: Dana, can't, though, members of Congress do multiple things at once? I mean, can't you have a vote on don't ask, don't tell or other issues at the same time that you're working on -- on whether or not to -- to continue these tax cuts?

LOESCH: Oh, sure, absolutely.

And I might say, I'm not -- I -- I'm just going to lay it out. I'm not BFFs with Mitch McConnell, by any stretch of the word. But, at same time, I'm a little impressed to see him get a little bit brassy, finally, and start getting tough with some of this stuff.

I agree, we have played politics for too long with American people's money, individual money. I don't understand this incessant push to have the state control the output of that -- that -- the fruits of the labor from people.

If you look back from -- you can go back so far as 1916 with Woodrow Wilson, and look at what happens when you raise taxes on folks. Look at the discretionary income be taken away, out of people's hands, and then look what happens to the revenue that comes into the government. You get more net revenue, the government does, by letting people have their own money and decide how to spend it. That's ultimately what this argument's about.

BELCHER: Look, Anderson, the truth of the matter, if these taxes -- if tax -- if these tax cuts were creating jobs, we would have jobs out of our -- out of our ear holes.

What this is fundamentally about is, is -- is, you know, we're in an economic crisis. And do the rich have an obligation to carry their fair share? I mean, the other day, you know, you...


LOESCH: They are carrying their fair share. They're paying the majority of the taxes.


COOPER: Let him finish. Let him finish.

BELCHER: No, actually -- no, actually, they're not paying the majority of the taxes.

LOESCH: Yes, actually, they are, and that's according to IRS data. Yes.


LOESCH: Yes, absolutely.

BELCHER: And if you look -- and if you -- and if -- and if you look at sort of, I mean, what -- I mean, Warren Buffett said he went to his office the other day and he saw that he was paying a higher -- that his employees were paying a higher proportion of their taxes -- in taxes than -- than he was.

And the fact of the matter is...

LOESCH: You know what, Cornell?


COOPER: Let -- let -- let him finish his thought, and then come in.


BELCHER: Can I finish my -- can I finish my point?

The fact of the matter is, look, we're in an economic downturn. We're in great debt. Why on earth would we take $1 trillion away from the middle-class children and give it to -- and give -- and give it to the wealthy under this ideal it's going to create jobs, and it hasn't created one job yet?


LOESCH: Well, yes, why don't we do that with the stimulus?

I will tell you what. If it was -- if the stimulus, that was supposed to create jobs, and it didn't do anything. If you want to pay higher taxes, you know that the Treasury Department accepts donations.

I -- why aren't -- are you donating more, Cornell, to the Treasury Department right now? You think that people should be paying higher taxes? So, I assume that you are freely and voluntarily donating to the U.S. Department of Treasury.


LOESCH: Because, if you're not, then I believe that you like the government like to come in and force people to divide up their money as they choose.

And, quite frankly, I trust my own acumen...


LOESCH: ... when it concerns my finances over that of the government, because they're not doing so hot right now. BELCHER: You know, the -- you know, the -- the heightened political rhetoric has just gotten so dumb in this country right now, that it doesn't move the argument.

LOESCH: That's not rhetoric. That's fact.

BELCHER: It doesn't -- it doesn't -- it doesn't move -- it doesn't move the argument.

COOPER: Let -- let Cornell respond.


BELCHER: It doesn't move the argument forward.

The truth of the matter is, these millionaires came out the other day saying that, you know what? We don't need more tax cuts. We want to pay -- pay our fair share.

And, quite frankly, what you're talking about doing is Robin Hood in reverse, is taking $1 trillion from middle-class families and giving them to -- and -- and giving that to the wealthy, and it's not creating jobs.


BELCHER: And, by the way, the stimulus, if you do check your statistics, it did create jobs.

LOESCH: No, it doesn't.

BELCHER: And, quite frankly, the CBO said it create jobs.

LOESCH: No, it didn't. You're moving the goalposts. You're moving the goalposts with that.

BELCHER: No, I'm not.


COOPER: We have got -- we have got -- we have got to, guys. I'm sorry.

LOESCH: That's pseudoscience.

COOPER: Guys, appreciate it.

Dana Loesch, Cornell Belcher...

LOESCH: Thanks, Anderson.

COOPER: ... thank you very much.

BELCHER: Thank you.
Tweets by @JGibsonDem Tweets by @JPCTumblr