On CNN's John King, USA Dana Loesch discusses Immigration

Last night on CNN's John King, USA, Serial Misinformer and CNN "Contributor" Dana Loesch admitted that the Ronald Reagan would have no place in today's GOP by their tough standards.


From the 11.29.2011 edition of CNN's John King, USA:


Transcript::

KING: Tonight's number is a big one, at the moment a big dividing line in the Republican presidential race.

It is 11.2 million, 11.2, an estimated 11.2 million unauthorized immigrants, illegal immigrants, living in the United States according to the Pew Hispanic Center. That makes up almost 4 percent, 3.7 percent of the U.S. population.

Here's a look at where they live. The darker the state, the higher the population of illegal immigrants. And just for a little context, let's look at this. There are 72 percent of the foreign-born people living in the United States are here legally, 28 percent, the 11.2 million, 28 percent illegally in the country.

Whether many of these folks, those here illegally should be granted legal status is a big dividing line at the moment in the Republican presidential race. Newt Gingrich says yes. Michele Bachmann calls that misguided amnesty. Does it matter if someone who crossed illegally has been here 20 days or 20 years?

Not to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a national lightning rod in the immigration debate and, as of today, a supporter of Texas Governor Rick Perry.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE ARPAIO, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, SHERIFF: What difference does it make? If you're here illegally, you're here illegally. If you don't like it, then have the Congress or someone in the states change the law. That's all I have to say about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Your first reflex is to assume tough talk like that would carry the day in today's Republican Party. After all, John McCain's talk of a path to citizenship nearly derailed his bid for the GOP nomination four years ago and the party moved even more to the right in the Tea Party sweep of 2010.

But is there actually more of a shift back toward the middle on immigration among the leading Republican contenders?

On Capitol Hill tonight, Republican Congressman Brian Bilbray of California, and in Saint Louis, CNN contributor Dana Loesch.

Congressman Bilbray, let me start with that basic premise. If you have Newt Gingrich who has gone from nowhere to the top of the national polls saying, not citizenship but legal status for those who broke the law when they first entered country, but at any time since then have been law-abiding -- perhaps they have children, perhaps they have been paying taxes in America -- that they should be able to have a process to stay. Do you consider that amnesty?

REP. BRIAN BILBRAY (R), CALIFORNIA: Yes, I do.

And I do because I was born and raised on the border. There were two houses between my childhood home and the border. I'm one of the few members of Congress that have seen what happens along the border when people from Georgia or somewhere else that don't understand what is going on with the immigration issue, don't take the time to go to Latin America and talk to people who are considering here coming here illegally, they don't understand that talking about amnesty the reduce illegal immigration, it's about as logical as somebody saying, let's drill a hole in the bottom of a boat to let the water out.

You're going to cause a whole new wave of illegal immigration by sending the wrong signals around the world and not taking care of the real source of the problem. That's illegal employers. The employers are the one who create illegal workers.

KING: But, so, Dana Loesch, to you on this one. If Congressman Bilbray's position is the position of grassroots conservatives and that has not changed since 2008, how did Newt Gingrich go from zero to the top of the national pack when he's been very consistent in explaining his views on this issue and he's not backing down?

DANA LOESCH, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think, number one, because he's not Mitt Romney. Number two, he hasn't had any gaffes. Number three, immigration, while it is a huge wedge issue amongst many conservatives, I don't think ultimately -- and a lot of them may get upset over this, let's but look at Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan was the amnesty president. Ronald Reagan not only supported and signed a bill into law which granted three million illegal immigrants amnesty in the United States, but he was enthusiastically supportive of it. Now, by our own standards of today, Ronald Reagan wouldn't have a shot.

But ultimately when you talk about John McCain and the comments that he made about a path to citizenship, there were many issues that were derailing John McCain, the least of which was immigration. McCain-Feingold was a huge issue.

But, ultimately, I think immigration isn't going to be as high up on the list as opposed to -- as compared to the some of the other financial concerns. And Gingrich, his position on what some would call amnesty, I disagree with what -- many of his positions and the whole -- under the amnesty umbrella or the immigration umbrella.

For instance, evaluating on a case-by-case basis 11 million individuals and going and having a hearing, I guess, and determining how long they have been here, what ties they have to the community, that's something to dispute. He hasn't gone as far as McCain has, though.

KING: So, Congressman Bilbray, you have Speaker Gingrich, who is at the top of the national polls now, at the top of the Iowa polls. He's running close second in New Hampshire -- I'm sorry -- a distant second in New Hampshire, he's ahead in South Carolina.

He has his position which you call amnesty. Governor Perry says absolutely no amnesty. I want you to listen to him here, and then I will fill in some of the blanks.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. RICK PERRY (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Amnesty is not on the table, period. There will be no amnesty in the United States. We're a country of law. And the idea that we're going to tell people that somehow or another, you know, that's all forgiven is not going to happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: He says that's not going to happen. And he says he would deport -- anyone who was brought into custody any way, shape or form who is here illegally would get immediately deported. He has not though said you would go out and round up the rest of the law-abiding folks. I know they broke the law to get here, but those who are currently law-abiding.

And you have Mr. Romney, who many would say is the Republican front-runner, if it's not Mr. Gingrich, who now says he's not for amnesty. But if you go back a few years, he had the position that is essentially the same as Newt Gingrich's position now.

If those three candidates are among the leading candidates for your party's nomination, Congressman, is it inevitable that you will have a nominee who you disagree with?

BILBRAY: No, it's not.

And let's say one thing for the record. Ronald Reagan recognized that amnesty could only be used once, that if you use it more than once, your credibility of enforcing your law is lost. And the fact is, is that when Perry talks about anybody illegal should be sent out of the country, this is a governor who signed a bill that says if you're illegally in the state of Texas, you get college grants.

You actually get subsidized to go to school, to get a job that's illegal in the country. So Perry's kind of trying to cover himself on this one. And, look, Newt goes a lot of different ways. He's a personal friend. He's really been a great guy to work on.

But the fact is, you have just got to look at the fact that what you're talking about is not what you may want to do some time in the future, but sending a signal around the world that the candidate for president or, worse, the president himself, has announced that if you break the law, come into the country illegal, if you risk your life and be one of those -- or be one of those 600 who die along the border trying to come in the country illegally, we will reward you if you come in here.

And this is a concept that looks like it's compassion, but this is like opening a candy store in the middle of a freeway. While people, children are being killed on the road, you say I don't understand how this happened. Everyone who is given a job and any elected official who is announcing to the world that Washington and the federal government is going to reward illegal immigration are part and parcel to the problem of sending a clear and defined message.

And even Gingrich will say our problem is that we have sent mixed messages in the past and that has enticed people to come here and be here illegally.

Well, Newt, I don't care who you are. Quit sending the mixed message that we are going to somehow reward or accommodate you if you broke the law while there are those waiting patiently to play by the rules waiting to come into this country legally.

KING: Dana is going to be with us later in the program. We will continue part of this conversation then.

Congressman Bilbray, appreciate your coming in tonight. We will watch as this one plays out.

BILBRAY: Thank you. 

Later on the same program, Loesch was back on-- this time paired with Donna Brazile. She stated that Herman Cain may possibly drop out within the next week or so. She claimed this will hurt Mitt Romney's chances of winning the GOP nomination.

Transcript:

KING: Today's biggest headline, though is this drama: Herman Cain's decision to reassess the viability of his campaign even as he forcefully denies a Georgia woman's claim of a multiyear affair.

CNN contributors Donna Brazile and Dana Loesch, left and right, respectively, are with us.

And Dana, I want to go to you first. Herman Cain just in last hour has put out a new statement sent to his supporters around the country. He says this about the woman. Her name is Ginger White, a Georgia businesswoman. "I thought Ms. White was a friend in need of a supportive hand to better her life. Ms. White has made it apparent that she was abusing the friendship. Now I'm asking for your friendship. I'm also asking for your prayers and support. This is a trying time for my family, my campaign and for me. It is also a trying time for our country as we are all distracted from the truly important issues facing our nation."

Part of an appeal like this is to say to your campaign supporters, it's not true. Part of it is to say, "I need fund- raising. I need it fast to prove I can stay in the race." Can he?

DANA LOESCH, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I don't know. I'm going to be surprised if he -- frankly, if he lasts the week, because he's dipping in the polls. He's losing support amongst the women especially, and I mean how many more of these can his campaign weather? And this last individual, you know, I didn't -- when Politico first broke the story I thought it may have been a hit job that came from the right.

And then continuing to see the stories come out. And then this particular woman, Ginger White, it's not as though this is a simple "he said, she said" game. She's got phone records. She not only has not only has phone records, but the reporter texted the number of -- texted Herman Cain's private number, and he called it back. And these phone records show that they were having conversations at something like 4:30 in the morning.

And I want to be generous with the benefit of the doubt, but at some point you kind of have to stop and pull back and think what's really going on here? Is it really as it seems?

KING: And as we -- as Dana makes the point, you're watching Herman Cain. He's giving a speech in Michigan tonight. He said he would go forward with this speech on foreign policy, but he also said he would make a decision in the next several days as to whether he can go forward.

One important barometer, Donna Brazile, is whether he can raise money. Another barometer is checking with your people in key states, to say are we bleeding? Are we losing support? I was in South Carolina yesterday, and I asked the Tea Party congressman, Tim Scott, who's very plugged into the grassroots where he lives in the Charleston area of the state. Is this hurting Herman Cain? Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KING: What is the buzz about Herman Cain in your state right now?

REP. TIM SCOTT (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: I think the challenges are real. We're seeing a lot of folks trying to second-guess themselves. Trying to find a new candidate. I think we may have the newest candidate to my right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: We're 35 days from the voting in Iowa. Then a week after that comes New Hampshire, then right after that comes South Carolina. You know what it's like to be in the middle of a campaign when something like this happens.

DONNA BRAZILE, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: First of all, I'm not going to write Herman Cain's obituary. He's an unconventional candidate and let him write his own ending if it is the end of his campaign. This is -- this is going to be a November to remember for Herman Cain. Dana is absolutely right.

Herman Cain will probably have to, you know, find new money, new supporters and a new reason why he's going to continue to stay in the race.

He has not been the candidate of new ideas. He really hasn't caught fire in terms of the kind of organizational strength you need. So I doubt very seriously that he can stay in the race for a long time. But Mrs. Cain is probably the only person tonight who knows exactly how to dial that number right now and say it's time to pack it up and go.

KING: Gingrich benefit the most, in your view?

BRAZILE: Absolutely. He's on the rise, and there's no reason to suspect that Newt Gingrich will not benefit from Herman Cain if he decides to drop out.

KING: And Dana, does this hurt Mitt Romney the most under the theory that he needs two or three people to his right?

LOESCH: Absolutely. It elevates a non-Romney, and I think that Cain might lose some supporters to maybe Gingrich over this. We'll see.

KING: We'll see, indeed. And we'll watch. Herman Cain saying on the phone call this morning he will reassess this over the next several days, making a decision. Watch to see what they say about fundraising in the next 28 to 48 hours.

Dana Loesch, Dana Brazile, appreciate your coming in tonight.

Up next, tonight's "Truth" involves a great lunch and a very important lesson. 

On yesterday afternoon's The Dana Show, 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate and massive hypocrite Newt Gingrich visited her radio show. She and Gingrich both were  focused on "accusing Obama and Holder of not letting states enforce the law on illegal immigration."

From the 11.29.2011 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:

Loesch baselessly accuses Jimmy Fallon of Sexism against Bachmann

In today's Conservative victimhood screed from Big "Journalism"'s Editor-In-Chief Dana Loesch, she falsely accuses Jimmy Fallon and his house band, The Roots, of being sexist and misogynistic for having the audacity to play Fishbone's Lying Ass Bitch during the introduction of Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN06).

 I can’t wait for the day when progressive males can evolve to a higher intellectual level and debate conservative women on facts, not on sex.

 Have we ever had a woman president? Who was the last to win the right to vote? Right.

Imagine if they played that song to introduce a Democratic woman like Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Barbara Boxer, Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Lisa Madigan? Then the wingnuts would defend it. And the last time I checked, it's Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Jim Hoft, Sean Hannity, Michael Whiner Savage, and their ilk who lobby sexist screeds against Nancy Pelosi, Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Elizabeth Warren, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, et al., and not the other way around.
 


From the 11.21.2011 edition of NBC's Late Night With Jimmy Fallon:


Debunking Loesch's insane point, The Huffington Posts's article reports that the words "lyin' ass bitch" were NOT audible.

NEW YORK -- Jimmy Fallon's house band The Roots appear not to be fans of Republican presidential contender Michele Bachmann.
As Bachmann strode on to the stage for an appearance on Fallon's "Late Night" early Tuesday, the show's band played a snippet of a Fishbone song called "Lyin' Ass Bitch."

It's usually the host delivering the political snark, but last night on "Late Night With Jimmy Fallon," it was the house band that provided the pointed message.
As US Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) made her way across the stage, The Roots, who back Fallon each night, played a coded message of a song for her introduction music. Astute ears -- or Twitter followers of drummer Questlove -- could identify the song: "Lyin' As* B*tch" by Fishbone.
While the audience only heard a "la la" refrain, the message was sent. Before the show, Questlove tweeted, "aight late night walkon song devotees: you love it when we snark: this next one takes the cake. ask around cause i aint tweeting title."

Given Loesch's long history of double standards on sexism, she will defend  Conservative/Republican sexism while trashing Liberal/Democratic "alleged sexism" to the hilt.

Dana Loesch's double standards on booing

Double standards alert: Breitbart flunky and pretend Independent Conservative who's really a Republican cheerleader Dana Loesch defended the booing of Michelle Obama and Jill Biden, solely because they were Democrats. Had they been Republicans, they would be cheering them loudly. Then again, most, but not all, NASCAR fans are Republicans or Republican-leaning Independents. She whined about how "Conservatives get victimized and booed for their beliefs, while the Democrats get cheered and seldom ever booed."
That's not even close to true.

Yesterday First Lady Michelle Obama and Jill Biden appeared at the last NASCAR race of the season to serve as co-grand marshals and shout “Gentlemen, start your engines!” The appearance was part of the Joining Forces initiative and yesterday, according to the White House, FLOTUS was joined by “5,000 active duty and retired military personnel and families and thousands of NASCAR fans” and was loudly booed when her name was announced over the loud speakers.

Mediaite writes:

At an event with such an apparently unifying theme, the crowd’s reaction was an ugly reminder of how personally some have taken the political divisions in our country.

It’s not a recent occurrence, and to my memory, this is the first time that a Democrat has been publicly booed. I certainly don’t recall progressive media condemning how Sarah Palin was booed at a hockey game in Philadelphia.

I’ve always said that respect for public office is a two-way street, and the ultimate failure of this is when the individual holding said office doesn’t themselves demonstrate respect for it.
Is it really a surprise that after three-and-a-half years of being demonized by the party of the President and First Lady (when they aren’t doing the demonizing themselves) that Americans would issue a frosty reception? This is the same President that called Americans “bitter clingers” [their emphasis]:

 And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Yes, 300+ criminal acts of “expression.” And the people screaming the loudest over the NASCAR booing are the people who support and endorse this.
Remember, it was the Obama administration which placed the Tea Party on the DHS watch list for domestic terrorism, which to me sounds like bad manners to label someone as a potential domestic terrorist simply for disagreeing with your policies or carrying a military-authorized Gadsen flag.
I haven’t seen a blip about these “bad manners” from the progressives attempting to excoriate conservatives and the NASCAR audience (five thousand of which were military and military families) over the First Lady’s reception.

Adam Shriver at the St. Louis Activist Hub had this:

Dana Loesch, in an article too stupid for words, defended classless conservatives who booed Michelle Obama at a NASCAR event honoring veterans by rambling on about a bunch of unrelated things.

Loesch is indeed one of the stupidest RW hack bloggers in American, right there with Michelle Malkin, Weasel Zippers, Pamela Geller, and St. Louis's own Jim Hoft (aka Gateway Pundit) and Adam Sharp (Sharpelbows.com).

Cape Girardeau-born sewer-mouth racist loudmouth Rush Limbaugh said that "she deserved to be booed for her 'uppityness'."

From the 11.21.2011 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:



Back in late September of this year, Loesch misleadingly declared that "there was no booing of the LGBTQ soldier." 

From this blog on 09.23.2011:

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.

There is indeed double standards from this hack blogger who goes on CNN to lie on national TV on a regular basis.

Loesch whines about the alleged media cover-up of a sexual assault at OccupySTL

Yesterday at Big "Journalism", St. Louis's #1 Smear Merchant Dana Loesch wrote an article falsely accusing the "local mainstream media of failing to report a sexual assault at OccupySTL."

P/oed Patriot first broke the story of a reported sexual assault case which took place at the Occupy St. Louis encampment in downtown Keiner Plaza on November 8th:
According to the St. Louis Police website crime map, at 3:55 PM at the corner of North 7th Street and Market (the exact location of Kiener Plaza where Occupy St. Louis was camped out) a Sexual Offense occurred.

 Why did this take ten days to make it to the mainstream media? Media tried to smear the tea party when they couldn’t find controversy, but this goes unreported for ten days?


CBS affiliate KMOV Channel 4 reported on the story this evening:

ST. LOUIS (KMOV.com) — A woman participating in the OccupySTL protest reported to police that a man sexually assaulted her while she was in her tent last Tuesday, three days before tents were removed by the city.  A St. Louis City police officer says the mayor could have prevented it.
Brian E. King, 38, was charged with first degree sexual misconduct after police said he crawled into the victim’s tent and touched her breast.  The assault happened on November 8 at the encampment that used to be set up in Kiener Plaza.
[...]
The mayor’s chief of staff says that Wiegert’s accusations are all about politics, and the staff points out that St. Louis did not have problems like other cities.
Occupy member John Mills says that crimes happened before the occupation, and the perpetrator in this case was not a regular participant. He does not think it should reflect on their movement.

The assault occurred at the protest and it would not have occurred had the protest not occurred. Mills can’t say for certain that the perpetrator isn’t a “regular participant.” So he’s kind of a participant? Mills stated that King isn’t a “regular participant” which suggests King had participated before. The words of Occupy St. Louis’s own organizer refutes the defense offered by its group on Twitter that King was “only tied by location.” The group insists that the press, which hadn’t reported on the assault for ten days, is also somehow “smearing” them over the actions of an “unregular” participant.

Since KMOV reported this Occupystl attacked them on Twitter, accusing them of “pandering” to me simply because I’m in the media, discussed it on my radio show (KMOV and my flagship station are two media entities in the same city), and publicly @’ed me on Twitter with a link to their story while I was on air. The Occupy group seems more outraged over this than over the fact that a crime against a woman occurred at their event in the first place. Figure that one out.
*MORE from Adam Sharp replete with Marc Cox’s report on KMOV.

Loesch, right-wing biased KMOV (the CBS affiliate in St. Louis), and KMOX 1120AM (the home of righty talkers Charlie Brennan, Mark Reardon, Rush Limbaugh, and formerly Jay Severin, plus the Cardinals, Blues and Tigers) have a long history of demonizing OccupySTL protestors, and even going as far as to accuse them of being "sexual assaulters."

She loves to lie about anything, including the OWS movement.


From the 11.17.2011 edition of KMOV's News 4 at 6PM:


KSDK, the St. Louis market's NBC affiliate, had reported the real facts-- unlike the Teabagger spin from KMOV.

St. Louis (KSDK) -- A homeless man is accused of sexually assaulting a woman in a tent at the Occupy St. Louis encampment in Kiener Plaza.
Brian Eric King, 38, was charged with first-degree sexual misconduct.
According to the probable cause statement, Krug allegedly went into the tent and touched woman's breast on November 8.

Update: Marc Cox, a KMOV "reporter" and former News 4 Awake anchor, who hosts a radio show on Sunday nights, went on the Friday edition of KFTK's The Dana Show and lie about the OWS Movement.

From the 11.18.2011 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:




Bonus tidbits: Rabid Nickelback and Lady Gaga hater Loesch is also trashing Third Eye Blind for supporting the OWS movement. She trashed Maroon 5 in October for bashing Fixed Noise, a GOP advocacy outlet disguised as a "news organization."

On ABC's This Week, Loesch and Will pander to the GOP

As expected, Breitbart crony Dana Loesch and This Week regular George Will were drinking the Koch Bros/GOP Kool-Aid.

The other panelists were Newsweek and Washington Post writer Will, political analyst and former interim DNC Chairwoman Donna Brazile, and ABC News's own Jonathan Karl.

The last time Loesch was on the program, she wholeheartedly endorsed the elimination of Social Security, thought that the Texas Governor Rick Perry was "too weak on illegal immigration," and said that "Obama can be beaten by a generic Republican," which-- depending on the pollster--  might be partially true.

From the 11.13.2011 edition of ABC's This Week:



 Transcript::

AMANPOUR: And now, of course, we now bring in our roundtable. President Obama, though, has called the situation at Penn State "horrifying," "a moment for soul-searching." And as I said, we bring in our roundtable, George Will, Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, Dana Loesch, founder of the St. Louis Tea Party and editor of BigJournalism.com, and ABC senior political correspondent Jon Karl.
George, what have we learned from this?
WILL: Well, first, what we still need to learn is, how graphic was the description that the assistant coach gave to Joe Paterno about what he'd seen in the shower? Because that would tell us the degree of Joe Paterno's culpability.
What we've seen here -- and Christine had it exactly right -- when you graft a multi-billion-dollar entertainment industry anomalously on to higher education, you produce a bubble of entitlements and exemptions, and eventually a simple moral derangement.
AMANPOUR: Donna?
BRAZILE: George, I don't know if explaining the details would have made any parent, any adult just suspect and immediately call the police. My initial reaction, had I witnessed that, would have been to pick up something to stop it, to stop the act itself, to call upon the adult to, you know, stop, to protect that child, call the police, and then inform everybody else later, as -- but, look, this was a moral failure, a human tragedy. And as a former college athlete and high school athlete, I mean, this is just upsetting to many of us.
AMANPOUR: And it happens in other sports, too. ABC News has done investigations on, for instance, the lady's swimming team.
BRAZILE: And that's why it needs to become a teachable moment. I know that's a word that we use a lot in politics, but, no, college football, college sports has gotten out of hand. And it's time that we take a look inside of it.
AMANPOUR: Do you think there will be, as President Obama said, real soul-searching, Dana?
LOESCH: I hope so. I hope so at this point. I just -- I'm trying to get my mind around the fact, as Donna and George were saying, that you see something like this happen right before your eyes and your first reaction is to wait a day, and then go and tell Coach Paterno what had happened, and then go through the process of going to the administration, and so on and so forth. I hope there's going to be some soul-searching. Someone's first reaction, aside from feeling physically ill, should be to physically stop it.
KARL: Well, and if you want to send a message on this, you cancel the rest of the football season. Why are they still playing? Why doesn't the NCAA come out and say, "Done, Penn State's football season is over"? What's going to happen? Are they be playing in a bowl game? I mean, send a message, a clear, unmistakable message that this will not happen again.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you now, let's turn to the other headline in politics, and that are the still unanswered issues and allegations of sexual harassment against Herman Cain. And I want to ask you, Jon, as a reporter, we witnessed on Wednesday night a reporter trying to ask this question at a debate, and he was roundly booed, as if it is not our job to ask these questions.
KARL: Yeah, well, look, Cain's core supporters see this as all the more reason to support him. And, frankly, until -- unless there are more women that come forward and, you know, decide to have a press conference of all his accusers, looks like is not going to happen, it's hard for me to see where the story's going to go.
Cain has made it clear he is not going to answer any more questions about this, even peripheral questions. He's completely done with it. I think, frankly, his bigger concern as a candidate, maybe his inability, as we saw in last night's debate, to talk about some foreign policy questions, you know, to meet the commander-in-chief test. I think that's going to be what we're going to see next with Herman Cain.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you, George, though, have we seen the end of this story, when it comes to Herman Cain? I mean, this is a gentleman who is running for the highest office in the land and in the world.
WILL: A rule is, when there are four women, there may be 24, that there's a pattern here. He says there's no pattern, because all four are not telling the truth. Well, we shall see.
For Republicans, it is a teachable moment, because Republicans have said, over and over again, character matters in leadership. We have this powerful government. All more power the government has, the more character matters in the chief executive. And this is a test for them.
BRAZILE: Mr. Cain has received a little bit of what I call a martyr status among some Republicans. And that may be the wrong message to send to someone who is a novice at presidential politics.
The truth is, is that he was defiant, he was defensive. Four women, two have come out, and then they went right ahead and start attacking those two women, who are still anonymous. He attacked former Speaker Pelosi. He made fun of Anita Hill. This is not a good sign of a candidate who would like to remain a frontrunner in the Republican race.
AMANPOUR: And he's still top of the polls. Let me ask you, George, about Rick Perry, who as we all know had a very, very, very bad week, not just his first bad week. Why should anyone believe that he can turn it around? And I know you want to take care of some personal housekeeping this week, as well.
WILL: Yes, for more than 30 years, my wife, Mari, has been in the political business. She was a speechwriter for Ronald Reagan's campaign and his White House. She was his last White House director of communications. As part of her profession, which is to consult with businesses and congenial political candidates, she has been in the political business off and on for 30 years. Last Monday, she became part of the Perry campaign, specializing in messaging and debate preparation.
AMANPOUR: Isn't she banging her fists against her head then?
(LAUGHTER)
WILL: No, that's what she's there for, is to fix things. Some of the more excitable and perhaps less mature members of the Romney campaign have tried to make this personal. At the Michigan debate, after the debate, Mari waved to Ann and Mitt Romney. They came over and talked. They've been guests at our dinner table. And Romney gave her a kiss on the cheek, and they went their separate ways. They're both mature professionals.
AMANPOUR: You -- you have -- when Rick Perry first started to get in, you were quite optimistic about his chances. Do you feel now that he has a chance? I mean, it's not just his gaffes. It's his poll numbers.
WILL: Well, he's got better advisers. Beyond that, his poll numbers are down. He had a steep climb before Wednesday night. This climb got steeper. But I would remind you that in -- in 2008 campaign, a presidential candidate gave a speech in Oregon in which he said, "I've visited all 57 states and have one more to go."
(CROSSTALK)
WILL: That man is in the White House today.
AMANPOUR: On that note, let us just look at what Rick Perry said at last night's debate, obviously, playing on the -- on the big gaffe he did on Wednesday night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PELLEY: Governor Perry, you advocate the elimination of the Department of Energy. If you eliminate the Department of Energy...
PERRY: Glad you remembered it.
(LAUGHTER)
PELLEY: I've had some time to think about it, sir.
PERRY: Me, too.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Dana, has he neutralized any worries about his weakness as a debater and on the issues?
LOESCH: I think he's coming around. He's -- I think the smartest thing that he did -- and this is sort of interesting, as well, because the week prior to this debate, he and his campaign had been saying that they were considering seeking less media attention and going to less debates. And now it's a complete 180. Now there's not a camera that Rick Perry will not get in front of. He even went on Dave Letterman, which I thought was great, because I think it did neutralize some of the criticism. I think it gives him a little bit more media time, so he can get used to the pressure and the scrutiny. And it helps his perception in the public's eyes.
AMANPOUR: And, Jon, what about the real issue of his poll numbers? And are his donors, fundraisers feeling a little swishy?
KARL: From all I hear is that the fundraising has essentially dried up for Perry. I mean, look, his campaign was in serious trouble before he had his debate performance on Wednesday. I will say, he had a very strong debate last night. It was by far Perry's strongest debate. You could argue -- you saw he was kind of funny at times. He was substantive. He was -- he was strong. You could say that if he had been doing this all along, he'd probably still be the frontrunner. But it's -- it's a really steep climb right now for Perry.
AMANPOUR: A quick round for all of you. Look at the new McClatchy-Marist poll. Mitt Romney, with his trusty 23 percent, as ever, but Newt Gingrich, back from the dead, maybe, and in second place. How did that happen, Donna?
BRAZILE: Well, he's had steady debate performance. He understands that, by attacking the media, taking on media during these debates, he wins the day. He's still a darling of the conservatives. Remember, he was a popular speaker for the Republican side.
AMANPOUR: Do we think Newt Gingrich is going to rise, George? Is he the latest anti-Romney or...
WILL: He's the flavor of the week, and he's a skillful campaigner, and he has perfect pitch for certain Republican constituencies. But, again, you've put your finger on the striking number there, which is that Mitt Romney's support fluctuates wildly between 23 percent and 25 percent.
KARL: And the other anti-Romney is like a yo-yo, up and down, up and down. But, you know, look, Romney has got some serious problems in terms of closing this deal. But this race, you could argue, is as wide open as it has ever been.
AMANPOUR: We're going to continue this right after a break.
And up next, crunch time for the super-committee. Will the lawmakers beat the clock and fend off budget doomsday? The roundtable reads the smoke signals when we return.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Repent, the end is near, well, for the super-committee, at least. They have got less than two weeks to figure out how to shave $1.3 trillion off the deficit. Miss that November 23rd deadline, and they'll trigger draconian slate of budget cuts. Let's bring back the roundtable.
So, Jon, is the super-committee going to make this deadline?
KARL: From all of my talks with people on the Hill, the super-committee is on the brink of failure. And barring an 11th minute breakthrough that we don't see any signs of right now, it will fail. It will fail to produce -- now, it may -- my prediction is that they -- that they do something, but it would be a much smaller number than $1.2 trillion. And it will be seen, as it should be, as a failure.
AMANPOUR: Donna, Senator Mitch McConnell thinks that this is all a White House design. Let's just put this up and see what the senator just said this week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCONNELL: It does raise your suspicion that the folks down at the White House are pulling for failure, because, you see, if the joint committee succeeds, it steps on the storyline that they've been peddling, which is that you can't do anything with the Republicans in Congress.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: What about your storyline?
BRAZILE: Oh, I don't think so. Look, the White House has put forward a big deal, a big bargain, you know, with more cuts that most Democrats will basically say, "No way, let's not cut so deeply into the entitlement programs."
This is still about the Bush tax cuts. It's still about raising revenue. And the -- the Republicans have not put -- put forward a reasonable plan to -- to really, you know, make a deal with the Democrats. So I -- I see a deadlock. And I also believe they're going to kick this down the road.
WILL: They wanted more revenues, the Democrats did, so Pat Toomey, former chairman of the Club for Growth, tax-aphobic if anyone is, put forward hundreds of billions of dollars in new revenues by largely devaluing deductions for high earners, in other words, making the tax code more progressive, and the Democrats again moved the goal posts and said we're not going to do that.
Now, the real deadline is not the 23rd. It's the 21st. They've already blown past one deadline. They had to get their plan scored. The 21st, they have to have it published for 48 hours before the deadline. What happens if the sequester trigger comes into play? Nothing. Nothing happens on the 24th, because the sequester works in 2013.
Furthermore, you can draw a graph. This is federal spending without the sequester; this is federal spending with the sequester. Tiny difference. It's a tiny difference in the rate of growth of federal spending.
AMANPOUR: What's at stake for you and for your sort of constituents? Is this going to work, do you think? And the sequester that George is talking about, if it does go into effect, it really heavily affects military spending.
LOESCH: Yes. And that's sort of, I think, one of the big problems that grassroots conservatives especially had with this whole situation, is that it really focuses on defense, but nothing is really done so much about entitlement.

I personally have zero faith in the super-committee. I don't have any faith in a smaller version of Congress doing what Congress couldn't do already. So because of that -- and just because we've watched Democrats walk away last week from the plan that Republicans -- that Toomey put forward just last week. It threw them a curveball, $300 billion in revenue -- revenues raising.
But I think it comes down to an ideological difference. They want Bush tax cuts to be made permanent. They want to increase revenues by adding to the tax base, as opposed to just jacking up the rates, which I think is valid, especially when you look at tax receipts for the last six decades. And so there's an ideological difference here, but in terms of how this is going to affect us and -- and whether or not we have faith that -- I don't know how it will. We'll wait and see. And I have zero faith.
AMANPOUR: Jon, is this going to be something that we're just going to have to wait for the next election, this whole idea of cutting the spending and getting the deficit under control?
KARL: Well, George made a really critical point I think a lot of people don't really realize, which is these automatic cuts that take place if the super-committee fails don't happen until 2013. What are the odds of them really happening? I mean, Congress can simply vote them away during the lame-duck session after the 2012...
(CROSSTALK)
AMANPOUR: So what is this, just an exercise in futility?
KARL: Well, it's -- it's profoundly disappointing. And I think that, if they fail, the cost will be borne by incumbents everywhere. This is an indictment of Congress. It's an indictment of both parties. And it's an indictment of the White House.
WILL: That's the crucial point, because Harry Reid's interest diverged from Barack Obama's interests here. Harry Reid is defending 23 Senate seats. And he does not want his -- his Democratic candidates for Senate to be out there while the president is campaigning against a do-nothing, failed Congress.
LOESCH: Right.
BRAZILE: Well, I just want to go back to Toomey's proposal. While it was a modest recognition that revenues need to be...
KARL: Five hundred billion dollars is not modest.
BRAZILE: But, look, compared to allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, $800 billion? I mean, come on. We're looking at, you know, a proposal that would cut entitlements, cut Medicare, cut programs on people who can least afford them.
KARL: You know the Republicans weren't going to go along with allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. I mean, this was the first significant movement forward for Republicans on revenue, besides what John Boehner did with the president in their secret discussions.
BRAZILE: Well, the Democrats have already moved on entitlements, so why can't we just find a one or two billion -- trillion dollar more that -- that will allow us to achieve balance (ph)?
AMANPOUR: Let's talk a little bit about mood, which inevitably governs all these kind of debates and discussions. We saw over this last week, with elections in various different states, you know, various conservative ideas pushed back, whether it was anti-union measures in Ohio or other such things elsewhere. And some have called it a reaction to conservative overreach. How much can one read into this?
KARL: Well, I'd be careful reading too much. Clearly, conservatives lost in those two initiatives you mentioned, but look at the health care mandate in Ohio. Ohio voted overwhelmingly -- every county in the state -- to reject the centerpiece of the president's health care plan, and by a bigger margin than the referendum that put away Kasich's plan on collective bargaining.
So I would be careful in reading much. In fact, if anything, this was an incumbent election. I mean, incumbents did pretty well across the board. And that's a troubling sign for conservatives and for the Tea Party movement, because it means the momentum has waned.
AMANPOUR: So the momentum, George, right down to the latest Quinnipiac poll is basically saying that -- the new state poll out of Iowa is showing President Obama defeating all Republican comers in that new poll. Shift of mood? It's a swing state, isn't it?
WILL: It's a swing state. It's a purple state.
AMANPOUR: I actually meant Ohio. I hope I didn't say Iowa.
WILL: You did...
(CROSSTALK)
WILL: Well, Ohio's important to Republicans.
AMANPOUR: (inaudible)
WILL: No Republican has ever won the presidency without carrying Ohio. Republicans always spend something like the gross national product of Brazil to carry Ohio, and that puts them across the finish line.
The real problem for Republicans is they have to have a candidate who can carry the white, non-college-educated, blue-collar vote, Hillary Democrats, if you will. It used to be called Reagan Democrats. They're in play, and the Republicans need a candidate who can carry them. They lost them in Ohio last week.
BRAZILE: Well, let me just say this. More people turned out to vote against Governor Kasich's proposal than voted for Governor Kasich in 2010. This is a sign of things to come. Voters are sick and tired and frustrated of politicians overreaching, you know, basically doing things that they did not elect them to do.
They want jobs. They want to protect the economy. They're not interested in all of these side issues, whether it's the personhood amendment in Mississippi or the voter proposal in Maine and the anti-worker proposal in Ohio. And, also, remember, in the Hawkeye State, in Iowa, they also rejected one of the Tea Party-backed candidates who had proposed -- was against the marriage initiative. So this was a good day for Democrats.
AMANPOUR: All right.
On that note, up next, the Iran crisis boils over, as U.N. inspectors find new evidence that Iran is working on a nuclear device. The big question: Can America do anything to stop it now? Answers from the Republican presidential field when we return. Stay with us.
AMANPOUR: Last night, the Republican presidential candidates took on the chief foreign policy crisis facing the United States today, nuclear Iran potentially. This week, weapons inspectors said they finally have enough -- the most strong evidence, they say, to see that Iran is still working on a nuclear device.
So can it be stopped at this point? The candidates said yes.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ROMNEY: Well, it's worth putting in place crippling sanctions. It's worth working with the insurgents in the country to encourage regime change in the country. And if all else fails, if after all of the work we've done there's nothing else we can do besides take military action, then of course you take military action.
CAIN: I would not entertain military opposition. I'm talking about to help the opposition movement within the country.
PERRY: The issue that has not been raised is that this country can sanction the Iranian central bank right now and shut down that country's economy.
SANTORUM: We should be working with Israel right now to do what they did in Syria, what they did in Iraq, which is take out that nuclear capability before the next explosion we hear in Iran is a nuclear one and then the world changes.
(END VIDEOTAPE)

This time, Loesch defended Rick Perry's infamous 53-second gaffe at the CNBC Debate Wednesday night. She praised his appearance on CBS's The Late Show With David Letterman. She also stated that she has zero confidence in the Super Committee.

Loesch falsely accuses OccupySTL of special treatment

The lying liar from St. Louis is back again, demonizing Occupy protestors as a "bunch of ACORN-funded thugs" in her blog over at Big Government. 

For the past few weeks, a small group of rag-tag occupiers have set up a shanty town in Keiner Plaza, the site of many St. Louis Tea Party rallies. They have done so without a permit and without insurance — things the city demanded of the St. Louis Tea Party before they were allowed use of the space. Demonstrators plug their laptops and space heaters into the park’s power outlets. Should an accident occur, the lack of insurance will place the city on the hook for liability. Yesterday in an interview with Mayor Slay’s spokesman Jeff Rainford, I learned that the city isn’t exactly keen to bring the group into compliance with the law.

The cost for renting out Keiner Plaza isn’t cheap, though not as expensive as permits for usage of federal park space. A letter to my STLTP Co-Founder Bill Hennessy detailed a list of actionable and monetary requirements before the city would allow an August 4th, 2011 Tea Party event to take place:

Page two:

The city should have evicted the occupiers when the free permit was refused and city law broken. When the St. Louis Tea Party lost its insurance the night before the November 2009 protest, we had to scramble to replace it, or the city would have disallowed the demonstration. Rainford’s excuse for the city’s allowance for breaking the law was that the occupy group may not have beeen able to afford the permit, but they were able to afford a Cardinals World Series sign.

 Rainford tried to make this about protecting free speech, so if it is, why then was the city less interested in the Tea Party’s free speech? Why did the city demand that the Tea Party pay for their free speech via permits and insurance while giving the occupiers a pass? Why did the city attempt to withhold the Tea Party’s right to free speech and peaceful assembly by revoking use of Keiner the night before a rally due to insurance? By Rainford’s logic, that would be the promotion of one group over another before the law, which itself is a violation of civil rights.

So the city is refusing to enforce the law because the self-described “peaceful” occupy group may act like domestic terrorists and riot and damage property? Isn’t that more reason to stop this now? The city makes itself a larger accessory the more this continues.

 Typical lying nonsense from Dana Loesch regarding the Occupy movement.

Now the bigger question is why the hell did Slay's Chief of Staff Jeff Rainford go on KFTK's The Dana Show?

 Adam Shriver at our sister blog, the St. Louis Activist Hub, has more:

First, Mayor Slay's Chief of Staff Jeff Rainford copied Dana Loesch's inflammatory rhetoric against OccupySTL, ridiculously claiming that the group was "unruly" and falsely suggesting that they were relieving themselves all over Kiener Plaza rather than in the port-o-potty's provided by local unions:

Jeff Rainford, Slay's chief of staff, said the camps are getting unruly, the plaza is beginning to smell like urine, and a few were recently arrested for public intoxication.

Then, Rainford mimicked Loesch again by seemingly suggesting that the OccupySTL group might want violence:

"All I'm trying to do is to keep this from becoming Oakland," he said. "I'm trying to get this solved with no violence."

Still, he said, he understood that the occupiers may not have the same plans

So I guess it really should be no surprise that Rainford decided to appear on Loesch's radio show today to explain why the city has decided they need to kick the Occupy group out of Kiener Plaza. After all, Loesch has been trying to portray the campers at Kiener as filthy, violent, parasite-infested, astroturf, drug-crazed, sexual deviants from the very beginning, so it makes perfect sense that Rainford would help provide validation to St. Louis's Queen of Hate Radio.

From the 11.07.2011 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show: