Keith Olbermann names Dana Loesch as WPTIW on Current TV's Countdown

CNN "contributor, Big "Journalism smearer-in-chief, and dangerous whiner radio host Dana Loesch was named as Worst Person on last night's Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Also, Former Clinton campaign manager and Fixed Noise regular Dick "The Toe Sucker" Morris was Worse and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) was Worser.

From the 09.28.2011 edition of Current TV's Countdown With Keith Olbermann:

The reason why she got the WPITW slot:

Tea party darling and CNN contributor Dana Loesch has decided to engage in some audacious revisionism in order to defend conservatives from criticism over the booing of a gay soldier at a Republican presidential debate.
Loesch's re-imagining concerned the Fox News-Google debate during which a question given by Stephen Hill, a gay soldier serving in Iraq, elicited audible booing from the audience. Media figures and even some Republican presidential candidates have condemned the booing.
At a fundraiser yesterday, President Obama also condemned the booing while criticizing aspects of the modern-day Republican Party:
Some of you here may be folks who actually used to be Republicans but are puzzled by what's happened to that party, are puzzled by what's happening to that party. I mean, has anybody been watching the debates lately? You've got a governor whose state is on fire denying climate change, it's true. You've got audiences cheering at the prospect of somebody dying because they don't have health care and booing a service member in Iraq because they're gay.
Loesch responded on Andrew Breitbart's Big Journalism, claiming that President Obama had deliberately lied about the booing.
As evidence that Obama was lying, Loesch linked to a previous blog post she had written, claiming that she had "thoroughly debunked" the booing story.
But her previous blog actually confirms the fact that the soldier was booed at the debate.
In her blog post, Loesch had quoted conservative activist Sara Rumpf who was in the audience for the debate in question, and "[t]here was audible booing after [Hill's] question...however, please note that it was not the crowd booing It was only one or two people."

I knew that Loesch was going to get her well-deserved WPITW nomination from Olbermann sooner or later.


On Anderson Cooper 360, Dana Loesch openly endorses Chris Christie

Fresh off of Dana Loesch falsely claiming that the gay soldier wasn't booed, she appears on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 to cheerlead for Chris Christie and Sarah Palin (who very likely won't run). The second Republican on the panel, former Bush 43 White House Press Secretary and CNN "Contributor" Ari Fleischer, said that "the Social Conservative base will have a large broken base to support from: Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Palin, Santorum." Fleischer also stated that a divided far-right base benefits Mitt Romney in the Primary." If Romney wins the GOP primary, I bet you that the anti-Romney right will do either of the following: hold their nose and vote GOP (provided that Romney appeases them with a VP pick) or more likely, vote for the Constitution and/or Libertarian Parties at the Presidential level. Finally, former Chief of Staff for Michele Bachmann Ron Carey stated this about Palin: "I like her personally, but she's too unelectable."

From the 09.27.2011 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:


COOPER: So how is this for a pep talk? President Obama's chief campaign adviser, David Axelrod, said today it will be a titanic struggle to get his boss reelected. A titanic struggle. Over to -- on the Republican side they're going through a titanic struggle of their own in a different way. They're looking for a candidate that can win next year. It's obviously not unusual.

But this is -- this time around Republicans are also struggling and struggling titanically to find a candidate they actually want to win. We've seen Michele Bachmann rise and fall, Rick Perry enter, and now stumble. Now it's New Jersey Governor Chris Christie maybe, or then again maybe not.

He's been on a fund-raising swing through Missouri. Fund-raising for others not himself. Not yet. Perhaps not ever. Tonight he's in Southern California, speaking at the Ronald Reagan Library. Today his brother Todd tells the "New Jersey Star Ledger", quote, "I'm sure that he's not going to run. If he's lying to me, I will be as stunned as I have ever been in my life."

But the day after former New Jersey Governor Tom Cain told the "National Review" that Governor Christie was thinking about it. FOX News says no but a source tells "Politico" Christie is in fact considering it.

Make of that what you will. As for Christie himself, he's always been very clear about it. The answer, he says, is no.


GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: I don't feel like I'm ready to be president, I don't want to run for president. I don't have the fire in the belly to run for president. I don't feel ready in my heart to be president.


COOPER: Sounds pretty definitive. That's Chris Christie. And the "Star Ledger" is reporting that he once again said he is not running this afternoon to a group of influential fund-raisers at a steakhouse in Orange County, California.

There's also of course Sarah Palin. People have been waiting for months now for her to make some sort of decision. "The New York Times" today reporting the Palin announcement could come within days.

In just the last few days, her Facebook page has grown quiet. And she's been keeping a lower profile some believe getting ready for the moment.

Is she, will he, should they? Let's talk about it.

CNN contributor Ari Fleischer joins us, former press secretary for President George W. Bush, now on Twitter @AriFleischer. His latest column up on CNN. com, titled, "It's Too Late for Chris Christie to Run." Also, CNN contributor Dana Loesch, a Tea Party organizer in St. Louis and editor of BigJournalism.com. And Michele Bachmann's former chief of staff, Ron Carey.

So, Ari, let me start with you. You think it would be a mistake for Chris Christie to get in the race?

ARI FLEISCHER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY FOR PRESIDENT BUSH: I just think it's too late. Too much time has passed by. And it is so hard to build a successful presidential campaign. And the scrutiny he would be under, every little mistake he will make and every candidate makes mistakes, it's going to be a piling on.

Candidates need to have an on-ramp to get ready for the presidential especially in the instant era we live in with the Internet. I think it's too late for him.

COOPER: It's also interesting, Dana, because I mean a lot of people say, look, I'm not interested in running, and then they turn out running. But he's actually saying, I'm not ready to be president. That's pretty definitive.

What's -- what do you think is behind all this talk? Is it just wishful thinking on the part of some Republicans? DANA LOESCH, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, he's -- the word choice that Chris Christie uses is really interesting to me because he's always said, well, I'm not ready to be president yet. I'm not ready -- not yet. I think at some point it may be in the cards for Chris Christie, but not for 2012.

I don't look for him to do anything until 2016. I still think that he needs to fulfill his obligations to his constituents. And you know he said, I don't have the fire, I don't have the fire in my belly. And if there's one thing that we can count on from Chris Christie is not to mince words.

COOPER: That's true.

Ron Carey, in terms of Sarah Palin, we are still hearing, as we have been for, it feels like, forever now, that her decision is coming soon. Take a look, though, for our viewers, at this week's CNN/ORC poll. Palin is neck and neck with Herman Cain and Ron Paul at 7 percent. That's less than half the support she had a month ago.

RON CAREY, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF FOR MICHELE BACHMANN: Well, I think Sarah Palin is a very smart person. She has a plus, I agree with, but yet she has such high negatives in -- to the general electorate. She has a really image problem and I think she's going to look at those numbers and say, as much as I think I can offer to the debate, I am not going to be electable this year.

And the last thing we need as Republicans is to put a candidate forward who's very provocative and going to really ruin the chance we have to win with a candidate that's too provocative.

I look at Nevada in 2010 as an example where Harry Reid was behind and basically going to be a loser in every poll. But then Republicans put a very provocative candidate up and Harry Reid was able to make Sharron Angle into the issue, not Harry Reid. And the Obama campaign has said they're going to do the exact same thing to the Republican nominee.

That's where we need to have somebody who is experienced, seasoned and who doesn't have open wounds that the Obama campaign can really take advantage of.

COOPER: Dana Loesch, if Michele Bachmann has -- she's declined in the polls lately. Do you think that make it more likely for Sarah Palin to maybe think, OK, I have an opening?

LOESCH: Possibly. I mean I look at how the president does in the polls as well. And I mean some of the polls that they have released they haven't even bothered naming a Republican candidate. So at this point, quite honestly, I think it could be anyone's game for a number of the candidates.

As to what Palin is going to do, she said that she's going to make an announcement by the end of September. It's getting close. So we'll have to sort of sit back and wait and see. I know that it's kind of difficult to measure how she stands against other candidates because she hasn't really actively gotten out there and campaigned in the way that we would see other candidates do.

I know Ari mentioned an on-ramp to the presidential campaign. We haven't really seen her kind of use that. So there's a lot of stuff in play here, there's a lot of moving pieces, but a matter of days.

COOPER: But, Ari, I mean, Sarah Palin, you know, can kind of create her own on-ramp. It doesn't seem like she's going to be -- whatever she decides to do, she's not needing necessarily to go the traditional route. I mean she's been on various bus tours, although she says she's just on vacation. But clearly, you know, she just happens to be vacationing in spots where there's lots of media.

FLEISCHER: Right, but the fact is the -- because she did not have an on-ramp when she was named as John McCain's vice presidential candidate, she couldn't handle the scrutiny that came with all of a sudden she could be the United States' vice president.

Candidates need that time. Nothing is like a presidential race. The amount of scrutiny, the amount of work, the pressure you're under, the way you have to prove that you're capable of sitting in that chair in the Oval Office. People watch it and they judge you, and they're harsh in their judgments. You've got to be ready for it. That's what doomed her last time.

If she goes this time, frankly, and I'm neutral in this Republican primary, but it would be a dream come true for Mitt Romney. Because what would happen is many of the social conservatives and the base at the Sarah Palin Wing base of the Republican Party, which is an important powerful base, will really split.

They're going to have Bachmann, Santorum, Perry, Palin to choose from. And it really creates a bigger gap for Mitt Romney to run through as more or less the centrist businessman, more traditional Republican candidate. So it would set him up nicely at a time when things are breaking in Mitt Romney's direction at least in the last week.

COOPER: Ron, what do you make of Rick Perry's, I mean, stumble in the last debate? Do you think -- I mean who benefits from that? Is it just a temporary stumble or how bad is he hurt?

CAREY: Well, I think, you know, one thing we can be certain of is Mitt Romney is going to get to the finals. The question is who is going to get there with him? And we build these candidates up to be such the second coming of Ronald Reagan. But then as soon as it starts getting closer to scrutiny, their numbers start to come down.

And I think Rick Perry is going through that. He still very well may become the chief competitor to Mitt Romney. But I think Ari makes a very good point.

I remember back in 2008 how demoralized the Republican base was here in Minnesota when John McCain became the candidate. Because 82 percent of the base thought he was too - the Republican base thought he was too liberal. But yet our process can -- let somebody thread the needle if they do just the right things, and that's where Mitt Romney does want a fragmented field of conservatives.

And if conservatives want to have a conservative candidate run against Barack Obama they need to unite, you know, in the next three months behind the best candidate and not fragment our vote and open a door for a Mitt Romney to become our nominee.

COOPER: Dana, Ari, Ron, thanks very much.

So this segment had 3 Republicans to 0 Democrats. If someone says that "CNN is a Liberal, Lamestream 'news' network," you better think again. Liberal Media my ass.


St Louis's leading liar misleadingly claims that the "crowd didn't boo the gay soldier"

Today, on Big Journalism, CNN "Contributor" Dana Loesch falsely claimed that the crowd didn't boo Stephen Hill for supporting LGBTQ soldiers in the military. And Loesch has a track record for being homophobic.

This morning while on the Political Buzz panel for CNN we discussed the reported “booing” of the gay soldier who asked about DADT at last night’s debate.
Considering the amount of print devoted to painting the entire crowd out to be bloodthirsty haters with zero regard for military service, it’s no wonder that it would become a question the next day.

Unfortunately for the progressives writing the spin (who forget that it was their idol Bill Clinton who enacted DADT in the first place), the entire story of the debate audience booing is a lie.

Sara Rumpf was in the debate audience and what she witnessed was vastly different than the account the outlets linked above are reporting:

I want to put this on the record now about an incident that happened at tonight’s Republican debate. It’s important that the truth is shared, because I have already seen liberal bloggers and some people on Twitter completely distorting what happened.

The debate included video questions that were submitted on YouTube, and one came from a soldier serving in Iraq who is gay and asked about the candidates’ opinions on don’t ask don’t tell. There was audible booing after his question…however, please note that it was not the crowd booing. It was only one or two people.

Frankly, I don’t care where you stand on DADT, you don’t boo a soldier in the battlefield, period. The audience at last night’s debate believe this which is why they verbally took apart the men who yelled. Conservatives police their side.

If progressives want to talk about bigotry, let’s talk about the unfiltered racist hatred they dumped on Twitter the night Troy Davis was delivered justice. Look at Michelle Malkin’s Twitter stream for that. I’m waiting for progressives to clean up their house.

Dear Dana, they DID boo the soldier, you lying moron! And no, Conservatives do NOT police their side.

Santorum, however, supports the reinstatement of Don't Ask, Don't Tell:
SANTORUM: The fact that they’re making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we’re going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege and removing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, I think tries to inject social policy into the military and the military’s job is to do one thing — and that is to defend our country. We need to give the military, which is all volunteer, the ability to do so…and I believe this undermines that ability.

KELLY: So what would you do with soliders like Steven Hill. Now he’s out…so what would you do as president?

SANTORUM: Look, what we’re doing is playing social experimentation with our military right now and that’s tragic. I would just say that going forward, we would reinstitute that policy if Rick Santorum was president. Period. That policy would be reinstituted and as far as people in, I would not throw them out because that would be unfair to them because of the policy of this administration, but we would move forward in conformity to what was happening in the past, which is — sex is not an issue. It should not be an issue. Leave it alone. Keep it to yourself — whether your’re heterosexual or homosexual.

From the 09.22.2011 edition of FNC's Fox/Google Debate:

Even GOProud has condemned the behavior of both Man-On-Dog and Hill.

(Washington, D.C.) – “Tonight, Rick Santorum disrespected our brave men and women in uniform, and he owes Stephen Hill, the gay soldier who asked him the question about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal, an immediate apology.Link

“That brave gay soldier is doing something Rick Santorum has never done – put his life on the line to defend our freedoms and our way of life. It is telling that Rick Santorum is so blinded by his anti-gay bigotry that he couldn’t even bring himself to thank that gay soldier for his service.

However, the rest of the GOP condoned the booing of a patriotic LGBTQ soldier by being silent:
Last night, Stephen Hill, who is serving in the Army in Iraq, had the courage to come out as gay to a national audience and ask the Republican presidential candidates about how they’d handle troops like him. The audience responded to his question with boos, and Rick Santorum said he’s reinstate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (a promise he doubled down on later in the evening).

The big question today, even among conservatives, is: Why did none of the candidates stand up for the soldier? Here are some of today’s reactions to the offensive moment.

So people like Loesch, Santorum, and the GOP will lie about anything to get their homophobic agenda out.

UPDATED: On Fixed Noise's America Live w/ Megyn Kelly, Rick Santorum claims "he didn't hear any boos".

From the 09.23.2011 edition of FNC's America Live w/ Megyn Kelly:


Loesch lies about ESPN, falsely accuses Progressives/Liberals of condoning rape

Today, we have St. Louis' Queen of Hate making up heinous lies baselessly claiming that Liberals/Progressives condone raping of Conservative women, when we know that's a false claim spewed by people like her.

Last Friday, the Daily Caller ran a piece on Mike Tyson’s recent heinous ESPN remarks on Sarah Palin, and the story sparked a massive row amongst conservatives.

Correction: were this a conservative saying the same about a progressive female, the “equal rights” fellows-in-ideology would selectively invoke their chivalry and take a stand against the remarks. As it is, progressive males (and females) routinely sanction such language against conservative women. We could go over the reasons why, but feigning interest in the psyche of the male progressive is above my pay grade.

I think it’s absolutely newsworthy that a progressive male — a wife-beating convicted rapist — worshipped by Hollywood and prevalent in pop culture, advocated for rape against Sarah Palin on ESPN radio. As I write this, Tyson’s name is trending on Twitter because he is taking part in Charlie Sheen’s roast. He has cameos in big Hollywood films. His remarks were accepted by society. I don’t think this should have been reported as a dry news story, but rather in an editorial with the headline: CONVICTED RAPIST HASN’T CHANGED: TYSON ADVOCATES FOR PALIN RAPE?–a slam dunk editorial excoriating an individual and the society that idolizes women-violators and shuns conservatives who believe women should be treated better.

What almost everyone has missed is that Tyson’s remarks weren’t made on some obscure radio show. They were made on ESPN. My teenage male cousin heard this. ESPN’s jocks laughed and encouraged a nine-minute-plus diatribe by Tyson, wherein he made obscene remarks about rape and Sarah Palin. They laughed and supported it.

No one has called out ESPN or their Las Vegas affiliate on which the show aired because everyone is too busy arguing over a bad editorial call. This story was driven in the wrong direction by reaction and the focus removed from the actual victim, a woman who progressives routinely target with hatred and violence. It does Palin a disservice to use a verbal attack made on her by a rapist as a way to drive traffic, or to settle personal or political scores.

No, Dana, Mike Tyson is NOT a "progressive." And Mediaite's Tommy Christopher rebuts her dubious lie. And as GinaLou (no relation to Teahadist fraud "Dr." Gina Loudon) said on twitter:

The comments are repulsive and reprehensible but they're sadly par for the course on sports radio.
I bet most of those sports talkers who have a history of sexism are the ones that skew conservative.

In her lie-filled Big Journalism column today, she baselessly accuses ESPN of having double standards:

I’ve written before of ESPN’s enforcement of policy concerning political speech. I’m sure you’ll be shocked to know that the selective condemnation extends to radio commentary as well. Don’t everyone gasp at once.

We remember how Rush Limbaugh had to resign from ESPN over a remark about Donovan McNabb that progressives insisted was racist.

Compare this to Mike Tyson’s recent appearance on ESPN’s Las Vegas affiliate. The show’s (called “Gridlock”) hosts, Mitch Moss, Seat Williams, and Pauly Howard laughed hysterically at Tyson’s remarks on air and on Twitter.

Some quotes from the nine minutes of frat boy #fail humor (shield thine eyes ye with sensitive constitutions!):

“You want her to be with somebody like Rodman, jigging up in there [inaudible] push her guts up in the back of her head, right?”

Just imagine Palin with a big ol’ black stallion, rippin’ just rippin. Everybody gotta get that out of their system …”

“She met the wombshifter.”

“I wonder what Palin would [inaudible] a poor black man on the street needs some assistance … I know she’d give Obama some love … I’m sorry! I’m not sorry!”

ESPN allows this on their affiliate and all of the conservatives with their Daily Caller Day of Rage are now curiously silent about ESPN. This was done on an ESPN station, which is worse than a website reporting it, yet crickets. It causes further suspicions; I wondered aloud in yesterday’s post whether some were just exploiting this as a way to settle a score with Tucker Carlson. They’re making me believe that they are by not calling out the entity that facilitated this story in the first place.

By the way, look at what occurred on Twitter last night as a result of the ESPN/Tyson episode:

And to certain conservatives: will you call out ESPN with equal or greater fervor?
That, my friends, is just Loesch being a senile liar. She previously accused ESPN of "being in the tank for Obama and the Democratic Party." Baloney! Methinks she may be race-baiting as well.

Speaking of violence, Loesch's boss Andrew Breitbart advocates for a civil war, and claims that the "military will back the teabaggers up." Guess who's advocating violence now?

Conservative media provocateur Andrew Breitbart, speaking to a Tea Party crowd of over 60 people in Lexington, Ma. on Friday, got a little bit carried away with his own patter. He told the crowd that he sometimes thinks to himself, “Fire the first shot” in a hypothetical civil war with liberals, explaining that “We outnumber them in this country, and we have the guns.”

Although Brietbart told the crowd “I’m not kidding,” in response to their laughter, he probably was kidding, and probably shouldn’t have been.

Speaking to the $45 a head crowd at the presumptuously named “The Ampitheater” in Lexington, Breitbart was asked about this past weekend’s “Days of Rage” protest against Wall Street. “Bring ‘em on!” he responded, before launching into his civil war hypothetical:

“I must say, in my non-strategic… ‘cuz I’m under attack all the time, if you see it on Twitter. The (unclear) call me gay, it’s just, they’re vicious, there are death threats, and everything. And so, there are times where I’m not thinking as clearly as I should, and in those unclear moments, I always think to myself, ‘Fire the first shot.’

Bring it on. Because I know who’s on our side. They can only win a rhetorical and propaganda war. They cannot win. We outnumber them in this country, and we have the guns. (laughter) I’m not kidding. They talk a mean game, but they will not cross that line because they know what they’re dealing with.

And I have people who come up to me in the military, major named people in the military, who grab me and they go, ‘Thank you for what you’re doing, we’ve got your back.’

They understand that. These are the unspoken things we know, they know. They know who’s on their side, they’ve got Janeane Garofalo, we are freaked out by that. When push comes to shove, they know who’s on our side. They are the bullies on the playground, and they’re starting to realize, what if we were to fight back, what if we were to slap back?

The crowd lapped it up (predictably enough given the recent conservative shift toward butch, overcompensating posturing), and Breitbart, clearly caught up in his riff, eagerly piled on seconds. He’s the Miles Davis of right-wing guano, but he hit a few irredeemably sour notes here.

Although Breitbart frames his rant in terms of the death threats he receives, and is clearly working the crowd for laughs, saying that he thinks “Fire the first shot,” because conservatives have all of the guns crosses the line from harsh rhetoric into irresponsible speech. Unlike the recent brouhaha over union leader James Hoffa’s fiery voter-encouragement comments, Breitbart goes on to clarify that he is not speaking metaphorically about voting, but rather, a literal civil war.

If you think that Liberals/Progressives go around and advocate violence and rape, you are sorely mistaken, buddy! Generally speaking, it's the right-wingers that do this, not the left! And members of the Breitbart/Loesch Axis of Evil have a long history of advocating violence against Liberals/Democrats/Progressives.


CNN allows deranged liar Loesch to mislead the people

Why does CNN allow Dana Loesch on? Simple. Makes them more money and gets the right-leaning audience from Fixed Noise.

From the 09.11.2011 edition of CNN's CNN Newsroom:

LEMON: All right. Welcome back, everyone.

Here in Tampa, the Tea Party will take the political spotlight at Monday night's Republican debate, cosponsored by CNN.

Let's talk about it now with Alex Castellanos, Republican consultant and a CNN contributor. Dana Loesch, she is a talk radio host and co- founder of the St. Louis Tea Party, and also a CNN contributor.

And once again, LZ Granderson is in Michigan. He is a CNN contributor and senior writer at CNN.com.

I know it should be over here but the words are on this camera. All right. So, here we go.

We're in Florida, which is a must win state for the GOP, if they want to win the House. So, what do Republicans have to do?

I'm going to start with you, Alex. What do they have to do here in Florida?

ALEX CASTELLANOS, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, here in Florida, the big issue is going to be Social Security, in addition, of course, to jobs and growth. There's a spat between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry on Social Security. Perry has kind of lost his campaign by firing a missile and hitting grandma's house. He said he might undo Social Security.

LEMON: Yes. Did you see the ad? I had a copy of the ad that they had sent out. But those two going against each other, and that's targeted. That's really targeted because they know that a lot of seniors live here and those are the voters that they're going after.

CASTELLANOS: Yes. Democrat or Republican, you still want to pay your rent every month and a lot of seniors in this state count on that.

You know, interesting, I saw the ad that Romney did. I guess it was a flier or a handout, it doesn't mention Ponzi scheme, that Rick Perry called Social Security a Ponzi scheme, because frankly, a lot of seniors think it is. They know there's no money there. They know Social Security is bankrupt.

The problem is Rick Perry went farther than that. He said, he implied he might undo Social Security if he could go back 70 years. He said it was a failure.

LEMON: It says "reckless and wrong on Social Security," it's talking about Rick Perry. And then Mitt Romney says, preserve and protect Social Security. Two candidates, they're saying this is a two- candidate race now, even though it's early on, Dana, and they're sending out material like this. Is that so?

DANA LOESCH, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I think it's a little premature at this point to immediately think that no one else is going to be in the running. And we still may see other candidates get involved. I know there's the big Palin question as to whether or not she's going to toss her hat in the ring.

But the last debate, it did kind of set it up to where -- the way it was structured, the questions fielded and the way that Perry and Romney specifically targeted each other, they've sort of set it up as to being a two-man race. But I think the debate tomorrow night is going to refrain that narrative.

LEMON: Yes. And I want to go to LZ, because, LZ, the last time we spoke. I mean, you said something very interesting. You said basically, for Huntsman, he said it's over.

CASTELLANOS: I disagree.

LEMON: LZ, these guys here are disagreeing with you. Do you think it's over just for Huntsman or anybody else you want to count out in this race?

GRANDERSON: I think it's over for Huntsman because he made his bed fairly early in the campaign by not trying to say the things or do the things to appease to the very social conservative base within the GOP. I think if he had at least been willing to play nice with them, then he could still be in the conversation. But I think, at the end of the day, people are going to look at his jobs towards what he said about science, and they're going to look at some of the things he said about the Tea Party in general and then not going to find him to be an appealing candidate at all for them. So, yes, I do think it's over for him.

LEMON: Yes. But only him?

GRANDERSON: Only him, yes. Only him.

I think everyone else is trying to appease the Tea Party. Even if they don't agree 100 percent, even Mitt Romney who, you know, flip- flops anyway. But even Mitt Romney is trying a little bit to be nicey nice to the Tea Party.

And I don't see Huntsman doing that, outside of saying he would not rule out being Michele Bachmann's V.P. candidate. He said it a couple of weeks ago. I think that's the only kind of, you know, gesture he made towards the Tea Party. And I think that's one of the reasons why he's so appealing to independents.

LEMON: Yes. Alex wants to jump in. Go ahead.

CASTELLANOS: Well, I would just say that it's awfully early. And if Huntsman could take the part of his campaign, it's called the super PAC, the part that can raise unlimited money and go on Boston TV for a couple of million dollars for 30 days, he could move from 1 percent to 12 percent, 15 percent.

And he's got a message. His message is, look, I'm going to transform Washington so we can get this economy going again, because our biggest competitor in the world is China, and I know them because I've been there and I know how to grow this economy.

He's got a slot in this race. He could try to fulfill. I do agree time is running out, he's going to have to do something soon.

LEMON: As I listen to Republican consultants and pundits here, they say that Huntsman seemed like, in the last debate, the adult in the room really, but nobody's listening. Why isn't anybody listening if he's the adult in the room?

LOESCH: I don't know of any grassroots that identify with Jon Huntsman. And I actually -- I disagree with Alex. I think his campaign is over. And I don't know why he's still on stage, frankly at debates.

LEMON: Really?


LOESCH: He's trying to --

LEMON: That's pretty harsh. You don't know why he's still on stage. I mean, I'm sure his people are watching this going, why is she saying that? LOESCH: I'll get the hate mail later. I'll put it all in my spam folder.

But, no, I think that this is -- he's one of the most moderate people in the primary and I think if we're going to go from moderate, I think Romney kind of has the patent on this in this particular primary.

LEMON: So, moderation doesn't appeal to anyone? You have to be either in one place -- I hate to say extreme, because I think the Tea Partiers hate that.

LOESCH: There are certain issues on which Huntsman stand, especially when you look at energy and things of that nature, and climate change and global warming and being supportive of certain EPA policies that are job killing and you can't hold a certain position on that issue while at the same time say that you're really serious about growing jobs. I mean, even the president kind of went against Huntsman on that.

CASTELLANOS: Romney and Perry a suicide murder pact and no one left at the end of the day.

LOESCH: Herman Cain maybe? Bachmann?

LEMON: Yes. Hey, listen, LZ, I'm up against the clock. Here's the thing that I think is different here. Even if you say it's over, if they're not polling well, Bachmann still has money, Huntsman still has money, they still have money.

If you don't have money you have to get out of the race, right? But they still have money. So they could still go. Maybe that's why he's still up on the stage.

CASTELLANOS: The Beatles were wrong. Money can buy love.

LOESCH: Absolutely can.


GRANDERSON: Well, it's good to have money but also good to have people who actually go in and vote for you. And I don't think that he has anybody in the GOP who really feels fired up about him, money or no money.

LOESCH: I would agree with that. You have to have people to come and vote for you.

LEMON: All right. Wow, you guys are harsh.

Thank you. See you around. We're not going anywhere. They'll be back with us.

You know, you don't miss Monday night's Republican debate where all those people are going to be on the stage. These guys, some of them say they don't know why they are still there. CNN is going to host it. It's a CNN Tea Party debate. It's at 8:00 p.m. It will live from here in Tampa, site of the 2012 Republican National Convention. CNN/Tea Party debate, 8:00 p.m. Eastern, only her on CNN.

This is the same Loesch who advocated the dissolution of Social Security on Larry King Live over a year ago.

Yesterday, on my birthday, Loesch still was telling falsehoods.

From the 09.12.2011 edition of CNN's American Morning:


VELSHI: Welcome back. We're live in Tampa ahead of tonight's CNN Tea Party Debate.

And a new poll showing Texas Governor Rick Perry is out with a big lead. The Tea Party may be a huge reason for that.

Joining me now is CNN Contributor Dana Loesch. She is the founder of the St. Louis Tea Party, and CNN political contributor Alex Castellanos. Good to see both of you.



VELSHI: Let's talk, Alex, about this, you and I got into it a little bit about the debt ceiling about the issue of jobs. While the Tea Party and Republicans have done a remarkably effective job starting from before the last midterm elections in convincing Americans that the debt is the most important problem, we have come back to the fact that the failure to create jobs in this country on a consistent basis is going to be a more important from here until the election.

We have only heard from a few of these candidates, a good jobs plan. Are they going to be under pressure tonight to put the rest of Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney and come out with plans?

CASTELLANOS: They're going to be under pressure to talk about jobs and explain what they do, but what defines these voters is not the solution, jobs. It's what they think the problem is, which is Washington. There's a lot of anti-Washington anger here. They see that Washington as a - I would say as a corrosive force that is sucking the life out of the economy. Washington's doing well, but America's not.

So that's what Perry's doing. He's connecting with that anger that you see in that room. You know, it's how do you sell Excedrin in this country? You don't sell Excedrin, you sell the headache.

VELSHI: Right, right.

CASTELLANOS: You sell the problem. And that's what I think you're going to see here tonight.

VELSHI: And Dana, you are part of this new phenomenon that has really become one. I was talking to Amy Kremer earlier who said, you know, the Tea Party could well decide the next Republican candidate.

Let's take a look at some new poll. A brand new polling this morning from CNN/Opinion Research Corporation, which gives Rick Perry a remarkable lead. On the left of your screen, you see the approvals within Tea Party supporters. On the right, it is all Republicans. Look at that.

Even within the Tea Party, Rick Perry has a remarkable, almost double, over what Romney is getting. Sarah Palin not in the race is coming in at third. Ron Paul -- Michele Bachmann's nowhere on that list. She comes in at four percent on both sides, whether it's among the Tea Party supporters or all others.

Now, if you look at Republicans generally on the right side of the screen, the lead between for - that Perry has over Romney is tighter and Romney and Perry - Romney and Palin are neck and neck. Give me a sense of what you make of this.

LOESCH: Well, it's a very interesting poll in that even with the Tea Party with this particular poll, Bachmann isn't in the top three or four.

VELSHI: Right.

LOESCH: That's incredible in itself.

VELSHI: We associate her so closely with the Tea Party Movement.

LOESCH: Right. Well, you know, and I think history is typically prejudiced against candidates who don't come from the gubernatorial poll. Now, I don't know how much of that plays into it. I know it needs a little importance. If I'm looking at a particular candidate, I'm measuring up their executive experience.

VELSHI: Right.

LOESCH: And I like Bachmann. I think she has a good record. But, ultimately it comes down to who has the executive experience.

VELSHI: Right.

LOESCH: And I think maybe that has something to do with this particular poll. It's interesting in that Perry leads in both the Tea Party and Republican perspectives.

VELSHI: That's right.

LOESCH: That's incredibly interesting. So I think that what he's going to have to continue to do, obviously, is to keep that lead over Romney. Romney is nipping at his heels right now -


LOESCH: -- and I think Romney obviously does better with Republicans. He's not a Tea Party - there isn't really a Tea Party candidate -

VELSHI: Right.

LOESCH: -- but he's definitely not a Tea Party candidate. At the last debate he said, well, I identify with a lot of the things that the Tea Party stands for. And, of course, grassroots picked up on that. But a lot of the things that they stand for -

VELSHI: Right.

LOESCH: -- as opposed to everything? It's just so constitutional issue. VELSHI: Well, that becomes tricky, Alex. Because a lot of the things the Tea Party stand for that have certainly been the most newsworthy, are not the things that some Republicans and plain fiscal conservatives stand for.

So at what point does that start to - to parch itself out?

CASTELLANO: Well, you know, right now nothing unites the people of Earth like a threat from Mars. And I think the biggest threat in the Republican Party and among Tea Party voters is the economy and is a concern that America is in economic decline.

VELSHI: Right.

CASTELLANO: So we're going to leave our children something less of a country.

VELSHI: And over the course of the next 14 months -


VELSHI: -- is that going to start to squeeze out the more divisive social issues that some parts of the Tea Party are involved in?

CASTELLANOS: I don't think so.

LOESCH: I don't think - yes. I don't think anyone - and I'm not saying that attention to social issues is irrelevant or that these issues are somehow unimportant, but right now that's not what's going to pay the bills.

VELSHI: Right.

LOESCH: That's not what's going to put bread on the table or pay the mortgage, so on and so forth. People are focused on the economy.

VELSHI: Right.

LOESCH: It comes down to jobs. It comes down to easing up on regulations and backing off of the market a little bit and allowing these businesses to be able to do what they do best, which is create job, add to the tax base, increase revenue.

CASTELLANOS: I think if you had a slogan that for a candidate coming out of this survey you'd say, if you fix Washington, America can achieve anything.

VELSHI: Right.

CASTELLANOS: We can grow again. And that's I think the candidate, the voters are looking for.

The other thing this survey tells you, is that if last election was hope and change, this one is about strength and certainty. I think Americans feel that the economy, the country, is coming apart. VELSHI: Right.

CASTELLANOS: And Rick Perry, Texas directness.


CASTELLANOS: You may agree or disagree, but you respect that he's - knows who he is, know what's he believes. And that seems to contrast fairly well at this moment with Mitt Romney, who voters don't seem to be that certain who's - who he is and who he's for.

VELSHI: Who are you watching closely tonight?

LOESCH: I'm watching Perry. I'm hoping - I'm looking to see whether or not he's going to be as strong in defending his stances as he is on offense. Because he had some really weak answers last debate. And if he's going to solidify himself -


LOESCH: -- as a serious frontrunner, he needs to do with defense.

CASTELLANOS: If he keeps having weak answers like he's had that has gotten him to 30 percent, he's going to get the nomination.

VELSHI: It's not a bad problem to have.

CASTELLANOS: Yes. I think Michele Bachmann is one to watch tonight.


CASTELLANOS: Because if she can make some wind - if she can take some of the wind out of Perry's sail, this is back to being a competitive race.


VELSHI: Alex, Dana, great to see you. Thank you so much. And we're watching tonight with you - Carol, Christine.

ROMANS: All right, Ali.

COSTELLO: Thanks, Ali.

She was cheerleading for Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann, as usual. She is also a big Sarah Palin and a Cain fan.

On today's American Morning, she was repeating the same garbage.

From the 09.13.2011 edition of CNN's American Morning:


VELSHI: Welcome back to a special AMERICAN MORNING, live in Tampa. Breaking down last night's big CNN Tea Party debate, the candidates putting front-runner Rick Perry on defense, especially on an issue they watch closely in Florida, Social Security.

So who came up on top? Joining me now is CNN contributor Dana Loesch. She's the founder of the St. Louis Tea Party, and CNN political contributor Alex Castellanos. Good morning to both of you or what little of the night you had. I know you were out there like so many people watching this very, very closely.

Dana, let's start with you. Any knockout moments, anybody really make any great strides last night and anybody really falter?

DANA LOESCH, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I think that Bachmann really came back strong. She did exactly what she needed to do. I had some reservations especially about an hour through the debate. She seemed really hesitant to go after Perry or Romney.

She had a couple golden opportunities. She hesitated, but finally, when that Gardasil question came up, she was relentless and continued to stay after Perry for the rest of the debate. That was important.

VELSHI: Let's listen to that. This was a key moment. This is Rick Perry talking about a decision that he had made, sort of an executive order that was going to see young girls in Texas inoculated with Merck's Gardasil, which prevents the transmission of HPV and ultimately is thought to prevent cancer in young girls. Let's start with Rick Perry.


PERRY: At the end of the day, this was about trying to stop a cancer and giving the parental option to opt out of that, and at the end of the day, you may criticize me about the way that I went about it. But at the end of the day, I am always going to err on the side of life.

BACHMANN: The drug company gave thousands of dollars in political donations to the governor. This is flat out wrong. The question is, was it about life or was it about millions of dollars?

PERRY: The company was Merck and it was a $5,000 contribution that I had received from them. I raise about $30 million, and if you're saying that I can be bought for $5,000, I'm offended.

BACHMANN: I'm offended for all the little girls and the parents that didn't have a choice. That's what I'm offended for.


VELSHI: Really, she got the applause on that one, Alex. A very interesting debate, because, you know, Rick Santorum on the side said parents should have been given the option to opt in, not opt out.

This debate was about executive orders. It was about not going through the legislature and then Michele Bachmann made it about a political donation. Did she score points or was this punching in the dark?

CASTELLANOS: Oh, I think - I think had she gained set-match there to Michele Bachmann. I think it was one of her better moments in the - in the debate and in the whole campaign so far.

Because it is about big government authority, taking parents' rights away and making them fight to get it back. It's not about the Gardasil vaccine. A lot of parents think it's a great idea, but forcing government - or government forcing parents to be in a position where they'd have to - they'd have to act to - to protect their family if they didn't really want that, that's not a conservative position.

You know, Rick Perry is still the heavyweight champ here. He's still number one, but what happened last night is the champ got cut and now you're going to see all the other fighters punch Perry. And we're going see over the next few weeks whether he holds up.

Debates are so important, not only in themselves, but in the next few week, the coverage of the debates, these moments that -

VELSHI: Right.

CASTELLANOS: -- we're looking at now, more people are going to see them than actually saw the debate. So this is a moment that's going to help Michele Bachmann over the next few weeks and hurt Perry.

VELSHI: All right. So we've talked about Perry being ganged up on. We've talked about Michele Bachmann coming out flying. Where did Romney fare in this whole thing?

LOESCH: Romney took some hits, too, I think. And he was - he seemed off his game to me last night. And when he and Perry went back and forth, one of the things that - I enjoyed watching that, but at the same time, it took away from the opportunities that they had to tell how exactly they would do something instead of trading jabs back and forth.

You did this, you did this. You cross this (INAUDIBLE). They didn't really get into the specifics of how exactly they would help the economy, how they would do this or that. So that kind of I think ultimately hurt both of them.

And on the merit of just answering the questions, having a good solid debate, I think Bachmann really walked away with last - away with it last night. But Perry is still the perceived frontrunner and the entire proof that he's still the frontrunner is on how everyone ganged up, piled up on him last night.

VELSHI: Yes, they really did.

CASTELLANOS: And Bachmann's success now is a plus for Romney. Because she - if she gains a couple of points -

VELSHI: Right.

CASTELLANOS: -- it probably comes out of Perry.

VELSHI: Let's talk about those on the fringes - Huntsman, Gingrich, Cain, Santorum? Anybody there make any big strides last night? And Ron Paul. I don't know where to put Ron Paul, because he - he polls higher and stays relatively consistent.

LOESCH: Well, I thought Cain had really good, solid answers on jobs.

VELSHI: Yes, he does.

LOESCH: And one of the thing that I appreciate about Herman Cain, first of all, he knows how to put in a good sound bite.


LOESCH: He knows how to get this sound bite that's going to get the headline for the next day.

VELSHI: Right.

LOESCH: He's great at that. And he was also very good and that every time he gave any answer, he brought it back to his specific plan. He brought back - brought it back to his jobs -

VELSHI: His 999 as he called it.

LOESCH: Absolutely. That is fantastic. That's something that Romney and Perry didn't do, but Cain, he thinks - he thinks on his feet.

VELSHI: Right.

LOESCH: He's very - he's very quick witted in that way.

Ron Paul, I thought, well, I think he read Paul Krugman's column for 9/11 and I don't know how you can come back after justifying 9/11. I - everyone in, around me, watching this was shocked when he said that.

VELSHI: Interesting.

Alex, your take on the - the other candidates?

CASTELLANOS: On the other candidates? I don't know that anything changed last night, except that perhaps Perry came down a little bit. Bachmann came back up. Romney came I think left, the way he came in. That means the field's still open.

VELSHI: Right.

CASTELLANOS: Somebody else could still - from the bottom tier could - could make an impact in this race. I doubt it will be Ron Paul, because I think last night he did - he did himself mortal harm.

VELSHI: Yes. OK. Good to talk to you guys both.

CASTELLANOS: Good to see you.

LOESCH: Good to talk to you.

VELSHI: All right. Alex Castellanos and Dana Loesch.

Let's send it back to New York - Carol.

COSTELLO: Interesting stuff. Thank you, Ali Velshi.

CNN has no credibility domestically anymore due to people and enablers like Wolf Blitzer, John King, Erick Erickson, Dana Loesch, and Alex Castellanos, to name a few.


Today in the World of Dana's Lies

In the past couple of days, the Breitbart toady Big "Journalism" editor-in-chief Dana Loesch has really upped the ante with her brazenly dangerous antics.

Yesterday, she's continuing her
War on Unions, with her falsehood of accusing AFL-CIO head Richard Trumka of "condoning union thuggery" while attending Obama's Joint Address to Congress.

Earlier this morning 500 or so members of the AFL-CIO stormed a port in Washington, vandalized the facility, reportedly cut the brake lines of train cars, and held six guards hostage. Shockingly, no one was arrested. Earlier that week a judge issued a restraining order against this same group after they clashed with police while brandishing bats and issuing death threats. Nineteen people were arrested for misdemeanors.

While all of this was going on, the group’s head, Richard Trumka, was invited as a guest of the President to tonight’s jobs address.

Trumka sat with the First Lady — along with GE President Jeff Immelt (while the President gave an address that ironically touched on crony capitalism and big business) as though nothing had happened. I speculated initially as to whether or not the President would continue to force such displays in our faces; the answer is yes, because they want us to grow accustomed to this behavior. They want us to think normal of it when Americans are targeted by, as Hoffa so aptly put it, “Obama’s army.” News barely batted an eye at the violence perpetrated by unions upon Wisconsinites; the majors ignored it when a non-union business owner was shot, his property vandalized for his business being non-union; it’s the Gladney-ization of America and the news is silent. We’ll grow used to seeing such violence play out when the public sector, which accounts for a small percentage of workers in America, doesn’t get it’s way. Acclimation will lead to apathy, and fait accompli their objective is realized.
Typical baseless crap from her. She's still pushing her Gladney nonsense to her gullible readers and her radio show fans.

She did her usual blatantly false "Us Teabaggers are the victims of Union Thugs" tripe".

Hoffa supporters have created a Facebook page on which they have posted the address of tea partier Justen Charters and are encouraging fellow Hoffa supporters to send human excrement through the federal mail system. Why? Because Charters came up with the idea to sent 1,000 tea bags to Jimmy Hoffa, Jr.

Is this what is to be expected when Americans dissent? Violence and being called a “son of a bitch” by a screechy fat cat union boss? How long will the NYT and other outlets continue to ignore this? Will progressives condemn it?

The page in question has since been taken down. At least they had the decency to pull the event, unlike the deranged Righties who routinely get away with graphically violent rhetoric against Democrats, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Muslims, LGBTQs, Hispanics, and Arabs, et al., and seldom ever gets deleted off and/or reported.

During MSNBC's debate on Wednesday night, she baselessly implied that "the Moderator Brian Williams hates Texas and Texans."

Brian Williams elicited gasps from the audience (since every question was framed as how poor and mean those people in Texas with their crappy low-paying jobs are) when he asked Perry how he could sleep at night over Texas’s death penalty and high number of those punished.

Shorter Perry response: I sleep pretty damn well, actually, knowing they’re off the streets. Perry responded that it’s a policy for which Texans voted and they’re happy with it. The room cheered.


Yesterday, on CNN's American Morning, Loesch was paired against CNN Political Analyst Rob Brownstein and Newsweek and The Daily Beast contribtor Mark McKinnon. And as usual, she gave the impression that Bachmann's pretty much toast and considered Perry the winner.

From the 09.08.2011 edition of CNN's American Morning:



Dana Loesch still spewing out brazen lies about Hoffa and Boehlert

Conservative sewer mouth hate radio host Dana Loesch has had an ongoing feud with Media Matters' Eric Boehlert. And she (and others at the Breitbart blogs) have accused him of perpetrating lies and a "Soros hack", when in fact the opposite is true.

Earlier this afternoon Soros and SEIU funded Media Matters’ lackey Eric Boehlert falsely claimed that the St. Louis Tea Party left a coffin on Congressman Russ Carnahan’s lawn. Rep. Carnahan’s mouthpiece smeared the St. Louis Tea Party without apology by making up the coffin story which was later blown apart by local media:

Local television shows the coffin was actually in the garage of St. Louis Tea Party Co-Founder Bill Hennessy -- the same coffin Carnahan had claimed was left on his lawn. Magic!

Boehlert needs to retract his statements and apologize for his lie now.

Media Matters has a history of clinging to lies even after they’ve been debunked, as evidenced below. This must be why other outlets call them “irrelevant” and why their traffic is non-existent.

No, Dana, it is YOU that owes Eric Boehlert an apology. And by the way, Media Matters is nowhere close to irrelevant as the righties like to claim it as such.

She has referred Media Matters bloggers as "tax-evading Soros puppets."

Soros blogs were left scrambling late yesterday evening after spending all day carefully constructing a house of cards narrative designed to spin Jimmy Hoffa Jr.’s incendiary remarks into a positive light. Media Matters specifically accused Fox News of “editing” Hoffa’s remarks — apparently “editing” them in real time as they came out of his mouth — and further blamed conservatives such as myself for “buying into it.” (It’s also important to mention that MMfA is a union-funded blog defending a union in this story.)

Right-wing bloggers misled by dishonest Fox News video editing are attacking Teamsters President James Hoffa, Jr. for supposedly urging violence against Tea Party activists during a Labor Day speech. Conservatives are also attacking President Obama, who appeared at the event, for “sanctioning violence against fellow Americans” by failing to denounce Hoffa.

Media Matters and other progressives hammered away with their ridiculous “edited video” narrative, their only defense for the rest of the day:

Loesch’s comments in particular were already way over the top. But they became truly embarrassing at around 3 p.m., when the whole story collapsed after Fox finally got around to airing what Henry had called the “full quote” of Hoffa’s “take these son of a bitches out” comment …

Except later on, after Soros bloggers spent so much effort attempting to spin this as a “doctored” video, Hoffa doubled down on the remarks and made it very clear that he wasn’t talking about “voting.”

Loesch is wrong again, as Media Matters was right on the money that Fixed News and the Right-Wing Lie Machine distorted the tapes and the quote. Yesterday, this blog posted about her disingenuous anti-union lies about Hoffa Jr. regarding the "take the sons of bitches out" and falsely distorted it to mean "take out all the Conservatives/Tea Partiers." Baloney!

The full, unedited Hoffa quote:

HOFFA: Everybody here's got to vote. If we go back and keep the eye on the prize, let's take these son of a bitches out and give America back to America where we belong! Thank you very much!

Now we have the full transcript of Hoffa's speech, from the Detroit Free-Press:

“Are there any Teamsters in the house? This is Motown, but today, this is union town. We are union, we are workers. That is the message that we send today, and that is the message that we send to America.

There is a war on workers. You see it everywhere: It is in the unemployment, it is in the Tea Party, it is in the people that fight what we believe in. And we see the war in Wisconsin where they try to take collective bargaining from our public employees. We took two senate seats back, we are taking Wisconsin back.

That’s number one. Number two, in Ohio, we are fighting a battle there with regard to taking away collective bargaining. We will beat SB5. We’ve got a million signatures. We are going to win in Ohio — that is our number two. And in Michigan, they are thinking about right to work. It ain’t going to happen in Michigan. No way.

We have to keep an eye on the battle we face — a war on workers. And you see it everywhere there is the Tea Party. And you know there is only one way to beat and win that war.

The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what, they’ve got a war, they’ve got a war with us and there is only going to be one winner. It is going to be the workers of Michigan and America – we are going to win that war. All the way.

But it starts with your involvement, it starts with next November. We’ve got a bunch of people there that don’t’ want the president to succeed, and they are called the Tea Party – the people who don’t want him to do anything right and he is working hard for us.

President Obama is frustrated by what’s going on. Well, guess what, we’ve got the vote. And the answer to what we say is, we remember in November. We will beat the Tea Party and give this country back to workers and America. We can do it together.”

We’ve also got to talk about jobs. I get so tired about people who …(inaudible) these big corporations that send our jobs to Mexico, they send our jobs to China, and they’ve got the audacity to say ‘where are the jobs?’

Well I’ve got news for you. It’s time to bring those jobs back to America and bring America back to work. That’s what we’ve got to do.

We are going to hear from President Obama in a few minutes, and I am so glad that he has come to Michigan because this is where he sees the real America. He looks out on this army of people and you know what I say? President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. President Obama, we want one thing: Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs…(The crowd joins the chant.)

That’s what we are going to tell America…..When he sees what we are doing here, he will be inspired, but he needs help. And you know what? Everybody here has got a vote. If we go back, we keep the eye on the prize, lets take these sons-of-bitches out and give America back to America where we belong.”

This morning, the 3 Lying Stooges (Breitbart, Loesch, Flynn) invaded the MMFA headquarters demanding a copy of their IRS 990 form.

Video, via MediaMatters4America's youtube:

Sarah Palin was Silver in tonight's Worst Persons In The World. Roger Ailes was Worst. Olbermann trashed Loesch hard close to the end of the segment. I will name her as tonight's co-WPITW.
From the 09.06.2011 edition of Current TV's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:


Unrepentant union-hater Loesch baselessly claims "Hoffa's threatening teabagger voters"

Another day, another excuse for the rabidly anti-union shill for Big "Journalism" Editor-In-Chief Dana Loesch to nonsensically blame James Hoffa, Jr. (and by extension, the unions and Barack Obama) for "causing violence against Tea Party voters, which 'union thugs' instigated." Fixed Noise left out the full quote, as did the right-wing noise machine:

HOFFA: Everybody here's got to vote. If we go back and keep the eye on the prize, let's take these son of a bitches out and give America back to America where we belong! Thank you very much!

Loesch crony P.J. Salvatore in a Big Hackulism piece falsely accuses Hoffa of threatening Conservatives with "let's take them out."

Union thug Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. demonstrated why a union stereotype exists just moments ago when he introduced President Obama at an address in Detroit with a threat of violence:

The President should denounce this immediately. The media, for the past several years, has refused to acknowledge the violence emanating from union thug bosses who would like nothing more than conflict, conflict of which they could take advantage to promote their well-publicized, worker exploitation Marxist agenda.

Will the media do their due diligence and hold the President and Hoffa to the standard they’ve set for conservatives (a standard conservatives have yet to violate) a standard which progressives have violated repeatedly?

P.J. Salvatore's post full of lunacy and lies.

The shrieking moron lunatic right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin jumped into the "union thugs" meme:

As the MSM whitewashes Big Labor’s ugly threats, Tea Party smears, and history of coerced dues-subsidized racketeering this Labor Day, what better way to mark the holiday than with an illustrated list of top 10 union thug moments of the year.

10. August 16, 2011, across the Northeast. Striking Communications Workers of America declare “open season” on Verizon. Dozens of cases of sabotaged cable lines are reported.

8. March 1, 2011, Madison, Wisconsin. Mob rule video: Unhinged crowd corners Wisconsin GOP senator shouting “F**k you,” “Shame!” AFSCME, UFCW, SEIU:

6. February 23, 2011, Washington DC. CWA protester screams at FreedomWorks staffer for being a “bad Jew!”

4. February 23, 2011, Columbus, OH. Unhinged union protester fumes: “The tea party is a bunch of d**k-sucking corporate butt-lickers who want to crush the working people of this country.”

3. March 1, 2011, Denver CO. Racist SEIU supporters taunt gay black Tea Party activist and entrepreneur Leland Robinson, who criticized teachers unions at a Capitol rally, by calling him “son,” telling him to “get behind that fence where you belong,” and jeering “Do you have any children? That you claim?”

1. February 23, 2011. Democrat Rep. Michael Capuano of Mass. revs up Big Labor goons (starts at 1:50 in the video): “Get a little bloody.”

Malkin's blogpost contains full of widely debunked smears and falsehoods about unions. And, no, the SEIU is NOT racist, despite what Witchelle Maglagang Malkin thinks. The union protestors are right that the Tea Party Movement is backed by the Koch Brothers, the RNC, and other Right-Wing astroturf, think tanks, and special interest groups (FreedomWorks, Americans For Prosperity, Crossroads GPS, Tea Party Patriots, Tea Party Nation, The Heritage Foundation, etc).

Media Matters had a post that not only Loesch attacked Hoffa, but the right-wing union-haters jumped in as well.

Andrew Breitbart operative and CNN contributor Dana Loesch quickly followed up the attack on Twitter, claiming soon after the Fox segment and Henry tweet that Hoffa "threatens tea party voters" and that if Obama "doesn't condemn then he is sanctioning violence against fellow Americans by silence":

loesch tweets

Breitbart's websites also jumped onboard, circulating the cropped Fox News video of the Hoffa speech and describing it as a "threat of violence." Other right-wing media outlets soon followed.

Loesch's comments in particular were already way over the top. But they became truly embarrassing at around 3 p.m., when the whole story collapsed after Fox finally got around to airing what Henry had called the "full quote" of Hoffa's "take these son of a bitches out" comment:

From the 09.05.2011 edition of FNC's America's News HQ:

Typical for the despicable Loesch to blame Unions, President Barack Obama (D), Liberals, and the Democratic Party for allegedly "causing violence," when in reality, she and her ilk are the ones who perpetrate violent acts.

Last year, she blamed "union thugs" for ruining Labor Day.

Ah, spending the day remembering what labor used to be like before our working class was bossed around by thugs and co-opted by a party.


On ABC's This Week, Dana Loesch lies to a national audience

ABC has decided to put on serial liar Dana Loesch on This Week with Christiane Amanpour. Hasn't ABC learned their lesson from the November 2nd, 2010 election coverage debacle that ultimately booted off Andrew Breitbart, but Loesch was still on.

The other panelists for the political roundtable were former Bush 43 speechwriter Michael Gerson, Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page, and ABC News' own Jonathan Karl.

From the 09.04.2011 edition of ABC's This Week:
video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

Green Room:
video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player


AMANPOUR: And we'll certainly be watching his candidate forum tomorrow. And so, no doubt, will our roundtable. With me today, Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush and a columnist for the Washington Post; Clarence Page, who writes a column for the Chicago Tribune; Dana Loesch, editor at BigJournalism.com and a founder of the St. Louis Tea Party; and ABC's senior political correspondent Jon Karl.

Jon, let me turn to you first. You know, tried to get some sort of determination out of Senator DeMint, but keeping his powder dry. Given that, what do Governor Perry and Governor Romney have to do to break out of the current situation?

KARL: Well, frankly, you've seen the polls that show that Perry has just shot to the top. We don't know how real this is. This is the month we'll find out whether or not he is truly the front-runner.

We have three debates over the next three weeks. Perry has taken off because he's got this record as the jobs governor in Texas and he speaks the Tea Party language, but there is the biggest oppo file on Rick Perry than of all the other candidates. He's got the longest record. You alluded to his book. He's got the most that can be attacked. We'll see over the next three weeks whether or not he can survive it.

AMANPOUR: Well, you just alluded to polls. Let me just put them up. The latest Quinnipiac poll has Rick Perry six points ahead of Mitt Romney. The CNN poll shows an even wider gap.

Michael, good news for Rick Perry, but the Republican establishment, as Jon alluded to, because of all that oppo, must be quite worried about it.

GERSON: No, I think there are some worries. This is a remarkable rise. He has gotten support not just from the Tea Party, but actually from a lot of establishment Republicans in these polls.

But they're just getting to know him. The Tea Party people could have questions of their own. He supported TARP. You mentioned some of these other issues. And the establishment is already having questions about his book and other things, with views that seem odd or extreme. He opposes the direct election of senators, apparently, which is, you know, a interesting position to take.

KARL: Big populist issue, yes.


GERSON: Right, exactly. But I would say that every front-runner has to be wary of the Giuliani fate. Giuliani led in all the polls the last time. He ended up with one delegate at the convention. You know, this can change very quickly.

AMANPOUR: You said it's a remarkable sort of rise. Is it remarkable like Michele Bachmann was remarkable when she entered? Or is it beyond that?

GERSON: Well, I think it's a little bit beyond that. I think he has a serious governing record. I think his appeal on jobs is a real advantage in this case. I don't think this is necessarily a bubble. I think he's going to be serious.

And I think that Romney may want people like Palin getting in the race, in order to divide and create an inter-Tea Party rivalry, you know, going forward. But I think Perry's been very good at marginalizing Bachmann. It shows that he's a savvy politician. And, you know, that's a real achievement so far.

AMANPOUR: We'll get to Palin in a second, but, Dana, I wanted to ask you, again, alluding to some of the things that Governor Perry has said. And he is a Tea Party favorite, and yet he's talked about Social Security, he's talked about it as a crumbling monument to the failure of the New Deal. But we know and the polls show that 87 percent of Americans believe, of course, Social Security has been good for the country. Does that not put him completely out of step with the rest of the country on this major issue?

LOESCH: Not really, because I think that what he wants to do is reform Social Security and hopefully take it out of the hands of the government and allow people to be able to decide what they want to do with their own money.

And that's something that grassroots has always been supportive of. We trust ourselves more than we trust the government. And the government has done a horrible job. They said this money was supposed to be there for people who are my parents' age, who are my aunts' and uncles' age. This money was supposed to be there for them when they retired. It was supposedly put in some sort of lockbox. And then when you open the box, when these people hit retirement age, it's not there anymore.

So I think that this is something that grassroots has pushed for. I think Perry is beginning to speak to that. That's not to say, though, however, that there are other issues that I think that he, over the next -- the course of the next several weeks, he's going to have to answer to, to grassroots.

AMANPOUR: Such as?

LOESCH: Well, I think -- well, for one, his stance on immigration. He's spoken out against building a fence at the border. And I think there's also, too, a lot of people want to talk about Reagan during this political time, but some of Perry's stances on immigration, frankly, aren't all of that different from where Reagan stood on immigration.

We have to remember the immigration bill that was signed into law by Reagan in '86. Reagan was very proud of that, but the difference is, is that Reagan wanted to support a strong border, not just amnesty. And Perry doesn't match up on that. So he's got a lot of answering to do.

AMANPOUR: Clarence, you've written today's column on the Social Security issue. You just heard what Dana said, take it out of the hands of government, and it's just a way of Perry saying he wants to reform it. But how difficult do you think his record, his written record on what he thinks about Social Security is going to be for him?

PAGE: Actually, his written record, he's been very consistent about -- more consistent than his own press spokesman who told us in the media a week or so ago, don't take that book seriously. He wasn't planning on running for president then. And then Perry came out across Iowa, stopped saying, "Oh, yeah, read my book. That'll show you how I feel."

His book is very explicit. Dana's right. He wants to take Social Security out of the hands of federal government, put it in the hands of the states. As Michael wrote eloquently this week, he spoke with great admiration of a temporary program that for a couple of counties in Texas that were able to -- to opt out of Social Security program.

This will not go well with regular Americans. Now, with all due respect, the term grassroots, I had a city editor years ago who said never use the term grassroots, because it is meaningless. Everybody has their grassroots.

The fact is, most -- well, President George W. Bush went around campaigning for a program that would just offer us the option of investing part of our Social Security contribution in the stock market. The more he talked about it, the less popular it became. It died on Capitol Hill.

And Perry calls it a "Ponzi scheme." You know what a Ponzi scheme is? Bernie Madoff, wizard of Wall Street.

KARL: Well, he invokes Bernie Madoff in the book. But, you know, I've got to say...

PAGE: He wants to put more money -- well (inaudible) he wants us to put more money in Wall Street, where Bernie Madoff is. The average American I don't think right now is ready to go for that kind of a radical move.

KARL: But -- but -- but to Dana's point, I think that some of this rhetoric may actually help him with the base that he's trying to excite.


KARL: But -- but he's going to have some problems. You know, at some point during one of these debates, one of the candidates, maybe it'll be Mitt Romney, will stand up and say, there's only one candidate on the stage here who has voted for tax increases, including the biggest tax increase in the history of Texas. Now, that was Rick Perry. It was a long time ago. He was a Democrat. But this will be an issue. There will be issues that the Tea Party, that hard-right conservatives will go at Rick Perry over.

AMANPOUR: Well, you just mentioned Mitt Romney, who, of course, was the front-runner until Rick Perry jumped in. Where does he need to go now? He's sort of been coasting on his record and being the presumed front-runner. What does he need to do tomorrow and in the coming days and in these debates?

KARL: They know that they've got an issue here. Look, for three years, Christiane, Mitt Romney has been essentially the front-runner in this race. Before he officially declared, he has been the front-runner. He has been the guy, but suddenly this has changed.

And like I said, we'll see over the next month whether it really has changed, but they know that they're going to have to go after Rick Perry. They could sit back when Tim Pawlenty was the big threat. They could kind of let it play out. You can't do that when you're running against Rick Perry. And they know it.

AMANPOUR: And, Michael, I mean, again, let's get to primaries versus general election. Can Rick Perry -- or is it dangerous for the Republican Party to -- to sort of let Mitt Romney slip behind?

GERSON: Well, I think that there's a serious amount of discontent with the field. I don't think Republicans regard this as a strong field. So there is still talk of people getting in the race, not just Palin, but last week, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey was in Chicago, had two meetings with serious Republican groups from the Midwest.

AMANPOUR: Even though he's said no, no, no, no, no?

GERSON: He's actively, I think, considering getting in this race, which would throw things open once more. But the desire for that to happen, for people like Paul Ryan, who are pushing this to happen, it shows that they're not happy with the current field. They think that it needs to be filled out in important ways. But I don't know if that's going to happen, but the desire for many Republicans to expand this field shows that they're not content with the field.

AMANPOUR: All right. Well, let's play something that Sarah Palin said at her rally in -- yesterday when she was out talking. Let's see what she said about this race.


PALIN: The challenge is not simply to replace Obama in 2012, but the real challenge is who and what we will replace him with, because it's not enough.


AMANPOUR: So, Jon, conventional wisdom is that maybe she's left it too long, but you're hearing different, right? Do you think she's going to jump in?

KARL: I think it is more likely that she jumps in than most of us have thought for a long time. We really don't know.

But I will tell you this: For months and months and months, it has been accurate to say that Sarah Palin has been teasing publicly, but has done nothing behind the scenes to prepare for an actual presidential run. I do not believe that is still the case. I think that she is -- she is laying the groundwork to decide, yes.

AMANPOUR: Where do you see that?

KARL: I -- I -- I think that she's beginning to look at what she would have to do to staff up the campaign. I think she's looking at what she'd have to do to actually establish a campaign organization, which she has done absolutely nothing until now.

AMANPOUR: So would that bring you great hope if she jumps in? I mean, look at her negatives. They're very, very high.

LOESCH: I think that she does have a little bit to overcome, in terms of -- I know that there was the Fox News poll which came out, and there was also an independent study which was done in conjunction with that, that also looked at Republican voters to see who they would or would not choose.

I think -- but we're still -- I mean, we're still really early on into this race, so anything is possible. I mean, and when I say anything is possible, I mean, when you look at the polls right now, the last poll that was released showed generic Republican candidate was beating this president in the polls.

KARL: That's who they should nominate.

LOESCH: So I think that we do -- I think that we do have a strong field. I do really think that we do have a strong field. But whether or not we're going to end up with someone that is speaking to the base -- because I think not only is this election going to be a referendum on Obama's first term, but this is also going to be a referendum on the Republican Party.

This is the Republican Party's decision right now. Who are they going to put forward? Are they going to keep going with the same Bush policies that helped create the Tea Party? Or are they actually going to put forward a real conservative, real Republican candidate, and actually unite the right once and for all? That's the question.

AMANPOUR: We're going to get to President Obama in our next panel, but thank you all very much for joining us. And the roundtable will continue in the green room at abcnews.com.

She claimed that the "government is doing a horrible job about Social Security" and supports Rick Perry's effort to eliminate Social Security (which she endorses). She falsely claimed that Texas Governor Rick Perry panders to "illegal immigrants" and wants "amnesty."

She also was cheerleading for Palin.

She stated that "the generic Republican is beating Obama in a recent poll." That poll in question that Loesch was referring to came from the biased as hell Repubmussen. The most recent Pew and Gallup polls have Obama winning. And if she thinks that any old conservative can win the presidency (despite Obama's not-so-great approval ratings), she's sorely mistaken!

Later in the show, there was an economic panel, and as usual, Paul Krugman told the truth.
Tweets by @JGibsonDem Tweets by @JPCTumblr