Loesch still continues to lie under the sun

 In this past week, CNN "Contributor" and serial liar Dana Loesch has been caught lying multiple times, including the fact that she endorsed Mitt Romney during the 2008 Republican Primaries in Missouri despite the fact that she thinks "Romney is a Socialist, unrepentant RINO, Obama-lite Presidential candidate."

 Proof that she lied about voting for Romney back in 2008, via the St. Louis Activist Hub:

 I don't like much about CNN's Dana Loesch but I have to give her credit for one thing: she's done a great job of "branding" herself as a rebellious tea party outsider independent from the mainstream Republican Party. After all, why would gullible news outlets like CNN want to hire just another person repeating the same old tired Republican talking points? But, like pretty much everything else that's come from the St. Louis Tea Party, Loesch's image as a rebellious outsider was deliberately constructed and almost entirely false.

After supporting both Roy Blunt and Ed Martin over more conservative challengers in the 2010 election, Loesch has been seeking attention lately by bashing GOP front-runner Mitt Romney. A few weeks ago she said she'd never support him:

 Unfortunately for Loesch, even if she easily forgets, those wacky internets don't. A friend DM'd me a link to the Way Back Machine that showed that, guess what? Dana Loesch voted for Mitt Romney in the Republican primary in 2008 as the "candidate of change":

Team Loesch went to the polls this morning and cast two votes for Mitt Romney. I think he's the best candidate of change and more qualified than McCain.

Here's a screen shot:


And guess what else? "RomneyCare" was enacted back in 2006, so I guess that means that Dana Loesch actually was a fan of RomneyCare *and* thought it was constitutional. How about that?

This proves the Loesch is just another GOP talking points shill, instead of the "Independent Conservative" mantle she claims to use for her branding.

Mediaite's Tommy Christopher also had a detailed rundown of Loesch's lies about Romney:

Dana Loesch, CNN contributor and editor-in-chief of Big Journalism, has been sharpening her Tea Party cred against a Mitt Romney grindstone, bashing the candidate as an “unrepentant RINO (Republican In Name Only)” whom she “was against” in the last election, and this election. So great is her animus for Romney that she gets entire “mailbags of hate” from his supporters. The only problem is, Loesch voted for Romney in 2008, and the internet has the proof. This is the Tea Party equivalent of being in a mosh pit, and having a Justin Bieber CD fall out of your pocket.


Loesch’s main problem with Romney, if her twitter feed is any indication, is Romney’s individual health care mandate. I don’t know, am I reading these right?

I didn’t protest socialized health care for three years to support the guy who wrote it before Obama. #romney
I was against Romney last election, I’m against him this election. I will be against him so long as he’s an unrepentant RINO.

Yeah, about that. A liberal St. Louis blogger tracked down this blog post from Loesch, dated February 5, 2008 10:06 AM:

Team Loesch went to the polls this morning and cast two votes for Mitt Romney. I think he’s the best candidate of change and more qualified than McCain. Rush just has personal beef with McCain and Coulter, well, she’s Coulter.

Loesch doesn’t say anything about holding her nose while pulling that lever, but to be fair, the post’s title, “Tuesday Isn’t THAT Super,” can be seen as an indication that she wasn’t crazy about Romney or McCain. Still, why choose Romney over McCain when the thing you don’t like about the Democrats is this:

Even though I don’t like John McCain for several reasons, one of which includes McCain-Feingold, another is his hostility to small business and the free market – he’s still a better choice to me than the two successfully underwhelming socialists the other side is offering with their tax-heavy universal healthcare which circumvents our liberties and makes us all wards of the state.

The funny thing is, while Loesch was casting that vote for Mitt Romney, Barack Obama was actually to the right of Romney (and primary opponent Hillary Clinton) on the issue of health care. One of the things I didn’t like about Obama’s primary platform was that he was against an individual health care mandate. You can’t do away with preexisting condition limitations without it. It’d be like taking the “buy one” out of a “buy one, get one free” deal.
Now, we all have our internet skeletons in the closet (like my early support for John Edwards), and it’s quite possible that Loesch was unaware of Romneycare at the time. He certainly wasn’t running on Romneycare. If that’s the case, though, then why go to the trouble of deleting the post from the blog’s archive? Surely, Loesch’s current Tea Party crowd would understand, wouldn’t they?



Dana Loesch, in her response, explains that she wasn’t for Romney in 2008, she just opposed John McCain more strongly, and cast her vote for Romney to prevent McCain from securing the nomination. After her first choice, Fred Thompson, dropped out, Loesch says “We were, at that point, faced between choosing Mitt Romney or John McCain. I did not like Mitt Romney.”
Now, you would never know that from her blog post, a fair reading of which would lead you to conclude that she at least liked Mitt a little. “I think he’s the best candidate of change,” she said. A fair person would acknowledge that, based on that post, no one would conclude that she was “against” Romney in 2008. A cynical person might think Loesch was just trying to backstop an embarrassing contradiction.
However, in her response, Loesch says that there are podcasts from the period that demonstrate her dislike for Romney. Fair enough. She goes on to explain her thought process. “I weighed Romneycare against McCain-Feingold, and that’s ultimately what made my decision. I disliked both of them to the point where I almost wanted to choke. And I ultimately decided that McCain-Feingold, in that particular instance, was worse.”

Yes, the same Mike Huckabee that Dana Loesch was scheduled to introduce at a St. Louis Tea Party event earlier this year. If only she had known about him in 2008! In a bit of cruel irony, she even, coincidentally, referenced the Tea Party-friendly former governor in that 2008 blog post, defiantly decrying big government with a folksy, “HUCK THAT.”
If just a tiny fraction of Missourians had voted for Huckabee, instead of Mitt Romney, the 2008 presidential race could have gone a whole different way. Going into Super Tuesday, Huckabee was within 67 delegates of the lead, with 1,069 up for grabs that day, and was polling in a statistical tie with McCain for the lead in Missouri. Had he won Missouri, he might have stayed in the race longer, raised more money, and really given McCain what for. He kept on winning states even after he dropped out, and even wound up with more delegates than Romney!

Loesch is right, of course. Most liberals feel that Obamacare was a half-measure, watered down by Republicans, conserva-Dems, and would have preferred a public option, or Medicare for all. What we got was the equivalent of eliminating starvation by making it illegal not to buy food.

 From the 10.07.2011 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:

 

On her blogposts at the feces-filled Big "Journalism" blog, she and her ilk have demonized the Occupy Wall Street protestors (and its offshoots) for alleged "lawbreaking", being "lazy welfare moochers," and the like.

On last night's Anderson Cooper 360, Loesch was on to offer analysis on the Bloomberg Debate.

From the 10.11.2011 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:

 Transcript:

 JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: It is 10:00 p.m. here in Washington.

Breaking news from a place north of here. They are just about as fervent about their politics up in New Hampshire. The Republican presidential debate in New Hampshire wrapping up just moments ago.

The setting, a town hall. The eight candidates sat around a table with moderator Charlie Rose. They made their points, traded jabs, as you can see, elbow to elbow literally. The sole focus of tonight's face-off, the economy, but politics not far from center stage either.

With Herman Cain's poll numbers surging, he and his 999 plan were obvious targets. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HERMAN CAIN (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Nine-nine-nine will pass, and it is not the price of a pizza, because it has been well- studied and well-developed. It starts with, unlike your proposals, throwing out the current tax code. Continuing to pivot off the current tax code is not going to boost this economy. This is why we developed 9-9-9, 9 percent corporate business flat tax, 9 percent personal income flat tax, and a 9 percent national sales tax. And it will pass, Senator, because the American people want it to pass.

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MN), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And one thing I would say is, when you take the 999 plan and you turn it upside down, I think the devil is in the details.

RICK SANTORUM (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Unlike Herman's plan, which could not pass, because no -- how many people here are for a sales tax in New Hampshire? Raise your hand.

There you go, Herman. That's how many votes you'll get in New Hampshire.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: A big night for Cain, also a critical event for Rick Perry. His stock is falling after two shaky debate showings and the Texas governor needed a strong showing tonight.

And of course Mitt Romney is still the front-runner, which made him a punching bag tonight as well. Just hours before this debate, Romney won the endorsement of New Jersey Chris Christie, who said Romney's experience in the private and public sectors make him the right candidate to lead the Republican ticket.

Joining me now to talk about all of this, CNN political contributor Republican consultant Alex Castellanos, also CNN chief political analyst Gloria Borger, and CNN contributor Dana Loesch. She's editor of BigJournalism.com and a radio host for KFTK. That's 97.1 FM.

Gloria, let's start. Making the top tier means you catch some harpoons, Herman Cain in the crosshairs tonight defending 999. How did he do?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: OK.

He didn't get specific, other than saying that he really wanted to get rid of the tax code. But it was clear that from a bunch of Republicans on the stage, they believe that you would never be able to keep the personal tax rate at just 9 percent and that also a national sales tax is regressive and something they don't like.

And, Rick Santorum, as you just showed, made a very good point. How many people in the state of New Hampshire are going to vote for a 9 percent national sales tax? The Republican Party doesn't like to talk about that, no matter how much Herman Cain does.

KING: And, Alex, it is not just the sales tax that is tough to sell. Even conservative analysis of this plan says the federal government would lose 18 to 20 percent of its revenue from the current tax system. How does Mr. Cain sell that? That would make the choices, the spending cut choices even tougher, and we see Washington can't get that done as it is.

ALEX CASTELLANOS, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Unless you accept Herman Cain's argument of course that a different tax code, a more dynamic tax code would produce dynamic growth in the economy, which is not a bad argument to make.

But one thing Cain I think needed to learn tonight -- and he didn't -- is that these debates are like parking your car on a hill. Either you keep moving forward or you slide back. And tonight we may have learned Herman Cain's PIN code for his bank card, but we sure didn't learn anything new about Herman Cain.

Romney had a great debate tonight. Newt Gingrich...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Hang on, Alex.

Dana, one thing we need...

(CROSSTALK)

CASTELLANOS: I was just going to say Romney had a...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Hang on.

Dana, we needed to learn tonight whether Rick Perry was ready to play, after two shaky debate performances, a lot of criticisms, how can he handle himself on this debate stage.

The central issue here was the economy. Here's Rick Perry on his jobs plan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. RICK PERRY (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Romneycare has driven the cost of small-business insurance premiums up by 14 percent over the national average in Massachusetts. So my question for you would be: How would you respond to his criticism of your signature legislative achievement?

MITT ROMNEY (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We have the lowest number of kids as a percentage uninsured of any state in America. You have the highest. You...

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: I'm still -- I'm still speaking.

(CROSSTALK)

PERRY: ... criticism.

ROMNEY: I'm still speaking. We -- we have -- we have less than 1 percent of our kids that are uninsured. You have a million kids uninsured in Texas. A million kids. Under President Bush, the percentage uninsured went down. Under your leadership, it's gone up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

I care about people. Now, our plan isn't perfect. Glenn Hubbard is a fine fellow. Take a look at his quote. Some people say that. Just because some people say something doesn't mean it's true.

The truth is, our plan is different, and the people of Massachusetts, if they don't like it, they can get rid of it. Right now, they favor it 3 to 1.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: All right, we will get to the jobs plan bite in just a minute. We rolled them in reverse order.

But, Dana Loesch, right there, you see Perry and Romney going at it. Did Governor Perry turn in a strong and forceful performance enough tonight to quiet the doubters?

DANA LOESCH, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: No, he did not. And I was waiting for this question about Romneycare to be asked sooner. I thought it would appear earlier in the debate. And then Perry finally asked him. And I thought finally someone is going to ask about Mitt Romney about Romneycare and its effect on business in Massachusetts.

But then he took a nap and he fizzled out. I don't exactly know what happened. He didn't follow up. He wasn't aggressive with it. And the question itself wasn't even framed in an aggressive manner. He allowed Romney to skate by on a number of just outright fallacies. One of them was that, well, we didn't raise taxes in Massachusetts and we were able to implement this health care system.

That's not entirely true. It was because of the runoff costs of Romneycare that taxes did have to go up after it was implemented. But that is something that Perry didn't follow up on. And I was waiting for Perry to show everyone that he had the fire in his belly and that he really wants to run for president and I didn't see that from him tonight.

And now I'm beginning to wonder whether or not he is really serious about this.

KING: Well, that is an important criticism and critique, Alex.

So you have Dana raising questions there of whether he can go back and forth with Mitt Romney on at least among conservatives what should be a perceived Romney weakness. That is one critique Dana puts on the table. Let's listen now when Governor Perry was asked to describe his jobs plan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. RICK PERRY (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: A president, particularly with the plan that I'm going to be laying out over the next three days -- and I'm not going to lay it out all for you tonight -- Mitt has had six years to be working on a plan. I have been in this for about eight weeks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Is that good enough, Alex? You know this debate will be focused on the economy. Maybe he has more details to give us in the weeks ahead. But given his slip in the polls, given the questions about whether he can handle himself in a debate, is that good enough?

CASTELLANOS: No, it didn't seem like it here tonight.

John, I think obviously his campaign decided we are going to simplify things for our candidate. We're going to give him one idea, energy equals jobs, and we're going to let him be quiet the rest of the time and get through the debate that way.

The last debate, the excuse was made, well, he was standing up all debate long and he got tired. So this should have been his debate. He was sitting down. I think next time he will have to get a mattress because there was no energy, no fire and it was way too simple.

BORGER: Instead of seeming like an aggressor, Perry sort of almost seemed like a bystander here. And he really couldn't afford to do that.

He just put out a brutal Web ad against Mitt Romney, which attacked him on being a flip-flopper and on his Massachusetts health care. And then tonight, instead of building on that aggressively, he just kind of seemed to be a little more passive or a lot more passive than I thought he needed to be.

KING: So, Dana, if that's the case...

(CROSSTALK)

CASTELLANOS: Gloria?

BORGER: Yes.

LOESCH: I wanted to raise a quick point.

(CROSSTALK)

BORGER: We are all on delay.

CASTELLANOS: I was just to say that, to Gloria's point, that that is exactly how -- sorry about that.

But to Gloria's point, that's how Rick Perry's won campaigns. He's never won campaigns because he's the most articulate candidate or because he's the brightest intellect. He always wins campaigns because he sticks a fork in his opponent's eyeball. And he has got enough money in the bank and there are enough super PACs out there.

And as Gloria said, there is the negative super ad out there. I would expect to see some very tough ads from Rick Perry pretty soon in the Boston and Iowa media markets.

KING: Well, Dana, if Herman Cain didn't defend his plan plainly enough and if Rick Perry was a no-show, does that mean by default Mitt Romney won tonight or did someone else steal this debate?

LOESCH: Well, not necessarily.

And one of the things I was going to say, too, was that, during this debate, Perry's camp was sending out e-mails of things that he should have been saying in this debate, for instance, on TARP. I thought that was so odd. And they do that pretty consistently. That's something that they should be talking about in the debate.

He had a great opportunity to distinguish himself from these other candidates. You had Herman Cain and Mitt Romney both defending -- both defending TARP, rather, just kind of shocking. But I don't think that Romney wins by default. While he's a good debater and he has great rhetorical skills, his answers, if you judge them by conservatism alone, don't pass the smell test. They don't. But because of semantics, because he's an artful debater...

CASTELLANOS: I disagree.

LOESCH: ... he comes out on top.

But Newt Gingrich I thought always does well, because Newt Gingrich just chews everybody up and spits everybody out and is able to reframe any debate that he's in. But I think Romney comes out on top and I think Gingrich comes out on top. I think Cain did well. Perry did not.

KING: Newt has been strong in every debate. He just hasn't been able to move the poll numbers.

Gloria, let me close with this. CNN has a debate one week from tonight. If Rick Perry is zero for the past three, I assume that one is do or die.

BORGER: Yes, it is important. People need to believe. Republicans need to believe that if they are going to nominate somebody, this person can stand next to Barack Obama on the stage and go at him and do well at it.

And if he cannot do that in a debate with his Republican contenders, with the other Republicans, he's going to have a hard time against Barack Obama. That's what people are looking for. And he hasn't shown it yet.

KING: Gloria, Dana, Alex, appreciate your insights.

Right after this Republican debate, again, our CNN debate one week from tonight.

And let us know what you think. We're on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter @JohnKingCNN. I will be tweeting tonight.

-

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:


Transcript:

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?

(LAUGHTER)

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.

(LAUGHTER)

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:




Transcript:

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.

DANA LOESCH, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Good morning.

ALEX CASTELLANOS, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Good morning.

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 -

VELSHI: Yes.

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 -

CASTELLANOS: So that unites (INAUDIBLE).

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.

VELSHI: Sure.

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 -

VELSHI: Yes.

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.

VELSHI: Yes.

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.

LOESCH: Yes.

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:



Transcript:

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.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

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.

VELSHI: Yes.

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.

Dana Loesch = DIVA!

If you want proof that Dana Loesch is an arrogant lying Diva, then look no further than this posting:

Trouble in Tea Party Land?

Is St. Louis big enough for two tea party divas? There was an extremely interesting comment the other day that read as follows: There sure was a big distance between Dana and Gina Loudon that day. Later Gina had on her Facebook wall:

Loesch bills herself as the "conservative alternative to old white dudes." Gina Loudon says she's the, "the freshest conservative, Christian voice in the St. Louis area." Hmmm, sounds kinda similar to me. Is Dana peeved that Loudon is copying her schtick? Knowing Loesch, she's probably threatened to sue for copyright infringement about 10 times by now.

Dana trying to play her "Liberals are using Obama = Hitler imagery" Card again: It's the LaRouchists and Teabaggers doing it.

The Tea Party Guide to Thoughtful Political Discussion

Dana Loesch had a post up yesterday bragging about how the tea party "polices" their rallies because they asked a guy to remove a Hitler picture from his sign:


It's pretty funny that Loesch would brag about that, considering that she defended a billboard comparing Obama to Hitler back in July, on Red Eye:



It's actually not the first time she forgot her previous ridiculous comments, claiming in August that all Hitler comparisons were from left wing plants.

More crap from @DLoesch on Twitter:

Will @debbiehalvorson condemn the behavior of her campaigners after they protested with Palin, et al. Nazi signs? http://bit.ly/9d3dOl #tcot

Dana Loesch on Good Morning America against James Carville (Carville pwns Loesch):



Loesch is playing the "Liberals = Trolls/Stalkers" Card again (which she has referred to me, Adam Shriver, and a lot of Liberals):

Guy is threatening to come to the station. This is what progressives do. This is how they act. And they will never repudiate.
Just had a hatemailer threaten my children and am contacting authorities NOW. WTF pricks?

Where are the feminists when yet another conservative female is threatened? Oh, right, heads up asses. Great job, gals.

Okay, nobody should threaten @dloesch's children, even though she habitually threatens people's jobs (which threatens THEIR children). 8:24 AM Sep 17th via web, theboneblog

Eric Boehler of MMfA calls her on it:

Why is RW nut @DLoesch stalking me? http://su.pr/1fjfbl

Dana Loesch on Fixed and Fools:



Dana Loesch also is blaming Liberals for an assassination attempt on Jay Nixon (D).

Wow. Our prayers are with the college dean as he recovers and his family.

What’s that? Another case of leftist violence?

Can we get some folks on the left to calm down their rhetoric and CHILL OUT?

Who's the ones doing all (or most of it) the violence? The Teabaggers.

The rebuttal from Chad Garrison over at Daily RFT.

Casey Brezik: Paranoid Schizophrenic Intended to Kill Gov. Jay Nixon

By Chad Garrison, Thu., Sep. 16 2010 @ 7:41AM

The man who allegedly stabbed a community college official on Tuesday just before a scheduled appearance of Governor Jay Nixon had intended to kill the governor.

The Kansas City Star reports that 22-year-old Casey Brezik, a student at Metropolitan Community College -- Penn Vally, thought he had stabbed the governor and was disappointed when learning that the victim was actually the school's dean of instruction, Al Dimmit Jr., who survived the attack.

The paper reports that Brezik was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia several years ago and had only recently enrolled at the community college. His family says Brezik has a habit of writing anti-government rants on his Facebook page. In 2007 he was committed to mental hospitals at least four times and convicted of drug possession. He wears an anarchist symbol tattoo on his arm.


She falsely claims that Karl Rove is a RINO, when in fact Rove is nothing but a dirty huckster who belongs in jail.

The 09.15.2010 edition of Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN transcript with Loesch, Castellanos, and Spitzer segment

COOPER: Well, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine is -- says he's loving the GOP turmoil.

He told The New York Times -- and I quote -- "Republicans thought they were embracing the Tea Party, and, at times, it turns into the Donner Party."

Despite Democratic hopes of Republican cannibalism, however, the enthusiasm and energy of Tea Party supporters should worry Democrats in November.

Joining me now is Eliot Spitzer, former New York governor and co- host of CNN's new program Parker Spitzer.

Also tonight, Republican consultant and political contributor Alex Castellanos and blogger and radio host Dana Loesch, who is also the co-organizer of the St. Louis Tea Party Coalition.

Appreciate all of you being with being us.

Eliot, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said -- and I quote -- "that shows there's a very vociferous debate going on inside the Republican Party for the hearts and minds of Republican voters." Is he right?

ELIOT SPITZER (D), FORMER NEW YORK GOVERNOR: Well, of course he's right, but he's also the victim of that debate, because that debate has created enthusiasm, energy.

The Tea Party is taking over the Republican Party in many states -- in Delaware, not so clear. But, right now, the Democrats are saying, we're no longer setting the agenda. And the fear the Democrats have is that this enthusiasm, even for candidates who Karl Rove admits are not credible, from many other perspectives, may continue through November, and this could be a tsunami that nobody could possibly have predicted.

COOPER: Dana, do you think O'Donnell is credible? Do you think she can win?

DANA LOESCH, ORGANIZER, ST. LOUIS TEA PARTY COALITION: I do think she can win. I think she can win as soon as Karl -- people like Karl Rove stop going on television and trying to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

We haven't even begun to try yet. I liked Michael Steele's approach. And I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think Karl Rove could possibly take some notes from how Michael Steele approached this.

But that doesn't help, going on camera saying that a candidate isn't credible and just -- and talking about how, well, it took her two decades to pay off her college loans. Well, forgive her for not being rich, like you, Karl Rove, but it doesn't really -- you want to talk about winning moderates and independents, that's not the way you go about it.

It's really bizarre.

SPITZER: That's not the only measure of credibility. I don't think Karl Rove is focusing -- is focusing exclusively on, can she win?

I think there's a reputational harm that he is worried about, when the Republican Party that has a Mike Castle, who has been a serious, thoughtful public servant, is defeated by somebody whose views on issues seem to be so completely disparate and far afield from normal ideas that are tethered to fact and reason.

I think that is what Karl Rove is scared about. There's a reputational hit the Republican Party will really suffer from if they embrace candidates like this.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Alex, are you concerned about this?

ALEX CASTELLANOS, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: No, I think it's -- I think it demonstrates a lot of energy in the Republican Party. Look, this is an anti-establishment year, anti-Washington year. People look at all these -- these qualified people we have in Washington and working together in a bipartisan way.

And in a bipartisan way they've spent the country into bankruptcy. They've put us in debt for -- that will take forever to pay. So they want it to stop.

And that's what you're seeing, I think, this year is a -- is a populist, a revolt against the establishment of both parties. And they've just eaten the Republican establishment for a snack. Now dinnertime is November, and only Democrats are going to be on the menu.

SPITZER: Well, you know, that's a great metaphor and I applaud you for it. The problem is that the closest metaphor I think many people can see historically is to the Know Nothing Party, the Know Nothing Party of the 1840s and '50s, which was a populist uprising of anger and venom against the establishment. It burned out pretty quickly when economic times returned to normal. In that case it was anti-immigrant fervor.

CASTELLANOS: I think there's another historical precedent, Governor Spitzer. I think there's a much larger -- excuse me. I think there's a much larger historical precedent, and that's a country that was founded -- founded by a group of people that didn't want to be told what to do by an elite royalty that thought it had the answer to everything.

And right now Washington is doing that. It's bankrupted the country. And people are really concerned about it. I think the Republican Party just got a wake-up call that said, "Look, we don't want to send a message out that says we're more concerned about keeping our power in Washington than to listen to Republicans."

COOPER: Dana -- Dana, do you think it's going to burn out in any way?

LOESCH: I don't think it's going to burn out. And I want to -- Mr. Spitzer said something that was very interesting, that this isn't tethered in fact or reality.

I have to point out that Mike Castle is a very incredibly -- he's a very established beltway candidate for sure, but he's also a candidate whose record differed from where the majority of Americans polled, where they fall.

The majority of people are more identifying with the grassroots movement than they are with people like Mike Castle. I mean, there was a Rasmussen poll that was taken just -- I believe it was in August, where something like 75 percent of -- or thought of the American people thought that the congressional Democrat agenda was too extreme.

And then you look at all of the tracking that has been taking place. Gallup released a poll also in August showing that the majority of independents, they are favoring the Republican Party, meaning they're favoring the grassroots conservative candidates that are really actually providing a difference in parties.

SPITZER: You're talking...

LOESCH: Mike Castle is Democrat light.

SPITZER: You're talking -- you're talking very persuasively about poll numbers. I'm not talking now about poll numbers or what might happen in a moment in one election at one moment in time.

What I'm talking about is the seriousness of confronting deficits with policies that will really do something about it. A Bill Clinton who gave us a surplus versus George Bush, whose tax cuts created this. And so I think the difference is certain objective facts that, at the end of the day, will emerge that will shed light -- I think Ron Paul is a fascinating guy, but when he says Keynesianism is dead, he just is simply fundamentally wrong. What is dead is...

LOESCH: Castle...

SPITZER: ... the procession of libertarianism that he was a proponent of that took us over the cliff in terms of an economic crisis as close to a depression as we've had in 80 years.

LOESCH: And TARP Has been supporting policies which tripled our deficits.

CASTELLANOS: I'm sorry. Excuse me, but look, there's something out there happening that's much bigger than the Tea Party. The Tea Party is certainly a part of it, but when you look around the country, there's a new generation of Republican candidates out there.

You have independent business women outsiders in California, Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire. You have Bob McDonnell in Virginia; Chris Christi in New Jersey; Scott, Massachusetts.

All these new candidates have one thing in common. They're outsiders. They're fresh faces. And they don't want to grow Washington's economy; they want to grow America's economy. They want to stop taking money out of the American people's economy and sending it to Washington.

SPITZER: Let me make something very clear.

CASTELLANOS: The Tea Party is the easiest part to focus on, because it's got the brightest feathers and is the most colorful, but it's much bigger than that. That's why Republicans are probably going to gain something like 52, 53 seats.

SPITZER: Alex, I could not agree with you more.

CASTELLANOS: Ask Americans about Keynesianism being dead. They're voting on it this election. SPITZER: Well, I could not agree with you more about growing the private sector and private sector job creation versus government. And in fact, that is what smart politics is all about.

What I'm saying is the policies coming out of the Tea Party are simply so disassociated from reality in terms of what it takes to do it. And if you sit down with a Meg Whitman; you sit down with business leaders who have grown business, who have run businesses, they will tell you that what the Tea Party is talking about and what Ron Paul is talking about is simply contrary to good economics.

And I would suggest to you the nations right now whose growth is outstripping us by huge margins, whether it's India, Vietnam, Japan, even France and Germany, you look at what they're doing, in fact I think you would find out that your perspective is being proven dead wrong by what economics is working.

COOPER: I want to give Dana the last thought.

CASTELLANOS: The Democrats...

LOESCH: Excuse me, with all due respect, though, you can't -- you can't say that economic policy which talks about spending billions of dollars for yet another stimulus after we spent 11 frillion [SIC] dollars for yet another stimulus that contributed to the deficit, that contributed to high unemployment. You can't say that that's good economic policy. And those are all things which the grassroots movement is vehemently against.

SPITZER: The underlying -- if I could just...

LOESCH: That's not good economics, that's irresponsible and that's fact.

SPITZER: I know Anderson -- The reason that was necessary, unfortunately, was because of the deregulatory policies, libertarian policies that were put in place by Tea Party-like false regulators like Alan Greenspan and Larry...

LOESCH: You mean like Chris Dodd? Because he was...

SPITZER: Absolutely. Yes, absolutely.

LOESCH: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and things like that.

SPITZER: I agree with that. That was not genuine government smart policy. I agree with that critique.

CASTELLANOS: Spitzer, advice to Democrats, spend more. I love it.

SPITZER: It's not spending. It took years to do it. What you're saying simply doesn't work.

LOESCH: ... to keep going.

COOPER: Good to have you on. Alex Castellanos, Eliot Spitzer, thanks very much.

A quick reminder. Don't miss Parker Spitzer right here on CNN, 8 Eastern Time October 4, every weekday thereafter until the competition cries uncle, I guess.

Still ahead on 360, a revelation that has Pennsylvania's governor fuming. It's one thing to keep an eye on potential terrorists but another to conduct surveillance on ordinary Americans. We're going to tell you what this is all about and the fallout that's followed.

Plus BP back on the hot seat. Tony Hayward grilled in London, insisting that short cuts were not taken to save money. Back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)