COOPER: She is running for president, which is very possibly the reason why she is not answering this question about her past statements. When asked about the statements by New Hampshire's concord monitor, Congresswoman Bachmann said, quote, "I'm not involved in light, frivolous matter, I'm involved in fringe or side issues. I'm involved in serious issues".
Yet the light frivolous matters were once serious enough to Ms. Bachmann to advocate changing her state's constitution. By the way, we invited Ms. Bachmann on tonight as we do on many nights yet again our request for interview was declined and accepted calls went un- answered.
Joining us however, Dana Loesch, tea party organizer and editor on bigjourmalism.com also Democratic Strategist Cornell Belcher, who served as a pollster in the 2008 Obama campaign.
So Cornel, obviously folks in the media doesn't like it when folks dodge their questions. Does it have any repercussions on the campaign trail?
CORNELL BELCHER, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: It actually does, Anderson. I'm a little shocked by this coming from Congresswoman Bachmann. It's one thing that voters dislike more than a candidate who doesn't agree with them on the issues is a candidate feel will flip-flop on the issue or change on the issue when its political key inconvenient to do so because they fundamentally then cannot trust the candidate.
And if you can't trust a candidate, I don't care what your position is on education, health care, you know gays and lesbians, if they can't trust you, they're not going give you the benefit of the doubt in any of the areas so its deadly.
And other real quick point about this is you know as a woman candidate, there are stereotypes that she has to deal with that male candidates don't. Minorities have to deal with it as well. This has also sort of become problematic if it looks like you're being dodging or you're ducking the issue or you're not certain about the issue. It also sort of feeds into a stereotype that is harmful to women candidates.
COOPER: Dana, from your perspective, why do you think she is ducking this question? Or do you think she is ducking it?
DANA LOESCH, CNN CONRIBUTOR: Well, I don't necessarily know. I don't necessarily agree that she is ducking the question. I think that she has answered it over and over again. And my assumption is that if she is now running, she is now running for the presidency, maybe she feels that this question isn't relevant at a time when we're dealing with 9.2 percent unemployment, and it's all about the economy right now.
I really think that it could be just very easy for her to just say look, on this issue, with the exception of "don't ask, don't tell," I feel the exact same way about this as President Obama. I feel the same way about this with most people of most faiths.
COOPER: That's not true, though. I mean you mentioned "don't ask, don't tell." but also President Obama is not defending the defense of marriage act, which she is. President Obama hasn't called this satanic or people living this disorder.
LOESCH: No, I'm talking about the issue of gay marriage and I mean the president has said well, my opinion is evolving. So I mean if we're going to talk about statements that Michele Bachmann has made and statements that she has made in 2004 and all of, that I think it's equally fair if we're going to do this, then we need to make sure we give the exact same due diligence to the president's own religious beliefs and the churches that she has gone to.
I mean if we really want to put all of this on the line, then let's put it all on the line. And let's give I mean this is the exact same thing that George Bush also had to deal with when he was running for president. He was asked by the media whether or not he thought that non-Christian were going to hell and I think a lot of the questions that circulate around the issue of religion.
And when it comes to social conservatives are ways for people to perhaps maybe show that these candidates are somehow not as valid as other candidates who don't have as strong as religious beliefs during the campaign.
COOPER: So Cornell, Dana I mean is essentially saying that this is in some ways kind of the media trying to show her to be a fringe candidate.
BELCHER: Well, I think her statement sort of speak for themselves. I think what is interesting here is that, you know, and thing is a fundamentally a good thing, is that when you look at sort of how the American public is shifting on their viewpoint about gay and lesbian marriage and gays and lesbians in the military, you know, you have to seek sort of candidates move in.
As Michele Bachmann becomes less of a fringe candidate, and quite frankly Dana, I you know I think she is your front-runner, she is trying to mainstream herself. And frankly, you're looking at sort of where the public is taking the American people on this. That the American people have moved on, particularly with that younger crowd of voters, you know the 12 percent of our new vote is out there and that the new vote was disproportionately younger voters. They don't even understand the gay and lesbian issue as a political issue. To win those voters, she has to move from where she has been.
COOPER: Dana, I want to branch off to talk about Rick Perry. Obviously, he entered the race this weekend. How do you see him from your perspective? How strong a candidate is he?
LOESCH: I think he is a very strong candidate. And I think he sort of fills a vacuum that has been created by -- you have mitt Romney, which grassroots voters absolutely reject Mitt Romney. He has a very moderate record. He has a very inconsistent record. And he has very - can say that his business-friendly all he wants to, but his record speaks otherwise as a governor - when he was governor of Massachusetts.
And then you have Michele Bachmann who is very, very conservative. She has a history of voting against a lot of big ticket, big government items during her time in the House of Representatives. And then you have Rick Perry who is right in the middle of both of these candidates.
So I think he has the potential to really appeal to grassroots while at the same time I think maybe kind of attracting independents and some more moderates. So I think he is a huge threat initially I think to Mitt Romney, and that's why we're also seeing them going right off the bat and trading barbs at each other.
COOPER: Right.
LOESCH: But at the same time, Perry may want to ignore Bachmann's candidacy as a way to push her to the outside and make it appear as though it's just him and Romney. It's a really interesting triangle.
COOPER: Cornell, as you - from the White House perspective, who do you think they would be most worried about or concerned about?
BELCHER: Look, in the end, I think from the White House - by the way, I don't think I could attack Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann more effectively than Dana just did.
We're going to look at this and say look, you know what? Either of these candidates are so in the pocket with the tea party. And if you're looking at sort of how the tea party's ratings have dropped over the last couple of months, especially with independent voters, look, if you like what the tea party is doing in congress, wait until they have a governing partner in the White House, and they're going to have that either with either Perry or Michele Bachmann. And the way Mitt Romney is running, even with Mitt Romney.
COOPER: Dana Loesch, Cornell Belcher, I appreciate having you on.
Let us know what you think on facebook. Follow me on twitter @andersoncooper. I'll be tweeting tonight It's been a busy night so far.
Up next, President Obama just wrapped up tone hall meeting in Iowa. Part of a three-day swing through Iowa, Minnesota and Illinois. Republicans have launched an ad against the trip, calling it taxpayer- funded campaigning. Is it?
We'll play some of it so you can decide for yourself.
Why the hell does CNN let on Dana Loesch after all these times she lied to the people on (inter)national TV? And why does Loesch keep calling herself an "Independent Conservative who hates all political parties," when in fact she's just another Republican watercarrier. And she is a BIG Bachmann fan.
Breitbart/Loesch Axis of Evil Ringleader and Big Hackulism editor-in-chief Dana Loesch was on CNN this morning to talk about Osama Bin Laden. And, as usual, she went to her bread and butter: talk all over the other guests and lie to the American people.
Transcript from the 05.06.2011 edition of CNN Newsroom (9AM CDT Hour):
COSTELLO: Oh, but it's time for political buzz, a lightning fast conversation hitting the hot political topics of the day. Each of our brilliant political observers get 20 seconds to answer three probing questions.
Dana Loesch is a Tea Party supporter and conservative. Cornell Belcher was a Democratic pollster for the 2008 Obama campaign. And, once again, comedian Pete Dominick will lend his own unique perspective.
So, welcome to you all.
And the first question: have Democrats overcome the wimp factor?
Dana?
DANA LOESCH, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: One decision, which I applaud -- I applaud the decision of the president to send in a human ops team instead of bombing the compound at Abbottabad. But I think the way you can follow this up and show that Democrats have really made a really good turn is to stop the investigation into the CIA members who are interrogating detained terrorists. At the same time, while you're celebrating the victory of the death of bin Laden, which was achieved by those interrogations.
COSTELLO: Cornell?
CORNELL BELCHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: You know, I'm going to first reject and then I'm going to ridicule the very premise of this. I mean, if we're defining being tough as going half-cocked into war that we can't afford and can't pay for, costing thousands of lives and putting our country in debt -- no, we're not very tough. If wimpy means, you know, a measured, thoughtful response when our national security calls for it, well, then yes, we're pretty wimpy on that. We're Peewee Herman if that's the way we're defining it.
COSTELLO: Pete?
PETE DOMINICK, COMEDIAN: Yes. I think how we define the toughness is how we well we kill people or how our president orders our military. Well, then, if we're going with that premise, President Obama just, what, a few weeks into his presidency ordered the same SEAL team to snipers, to kill the Somalian pirates, 30,000 troops in Afghanistan and then bin Laden. If that's how you measure tough, I think he wins.
COSTELLO: OK. Second question: Michael Moore says the shooting of bin Laden was an execution and we should call it that. Do you agree?
Cornell?
BELCHER: You know, who cares what Michael Moore thinks on this? Look, Bin Laden, he's a guy. He's a terrorist who killed thousands of Americans. He's killed people all over the world, not only Americans but Muslims as well.
You can call it whatever you want to call it. He needed getting and we got him.
COSTELLO: Dana?
LOESCH: Whose side is Michael Moore on, anyway? Is he upset that he wasn't able to exploit this for another mockumentary and then go back and make millions of dollars off of it? I'm trying to figure out whose side Michael Moore is on. I think this is triumph of good over evil. He needs to stop with the (INAUDIBLE). COSTELLO: Pete?
LOESCH: He has to. It's done.
DOMINICK: Well, I mean, I kind of agree with Michael Moore. I mean, I think obviously it was an execution.
We found out yesterday there was only guy with a weapon. It's disrespectful to Navy SEALs. They could have taken him down with a crossbow. It's a 54-year-old frail man. They could have choked bin Laden with his own beard.
I mean, it really -- we -- definitely, we executed this guy, for sure.
COSTELLO: Got it.
DOMINICK: Whatever they're supposed to do.
COSTELLO: Third question, the week is ending. We've had a few days to digest all of this. So, what does Osama bin Laden's death really mean?
Dana?
LOESCH: Well, I think we saw images all over the television. I think it's fantastic that everyone was able to unite and realize that this was the ultimate triumph of good over evil. We took out a figurehead of a terrorist organization and I think it sends a loud message that it may take a few years, but we'll track you down and we'll find you in whatever rat hole or overpriced concrete compound in which you live.
COSTELLO: Cornell?
BELCHER: This -- I hope it means this. I hope it means that Osama bin Laden and his sort of evil ways become a footnote in history. If you look at the "Arab Spring" that's taking hold all over the Middle East right now, you know, bombs and guns and killing is not the way forward for bringing about change. I think we've seen that in Egypt. That's what I hope this means, is that this is an end to this way of thinking because it's not the way forward.
COSTELLO: Pete?
DOMINICK: It means different things for different people. One thing for young Americans who were coming of age who feel like their innocence was lost. It means something different for military families, victims' families, of course. But I hope -- I hope it means a pivot point for this president to get out of Afghanistan. And I really believe that that is a possibility right now, and I hope that's what it means.
COSTELLO: Dana, Cornell, Pete -- thanks, as always. And we'll be back again Monday. We enjoyed it.
Osama bin Laden's death might have dealt a blow to al Qaeda. But overcoming our foreign oil addiction could finish them off. We'll take a closer look at that, coming up.
I also give credit to Bush for standing by the interrogation practices which delivered the clue that the CIA and military used to track bin Laden to his million-dollar compound.
But for the left and its media to ignore the reason why the action is impossible is petty and demonstrates more allegiance to party than country. The biggest obstacle to killing bin Laden was the left themselves. Had we gone their way instead of staying the course, bin Laden would likely still be alive.
Hey Dana, even if the left stopped waterboarding, Osama Bin Laden would've been dead sooner or later.
Image: Media Matters For America
She also supported Bush's inhumane decision to support waterboarding: From the 05.02.2011 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:
These same Right-Wing fools (including her) think that Bush 43 should get at least a significant portion of the credit. I think that Bush the 2x Election Thief does NOT deserve ANY credit in killing OBL.
Color of Change, the group founded by admitted Marxist and 9/11 truther Van Jones, is chest-thumping all over Twitter essentially saying that they, not Dylan Ratigan, run “The Dylan Ratigan Show.” Color of Change seeks to suppress conservative commentary across the board, period. They’re not interested in social justice issues as they market themselves to be, otherwise they would have been the first out of the gate with the Pigford story. They would have been the first to condemn the exploitation of black farmers for monetary and other gain by government officials and members of the Democratic party. Instead, they’ve taken the hard line against those farmers and against dissent of any form.
If this group has succeeded in overtaking a cable news network and fatalistically snuff out any non-progressive voice on a debunked race-baiting charge, it’s troubling for free speech and diverse thought, indeed.
John Stossel -- who believes that private businesses should have the right to engage in racial discrimination -- devoted another segment of his Fox Business show to attacking the Pigford lawsuit that provided recompense to black farmers who were victims of systemic discrimination by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Stossel set the segment up as a debate between Al Pires, a lawyer who represented the black farmers, and serialliar Andrew Breitbart, who has attacked Pigford as part of his eight-month smear campaign against former USDA official Shirley Sherrod, who first came to prominence after Breitbart posted a deceptively-edited video of a speech she gave that falsely portrayed her as a racist.
Stossel and Breitbart didn't make any new claims about Pigford. Rather, they rehashed the same tired distortions that we've previouslydebunked -- that the case is a "scam" and the claimants don't deserve their money.
But the segment was notable for Stossel's refusal to acknowledge that there was real, systematic discrimination against black people by the USDA. Recall that back when Stossel argued that "private businesses ought to get to discriminate" on the basis of race and called for the repeal of part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he at least acknowledged that the government should not discriminate.
Guess who was back on CNN yesterday morning? If you've guessed the Antichrist of St. Louis, Dana Loesch, you're right. She was her doing her usual interrupt the others and spew out blatant falsehoods unchecked routine.
COSTELLO: It is time for "Political Buzz." A lightning-fast conversation hitting the hot political topics of the day. Each of our brilliant political observers get 20 seconds to answer three probing questions. Dana Loesch is a Tea Party supporter and conservative. Cornell Belcher leans left, and comedian Pete Dominick is back to lend his own unique perspective.
Welcome! ok. On to the first question. The United States has handed over the reins to NATO in Libya. Senator McCain says it's time the U.S. retakes control. Does America need to flex its muscle in Tripoli? Dana?
DANA LOESCH, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, NATO is the United States. So, essentially what we have done here, Carol, is just transfer control from one hand to the other. And I don't really think -- I've never thought that she would have been involved in Libya because Libya and what is happening there is a civil interest and that has no immediate threat to the sovereignty or safety of the United States.
COSTELLO: Cornell?
CORNELL BELCHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I'm going to -- I'm going to agree here. I think it's interesting. We already have two wars that we haven't paid for, and the interesting thing is Afghanistan has become as unpopular as Iraq. So, now we want to double down on that and get involved in Libya? I don't think so. I don't think the American public has the stomach for it.
COSTELLO: Pete?
PETE DOMINICK, COMEDIAN: Well I think Cornell and Dana are both pretty right on. What is our record of success in our recent military intervention? I'm talking about the last 50 years. With all due respect to Senator McCain and his service to our country and in the Senate, how many times does he have to be wrong on foreign policy before we go to other people? Going to Senator McCain on foreign policy is like going to Alan Greenspan on economics. You've been wrong a lot -
(BUZZER SOUNDS)
DOMINICK: We could listen to others.
COSTELLO: Thanks to all. Second question. Another Wikileaks dump. This time on Guantanamo. Do they strengthen the administration's decision to keep it open? Cornell?
BELCHER: Well, it's a real gray area here. I mean, the truth of the matter is when you look at what's happening, there's some dangerous people there. I think what bothers a lot of Americans, and not just, you know, those progressive Americans, but a lot of red- blooded Americans, is this idea that there's no due process. Can we keep this open and still ensure due process?
The other big thing about this is Wikileaks are endangering Americans with this continual leaking. This sort of stuff should not be out in the open, what they're leaking.
(BUZZER SOUNDS)
COSTELLO: Dana?
LOESCH: Well, this is so weird this morning. I agree but kind of disagree with Cornell in that I think it does become a gray area. But at the same time, there's terrorists, they're suspected of terrorist activity if not outright caught in the act. So, there is no due process because they're not American citizens.
That being said, if you look at the number of detainees who, when they were released, like we had one, Ali Al Sayed, who was released to -
(BUZZER SOUNDS)
LOESCH: -- Saudi Arabia and re-education camp, he joined al Qaeda.
COSTELLO: Right. Went on to do some bad stuff. Pete?
DOMINICK: I couldn't disagree more with both these guys, my friends here. The level of criminality at this camp, we now know, is even worse than even its harshest critics were predicting. This is terrible. What Wikileaks is really exposing what the government is doing. These are government documents. I would beg all of our viewers to go read "The New York Times" or "The Guardian's" article so you can find what your taxpayer money is supporting in Guantanamo Bay -
(BUZZER SOUNDS)
DOMINICK: -- which all the --
COSTELLO: OK, third question. A group of Christian leaders lobbying Congress by asking lawmakers what would Jesus cut? You know, as far as the budget goes, what would Jesus cut? Effective or crass? Dana?
LOESCH: Oh, I think it's incredibly crass. And I have to question these religious leaders. I've always said that big government is the moral failing of man. Because when you have good government that takes away the desire for voluntary charity, you are changing something about humanity. You're changing their desire to do it themselves. And as Christian leaders, they should be encouraging people to get involved and volunteer in charity instead of adhere to the government reappropriation of it. COSTELLO: Cornell?
BELCHER: I don't even know who Dana is anymore.
(LAUGHTER)
BELCHER: I agree. Although -- I'll go the middle role. I know it's not effective because the bottom line is these leaders are going to do what they think is right. And obviously, oftentimes, the politician who is wearing his religiosity on the sleeve is often the one who is enforcing the draconian cuts -
(BUZZER SOUNDS)
COSTELLO: Oh, out of time. I'm sorry! Pete?
DOMINICK: Well, listen, nearly every member of Congress claims to be a Christian. If you think a budget for your home or for the government is considered a moral document, I don't think Jesus would have made the cuts that Congress is making. And it's a check on your conscience.
I think it's sad when an agnostic comedian is ten times more Christian than so many people in Congress act like they are. That's me, by the way.
COSTELLO: "Political Buzz." Fun as always. Dana, Cornell, Pete, thank you so much. We'll see you again on Friday.
Last night on Anderson Cooper 360, Dana Loesch went back on the show, along with her counterparts (who are much more informed) David Gergen and Cornell Belcher. Why the hell does CNN (and Anderson Cooper) allow her on to spew numerous falsehoods that usually go unchecked. She went to her usual: acting rude and childish when others are speaking, tell numerous lies, and whatnot.
CNN is already trying to look like Fox-lite on a regular basis and their hire of Dana Loesch just looks like one more step in that direction. I thought their hire of Erick Erickson was bad until they decided that we somehow need to hear on a regular basis the political insights of that know-nothing, astroturf “tea party” leader, Andrew Breitbart buddy and embarrassment to the city of St. Louis, Dana Loesch.
Anderson Cooper had her on as a member of a panel to discuss what sort of fights we might be in for with raising the debt ceiling and the recent agreement made to finally get a budget voted on for last year, and par for the course, she had nothing to add to the discussion other than far-right-wing talking points and apparently a complete lack of understanding about the services Planned Parenthood provides to low-income women who have nowhere else to turn in their areas for health care, and just how dangerous it is playing chicken with defaulting on our debt.
From the 04.11.2011 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:
Transcript:
COOPER: Well, we're talking in depth tonight about the next big showdown between the White House and Republicans in Congress. President Obama expected to lay out his budget-cutting approach on Wednesday this week.
There's a Republican outline already on the table with major spending cuts and changes eliminating Medicare, replacing it with government vouchers to buy private health insurance. But before any of that is decided there is the debt ceiling vote.
Back now with David Gergen, and joining us CNN contributor and Democratic pollster who worked for the Obama campaign and will again in 2012 Cornell Belcher. Also Dana Loesch, CNN contributor, Tea Party organizer, and editor of BigJournalism.com.
So, Cornell, President Obama had hoped for what they call a clean bill on this debt ceiling, a bill without riders that the Republicans would put in. He's not going to get that.
CORNELL BELCHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: No, I don't think he's going to get it. And it's going to be another battle. But again, I think the more sort of the way the Tea Partiers are really dominating the conversation on the Republican side, and sort of their extreme agenda where we see, you know, everything from wanting to do away with the EPA to wanting to do away with health care for women under Planned Parenthood, I mean, all these riders and all these sort of extreme sort of social issues, you know, mingling with the fiscal issues hasn't been a winner. I think the president in this battle actually came out looking like even more like the adult in the room willing to compromise. And I think he will again on the issues of the debt ceiling.
COOPER: But, Dana, you obviously see it very differently. Why have these riders? Why not have a clean up and down vote?
DANA LOESCH, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I wish we, I wish we could just all get on the same page and not have and not increase the debt ceiling. But I think when we have to -- when we have to discuss about reducing spending, we have to start cutting somewhere, and I don't know why Planned Parenthood is always used as an excuse because that's not the only outlet that women have, low-income women, to go and get health services.
There's the women's health program that's already in Medicare that's subsidized by the government. So we already have that kind of taken care of. But I do think that it's going to be a huge battle and I don't think that it comes to social issues. I think, bottom line, and this is what the grassroots movement has only ever wanted, is to see some fiscal restraint. I hope that we can get both parties agreeing on this.
COOPER: Do you oppose raising the debt ceiling?
LOESCH: Completely. Absolutely, I do. I look at precedent.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: Even though economists say, look -- economists would say look, it would be catastrophic, apocalyptic, you say what, that's fear mongering?
LOESCH: Actually, I do. Some economists have said that that -- that it would be apocalyptic. But others have not so much. I look at precedents. We have raised the debt ceiling 74 times since 1962. And in 10 of those incidents occurred in just the last decade.
Now, every single one of those times that we have raised the debt ceiling, we have never taken the initiative to actually reduce our spending. It just is an excuse to keep spending more and more and to continue to add to our deficit. And I don't see how doing it again would be any different.
I'm all -- I'm completely opposed to it, because I think there's a number of ways that we can -- a number of methods that we can employ in order to bail ourselves out and take financial accountability besides that.
COOPER: David? BELCHER: Really quickly -- but really quickly, here's the problem. And I'm sorry, David. Really quickly, here's the problem. OK. You've got to deal with $100 billion in either cuts or tax increases if you -- if you don't raise the debt ceiling. This is something -- I mean, this is real here.
So OK, so you're going to cut -- you're going to make $100 billion in cuts in you don't raise the debt ceiling? That's nonsensical.
COOPER: David?
LOESCH: Well no, I...
COOPER: Well, let David...
GERGEN: If I could just say a word. I just want to come out on the debt ceiling itself. The debt ceiling is what -- under the debt ceiling you borrow money. They have to raise the debt ceiling in order to borrow money. If we run deficits, the government will have to borrow more money. And therefore, you have to raise the debt ceiling.
Under Paul Ryan's plan, this bold proposal -- I disagree with it, but I concede that it's very bold -- under the Paul Ryan plan, the government does not balance its books. It continues to have to borrow money until 2040. Of course we have to raise the debt ceiling.
The question is what Republicans can extract as a deal to raise the debt ceiling. Everybody agrees you've got to raise it. The question is sort of under what conditions? What are the conditions under which we go forward?
LOESCH: Right.
GERGEN: Do we, in fact, try to really have dramatic cuts in spending or increases in taxes? Or do we just go on willy-nilly and let the debt pile up. which would be extremely dangerous for the country?
BELCHER: But David, the Tea Party...
LOESCH: I want to make a quick point about Paul Ryan's plan as well.
BELCHER: The Tea Party argue that...
COOPER: I'm sorry. Cornell, then Dana...
BELCHER: Real quick and I'll give you-- I'll give you...
LOESCH: I want to make a quick point about that. I want to point out, please. I want to...
COOPER: You're both talking. No one's going to listen. Dana go and then Cornell. LOESCH: I want to make a quick point about Paul Ryan's plan. I'm actually not in 100 percent agreement of it for some of the reasons that David mentioned. Plus, I think it's a huge gamble, because in order to have a balanced budget in 26 years, all of the variables have to stay exactly the same. The economic variables, everything. And I think it's really, really risky.
But I look at it like this. I think Tim Pawlenty had a really good idea when he was talking about using April and June revenues to pay off America's creditors and then, in the meantime, slash spending.
The only way that we're going to be able to not raise the debt ceiling is to make massive, massive cuts in spending. I completely agree with that. And we're not going to be able to raise revenue by having public sector capital grabs. It has to come from the private sector. That has to come from making permanent tax cuts.
COOPER: Cornell?
LOESCH: That's how we have to do it.
COOPER: Cornell?
BELCHER: Well, I just don't think it's practical. If you're talking about sort of the level of cuts that you have to make in order for us not to raise the debt ceiling, you're talking about destroying our economic future. You're talking about taking the economy and putting it into a nose dive again. You cannot cut over $100 billion away from the federal deficit all at one time and not have economic catastrophe. You just can't.
COOPER: David, Cornell was saying he feels that President Obama kind of came out a victor from last week by being above the fray. Do you agree with that?
GERGEN: No. I don't think anybody won that, Anderson. The public CNN poll does approve of what was done. They give a little more credit to the Democrats and to President Obama than they give to president -- than they give to Republicans.
But if you look at President Obama's approval rating, it actually went down slightly in this poll. So I think this came out sort of to be a wash. I think everybody -- I think everybody was -- I didn't meet anybody -- everybody I met was relieved that they reached an agreement. I didn't meet anybody who was really applauding wildly.
COOPER: Dana, who do you think came out ahead, if anybody, from last week?
LOESCH: Oh, man. I know the right is really, really split on the deals that have been made by Boehner, and I'm a little disappointed. I understand that, all in all, there was only -- you could only cut from 260-some-odd billion on the table, and they ended up with give or take like 40-something billion.
But I think, ultimately, the Tea Party came out to be a little victorious because now we have the president and his administration talking about make cuts to entitlement. And that's really, really huge, especially considering where we were in this discussion just a couple of years ago.
COOPER: David, I sort of see you shaking your head.
GERGEN: Well, I'll let Cornell go. I just disagree with some of that. Look, I think Boehner came out as well as the Tea Party, he brought discipline to his party. There was never $240 billion on the table. The most Republicans were asking for. Back during the elections was $100 billion cuts. Then they lowered it to 60, and they got 38 on the 60.
It seems like a pretty good deal for -- you know, if you're a minority party in Washington. But even so, I don't -- I think we ought to move forward, not backward about -- on these deficit questions.
LOESCH: Right. And...
BELCHER: I will...
LOESCH: I'd like to correct one...
BELCHER: I also...
LOESCH: Sorry, go ahead.
COOPER: I was just going to say I'm talking about after you pass three CRs ands then after you took the 850 billion in defense off of the table, in all, in order to -- the piece of the pie, there was 260 something that could have been cut that they chose to cut from. And they ended up with the figure that they did. That was the point.
COOPER: Cornell, I'm going to give you the final thought.
BELCHER: Really quick here, I think I do have to take my hat off to Speaker Boehner because I think he did sort of -- he did have the tiger by the tail here and it was interesting that Michele Bachmann who I think of as sort of the Tea Party leader in Congress walked out on the Republican conference when this deal was cut.
However, I will say that I think the president does come out looking better on this. I mean, the margin between Dems' approval on this deal and the Republicans' approval on this deal is ten points. I think the president and Democrats come out a little bit better in this.
COOPER: Cornell Belcher, Dana Loesch, appreciate it. David Gergen, as well.
Coming up, the breaking news. The late and frankly chilling word we've been expecting from Japanese nuclear officials. Details on that next.
If CNN MUST have a Teahadist on, it should have someone more qualified and professionally behaved than Dana Loesch. If you think Dana Loesch has ruined the show, contact the AC360 show and ask them to start doing a little more research about their guests' backgrounds, and particularly Loesch's disturbing background. And no, getting a "career highlights" sheet from their publicist doesn't count. Please answer respectfully.
She has gone on CNN several times to spout out lies and the hosts and/or guests NOT calling her phony bunghole out. CNN should NOT be allowing proven liars like her on their shows.
St. Louis's favorite liar Dana Loesch has proven herself to be an idiot yet again. This is the same lady who has repeatedly claimed that "I hate political parties," "I am an ultra-Conservative Independent," and more lies from that sewer mouth of her. Why does Anderson Cooperhave this liar who can't back up anything and shout over other guests? Maybe they're afraid of the "Liberal Media" card. As always, Cooper gave Loesch the last word, instead of Belcher. She again has ducked from answering a question.
COOPER: Well, Palin's choice of words, using the historically anti-Semitic term blood libel, set off a new round of criticism. As you might imagine, even some Republicans who felt Palin had been unfairly bashed expressed dismay over the tone.
And here's what a new ABC News/Washington Post poll found. Just 30 percent of Americans approve of the way Palin responded to the Tucson shootings, compared with 78 percent who approved of how President Obama responded.
Now, those numbers may explain why Sarah Palin sat down tonight with Sean Hannity.
Again, let's just point out there is no evidence that Ms. Palin had any influence on alleged shooter Jared Loughner.
Joining me now, Democratic strategist Cornell Belcher, who was a pollster for the Obama campaign, also Dana Loesch, Tea Party organizer and Saint Louis radio host.
Cornell, I want to play you some of the -- the -- the -- the conversation between Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity. It's her first questions since -- since the Tucson shooting tonight. Let's just play part of what she had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, FOX NEWS CHANNEL) PALIN: Knowing that that had absolutely nothing to do with an apolitical...
SEAN HANNITY, HOST, HANNITY: Yes.
PALIN: ... or perhaps even left-leaning criminal who killed these innocents and -- and injured so many, I didn't have a problem with it being taken down, if, in fact, it actually has been taken down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Has she been unfairly painted here?
CORNELL BELCHER, FORMER OBAMA CAMPAIGN POLLSTER: Well, I don't know if she's been unfairly painted. I know that this has not been a good couple of weeks for her.
I mean, she has shrunk herself -- she's shrunken herself as -- as -- sort of as a national political leader after this incident. I mean, and the -- and the Washington Post poll shows that. The problem, I think, for Republicans now is this, is that the most vocal, you know, well-known voice in the Republican Party right now is a reality TV host star who continues to shrink in the eye -- in the eyes of -- in the eyes of the public.
And I think what you're going to see over the next, you know, couple months here is -- and you are already starting to see some of it -- is the Republican establishment lining up trying to put her in a box.
And I think sort of the contrast between her and Barack Obama over the Tucson incident sort of, you know, really puts front and center some of the contrast here. And it's not a good contrast for the GOP.
I think you're going to continue to see the GOP establishment try to put her in a box, because this woman cannot be the most vocal, most familiar face of the Republican Party, because she's clearly not someone who's trying to be a national leader. She's speaking to a very specific constituency of her -- of -- of her base.
This was an opportunity for Sarah Palin to be bigger and for her to broaden her base. And she's not doing that by going on Hannity. She is not -- she didn't -- she didn't turn 15 people who work for her for her by going on Hannity.
If you're going to be a national, broad-based leader, you have got to reach out, and you have got to reach out to that middle swathe of America. And she's -- and she's -- and she's just not doing that.
COOPER: Dana, I want to play for you the -- the -- the -- what she said about the whole blood libel thing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, FOX NEWS CHANNEL)
PALIN: That term has been used for eons, Sean. So...
HANNITY: Yes.
PALIN: ... again, it was part of that double standard thing, and goes back to, if it weren't for those double standards, what standards would they have, I suppose.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: I mean, she -- she seems unwilling to -- to apologize or back off about -- of anything. Do you think she's fair on that?
DANA LOESCH, EDITOR, BIGJOURNALISM.COM: I do think that she's fair on that, Anderson, because it's -- this is exactly what you have.
We have a Tea Party organizer that received a death threat because of all -- you want to talk about rhetoric -- because of all of the things that are being said about conservatives and being said about Tea Partiers and Sarah Palin.
And I don't think that she applied the term incorrectly. And I don't think that it is just inherent to one particular group of people. This term is a common term. I have seen it used exponentially. In fact, she cited in this interview that it was used in a "Wall Street Journal" article just two days prior to this incident.
So, Alan Dershowitz himself has admitted that he's used this term many times. So, it's not as though this is like a -- a newfangled term that she used, and it's -- it's causing offense. This is a common term.
COOPER: Cornell, do you agree with that?
BELCHER: Dana, I just can't -- I can't let her off the hook that easily. I mean, I have got to think that, strategically, she knew what she was doing.
I mean, she comes in with her grievance politics and then she plays the victim, and then she sort of wraps it all up in -- in...
LOESCH: She was defending...
(CROSSTALK)
BELCHER: ... in what we know as an anti-Semitic slur. I mean, I -- I just have a hard time letting her off...
LOESCH: This wasn't anti-Semitic. What she was talking about...
BELCHER: ... off the hook on that.
LOESCH: ... is saying that there was -- there was the use of a term that says that people have blood on her -- on their hands. Did you listen to the interview? She laid it out clearly. I don't know how anyone in their right mind can say that this term was inaccurately used. I honestly don't. I -- I question whether we heard the same interview.
BELCHER: Well -- well -- well, there's -- there's -- there's plenty of people -- there's plenty of people of the Jewish faith who tend to think differently and understand this as a historical...
LOESCH: Who defended her using that term.
BELCHER: ... as a historical slur again -- against -- against their people. And I -- and I take their word on it. I think this was strategic on her part.
LOESCH: It wasn't a slur against Jews.
And I find interesting that a lot of people who have -- who have actually been against Israel and who have been against Jewish settlements are suddenly finding themselves sympathetic to the Jews.
(LAUGHTER)
BELCHER: Here's -- here's the bottom line. When -- when the -- Jewish organization after Jewish organization comes out and say, this is a -- this is a slur, a -- a racial slur against -- against Jewish people...
LOESCH: And there's been a ton of Jewish organizations that have defended her.
BELCHER: Dana, I don't think there's been a ton of Jewish organizations that have been defending her.
LOESCH: No, no, no. I think that's disingenuous, Cornell. That's disingenuous,
COOPER: Wait. Wait. Not -- not both at the same time.
Cornell, just finish your thought.
LOESCH: No, no, no.
BELCHER: Well -- well, OK, OK. Anderson, you're -- you're keeping everyone honest.
Let's line up the people, the Jewish organizations that have come out and said this is a racial slur, and let's line up the Jewish organizations that say that -- that this is not a racial slur, and let's see where that falls. Let's keep -- let's keep us honest on this. LOESCH: If it means that much to you, instead of actually focusing attention on those who were shot and focusing on the -- the lack of discussion surrounding the fact that we have...
COOPER: But -- but, Dana, couldn't -- I mean, wouldn't...
BELCHER: No, you can't play that. That's -- that's a -- that's a nice little spin game, but the question...
LOESCH: Oh, wait a minute, so, standard...
BELCHER: ... but the question was about -- well, the question was about this...
LOESCH: ... for thee, but not for me?
BELCHER: ... the -- the question about this -- but the question was about this racial -- about this racial slur. Of course this is about -- about...
(CROSSTALK)
BELCHER: ... who was shot.
LOESCH: The question is about you cherry-picking which Jewish groups you're going to listen to.
COOPER: But -- but why...
BELCHER: Well, no, you say all these Jewish groups are lining up and supporting her. Let's line them up and let's take a look at them. Let's keep them honest.
COOPER: Dana, why not -- why not just say, well, look, if people are offended by this, I -- I'm sorry, you know, that -- that this is not how I meant the term, I -- I -- I didn't think it should be used in this?
It -- it -- I mean, she rarely -- I have never -- I don't think I have really heard her ever back off of anything she's done, and whether it's the -- you know, the -- the crosshairs on the districts, whether or not you believe they're surveyor symbols, as -- as her campaign is now saying.
I mean, do -- do you think she should be -- say at -- at some point, just, you know, I'm sorry about this, if somebody interpreted it that way, or do you think she has nothing to be apologetic about?
LOESCH: I really side -- and I -- and I side with Alan Dershowitz and many others who have come out saying that this was -- they don't find this to be an incendiary term. And -- and neither do I.
The true test of an analogy isn't how colorful the language is, but whether or not it's accurate. And, in this case, it was accurately applied. And I -- I think it's just a little bit ironic that people would find offense over the fact that this term was used, and not be offended over the fact that you have hundreds of thousands, if not over a million, private citizens who were absolutely persecuted without any evidence because of this tragedy.
I still have yet to hear any apology from anyone who came out saying that, oh, well, it was a Tea Party person, or it was Sarah Palin who did it, or it was Glenn Beck or any number of people. But, instead, they're trying to get Sarah Palin on a term that, really, I think they're trying to scrounge offense for.
BELCHER: Dana, I don't think -- Dana, I don't think -- you know, that term aside, you -- you know, just trying to be all -- in all -- all fairness and all...
LOESCH: Cornell, have you been called a murderer because of Arizona? Because I have.
BELCHER: ... and -- and all honesty -- in all fairness and...
LOESCH: There...
(CROSSTALK)
BELCHER: ... all honesty, I -- I -- you know, that -- that term aside, the way Sarah -- Sarah Palin had an opportunity to come out and be bigger this -- this past week, and she didn't. And I think the polling shows that she didn't. She got stuck in grievance, victimization politics...
LOESCH: Yes, let's talk about polling, HCD Research.
BELCHER: ... which is -- which is -- which is not something that you want from your national leaders. She got smaller this week, as opposed -- as opposed to bigger. And I think a lot of people, including...
LOESCH: Oh, no, no, no, no.
BELCHER: ... inside of your party, are going to have a hard time taking her seriously...
LOESCH: No.
BELCHER: ... as a national leader.
COOPER: Dana, I want to give you the final thought, but briefly, because we have got to go.
LOESCH: Media Curves just came out with a study that shows that, actually, the majority of Americans found Sarah Palin to be more sympathetic after her remarks over the -- the -- her remarks over the Tucson shootings.
So, I mean, people can take that for what it's worth. But bottom line is, no one's going to be happy with anything Sarah Palin says, until she puts her head on a platter and offers it -- and offers it up. That's the bottom line.
BELCHER: That's ridiculous.
COOPER: Dana Loesch, Cornell Belcher, difference of opinion. I appreciate your discussing it. Thanks very much.
Sounds like Loesch is making excuses for Sarah Palin, and has to lie about it.
Brad Bartram stated that "Dana Loesch is an idiot," and is right on.
Dana Loesch is one of those conservatives who loves to point out how they are totally friends with people in the LGBT community. But in my opinion, this combined with her behavior since joining Breitbart's site just raises the question: what's worse? Actually being a bigot, or being someone who knows better but nevertheless promotes bigoted ideas in order to further your career?
Loesch was on AC360 tonight, with Cornell Belcher, discussing how to "dismantle Obamacare." Well, I have some news for her, the PPACA will NOT be repealed.
COOPER: Now, it's not for us to say who has better ideas for health care or how one party or another should vote on any legislation.
But if you're going to praise the ump's fairness when the call goes your way, it seems kind of hypocritical to complain when it goes the other way. And if you're going to make rules that say money- saving bills are OK, you can't turn around and say money-saving bills are OK, except for bills you don't like.
Joining me to talk about with different perspectives, Democratic strategist and former pollster Cornell Belcher, also Tea Party organizer and Saint Louis radio host Dana Loesch.
Dana, what about it? I mean, when the CBO says something some Republicans, politicians, like, they seem to sing its places, but, on this issue, they are saying there's fuzzy math going on. Are they being hypocritical?
DANA LOESCH, EDITOR, BIGJOURNALISM.COM: I don't think so in this instance, Anderson, because there's something kind of funny about all of this.
First of all, the CBO report that was issued which said that the $1 trillion health control law was going to be deficit neutral, within a week of that report being issued, there was a lesser-known report that was also issued that was based upon an inquiry that came from Paul Ryan.
He asked the CBO to consider the costs of the health care law in -- also with the doc fix. That's the -- the infamous Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors and that. And what the CBO discovered was that those two pieces of legislation together actually added to the deficit.
And it's interesting to note, too, that Nancy Pelosi initially had the doc fix in the health care legislation, but it was removed. So, at one point -- it was removed before the CBO scored it. So, at one point, they thought that these two pieces of legislation, that this could be coupled together, that they were related.
But those two things together actually do add to the deficit. And that's the little known thing that nobody's talking about.
COOPER: Cornell, was the CBO gamed in all this?
CORNELL BELCHER, FORMER OBAMA CAMPAIGN POLLSTER: No. What you have is classic game -- political gamesmanship, you know, bait-and- switch politics at its finest.
Look, Senator Grassley is right. The CBO is sort of God around this town when it says something. And it's -- the Republicans are in danger here of really sort of, you know, being hypocritical. And that's sort of the -- the ultimate sin in politics is you come across as looking hypocritical at something.
You can't say the CBO, you know, the Congressional Budget Office is -- is right when it's -- when it's -- when it's favoring you, but not right when it's not favoring you. And the first piece of legislation that you put up here right now is in fact legislation that you -- that you know is going to -- is going to undermine what you're saying.
It's going to roll back -- it's going to hurt the -- it's going to hurt the deficit. They -- they came to Washington saying we're going to be, you know, tough on the budget. We're going to shrink the deficit. And the first piece of legislation out the box is a piece of red meat that they're in fact throwing to their base.
Look, I understand throwing the meat to your base, but for the middle swathe of -- of independent voters out -- out there, this looks hypocritical, and it's going to hurt them.
COOPER: Dana, let me ask you, though, is this just red meat for the base?
(CROSSTALK)
LOESCH: No.
COOPER: If it passes the House, it's not going to pass in the Senate.
LOESCH: Well, maybe. We don't know for sure.
COOPER: And, obviously, President Obama wouldn't sign it.
LOESCH: Well, we don't know for sure that it wouldn't pass in the Senate.
But I -- I have to ask, why is it that some people pay so much attention to the first report from the CBO, but completely discount the second report, which actually was in -- completely contradictory to the first one. That is what -- that is -- that is bait and switch. That is gaming the system, absolutely.
But I do think that it's really premature to say that this wouldn't pass the Senate. And I say this because we're going to have to see by how much it would pass the House. There are a lot of very vulnerable senators right now, including my own senator, Claire McCaskill.
You have to think, too, like, with a state like Missouri, a very purple state, Prop C, the piece of legislation that passed into law which exempted Missourians from the -- the health -- health care mandate, that -- that passed like by 3-1 in every single county in Missouri.
COOPER: Right. Yes.
LOESCH: A lot of Democrats voted for that. That's Claire McCaskill's base. We're seeing this kind of over and over again in different states.
COOPER: Well...
LOESCH: So, I think that there are a lot of vulnerable senators.
COOPER: Yes.
LOESCH: It could pass.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: Cornell...
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: ... let me ask you about that...
(CROSSTALK)
BELCHER: Come on, Dana.
COOPER: ... because CNN's most recent polling, you have health care reform law pretty unpopular. Fifty-four percent oppose it.
By standing in the way of repeal, I mean, do Democrats, you know...
BELCHER: Two -- two things, two things here, Anderson.
One is, you know, come on, that -- it has zero chance of passing in the Senate. It's not going to pass in the Senate. And it's certainly not going to get a presidential -- a presidential signature -- presidential signature. So it is just political -- so it is just political theater.
(CROSSTALK)
BELCHER: The other part about this is that, you know, this -- where's this broad mandate for -- for reforming -- sort of repealing health care? It wasn't in the exit polling.
And in your CNN polling, 54 percent, that's not a broad mandate. In Gallup's last polling, when they asked sort of should government assure -- ensure -- ensure coverage, 47 percent, yes, 50 percent, no. So, it's fairly split.
And, quite frankly, I think Democrats should be looking for this as an opportunity to message on health care, because we did such a poor job of it the first time around.
COOPER: So, Cornell, you say they could pick up independents? Democrats could actually pick -- win back some -- some independents here on this?
BELCHER: No, I didn't say they could win back some independents on this. I'm saying there's not a broad mandate, particularly among independents, for this repeal.
This is clearly political theater for the...
LOESCH: Oh, no, no, no.
BELCHER: ... for the -- for -- for the Republican -- for the Republican base.
LOESCH: I have to disagree with...
BELCHER: At 47-50...
LOESCH: This is one the most -- this is one of the most...
BELCHER: At 47-50, where -- where is that...
COOPER: Dana, go ahead.
BELCHER: Go ahead. I'm sorry.
LOESCH: Just in -- just, what was it, in August, 56 percent of Americans, according to Rasmussen, said that this legislation ought to be repealed. This is one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation, specifically because, for one, the mandate in there that's requiring people to purchase a product from the government simply because they live in the United States.
That's hugely unpopular, and, plus, again, those two CBO reports, the second one contradicting the first one. I think what we're going to see -- it's going to pass the House. I don't know by how much, but I will say it right -- it's going to pass the House.
By the Senate, though, that's going to be -- oh, I'm -- I'm very anxious to see that. And it's going to be like -- that's going to be theater, because there's going to be a lot of people going back and forth on it.
BELCHER: It's not going to pass the Senate. And we can argue about polling numbers, but let's just take CNN's poll.
CNN's poll has it at, what, 54 percent, which is not a broad mandate. And then, certainly, when you look at independent voters, who...
(CROSSTALK)
LOESCH: That's a majority, though.
BELCHER: It's not a broad mandate.
LOESCH: You're going to discount majorities suddenly?
BELCHER: And when you -- and when you look at sort of where independent voters are, there was no hunger among independent voters for -- for repealing this -- repealing this act.
You know what independent voters punished Democrats for? For not paying enough attention to jobs and the economy. They think we spent too much time on health care. And what are Republicans doing the first thing out of the box?
LOESCH: Right.
BELCHER: Oh, we're going to focus on health care.
I -- I'm telling you, I'm not trying to be a hard-core partisan on this.
LOESCH: Because you don't see how that's related to jobs?
BELCHER: I'm thinking that this is...
LOESCH: Oh, I know.
BELCHER: ... is hypocritical. And independent voters are going to see it as hypocritical.
COOPER: We have got to -- we have got to leave it there, although we should point out Boehner was very quick to...
LOESCH: Can -- can I make one point?
COOPER: ... to -- to categorize this as a job-killing health care -- yes, Dana, go ahead.
LOESCH: CBO said that -- that this legislation is going to actually reduce the labor force by over 700,000 jobs, contradicting what Nancy Pelosi said, that it would create immediately 400,000 jobs. That's according to CBO. BELCHER: So, now you're -- you're -- so now you're for the CBO? So, I -- I don't know. You're flip-flopping. You're against the CBO. You're for the CBO.
LOESCH: No, I'm for the CBO's report too. You're ignoring the second report from the CBO, which contradicts...
(CROSSTALK)
BELCHER: You're for the CBO when it's...
(CROSSTALK)
BELCHER: You're in support of the CBO when it's...
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: All right. All right.
(CROSSTALK)
LOESCH: No, you're -- no, no, no, no, no.
COOPER: We...
LOESCH: The second report that was queried by -- by Paul Ryan, that's what you're not acknowledging.
COOPER: Dana Loesch...
BELCHER: The last CBO report said it -- it was -- it cut the deficit. That's all I know.
LOESCH: It said that it's not deficit-neutral. Not with the doc fix, it's not. And it's included.
COOPER: Dana Loesch...
BELCHER: OK.
(LAUGHTER)
COOPER: ... Cornell Belcher, appreciate it.
(LAUGHTER)
COOPER: Let us know what you think, the live chat up and running right now at AC360.com.
Dana Loesch on the 12.01.2010 edition of The Joy Behar Show:
BEHAR: Senate Republicans have pledged to block every Democratic bill until the Bush tax cut issue is resolved. And they`ve evidently kept that promise by blocking an extension of unemployment benefits which expire today, just in time for Christmas.
So how is that for compassionate conservatism? Ok.
With me to discuss this and more is John Fugelsang, actor and comedian; and Dana Loesch, editor of BigJournalism.com and radio host at KFTK 97.1 FM.
Ok, John, does this make the GOP look like the party of no yet again?
JOHN FUGELSANG, ACTOR/COMEDIAN: Well, I mean, I like the GOP. I don`t like who they vote for. But the GOP is good at two things at this point -- the modern GOP is good at two things, redistribution of wealth to the upper two percent and convincing nice Republican folks that this is a good thing.
BEHAR: I know. How do they do that?
FUGELSANG: It`s easy because they blame the poor, they blame the less fortunate. Rich people pay Fox people to make middle class people blame poor people.
BEHAR: How do they do that? Dana, how do they convince poor people that they should admire the two percent that make all the money in this country and let them off the hook every time? How do they do that?
DANA LOESCH, TALK RADIO HOST: Well, what I don`t understand and I think that`s funny that -- that John mentioned redistribution of wealth. Because I thought that that was the Democrat platform but I guess we disagree on that. But I look at it like this, the Bush tax, this -- this is -- we need to start calling this tax cuts. This is essentially an extension of the current tax rate. Because regardless of whatever party does what, if this does not get continued after the first of the year, we`re looking at a massive tax hike in a quasi recessionary period -- which is not good.
FUGELSANG: For whom?
LOESCH: A massive tax hike for all Americans.
BEHAR: Oh that`s not the true.
LOESCH: And you keep talking about -- you keep talking about -- John, you mentioned like the upper two percent. You have to realize too that a lot of individuals, including my husband, files as -- as in -- his small business files as an individual. When you look at what the gross net revenue of what some of these businesses make sure it`s over $250,000. But what is their actual take-home pay? You have to look at the facts of the matter, ok.
BEHAR: Ok we got it.
FUGELSANG: Right, so the upper two percent, like we said. Here is the thing --
(CROSSTALK)
LOESCH: The people who create the jobs.
(CROSSTALK)
FUGELSANG: Right. Because they`ve done --
LOESCH: Because you want to penalize the people who create them?
FUGELSANG: Yes, because they`ve been doing such a good job of creating so many jobs over the past nine years haven`t they?
LOESCH: No that`s the government who gets involved and decides to put all of these regulations --
FUGELSANG: So Bush`s tax cuts that didn`t create the jobs are actually creating the jobs. We just haven`t heard that?
LOESCH: But what about -- we have like this $3 trillion stimulus here; all of this -- this huge massive deficit. Where are the jobs for that? We`re looking like at 10 percent unemployment rate.
BEHAR: All right, let`s -- let`s can we talk about unemployment insurance a little bit? Why would the Republicans want to block the extension on benefits? I mean, people are out of work. They have come up with no solution. They are the party of no, as we just discussed. They have -- they have no compassion for people who are out of work apparently except let it trickle down from the top. And then they cut off people`s unemployment right before Christmas. Answer that, please. Answer me.
LOESCH: There are so many false premises with that statement but what I`m going to look at is this --
BEHAR: All right, let`s -- don`t -- don`t filibuster now Dana, just answer my question.
LOESCH: No, I`m not filibustering.
BEHAR: Go ahead.
LOESCH: I`m going to -- Joy, you -- you think apparently that it`s -- it`s cool to pay people for doing nothing. When it`s the government backed --
BEHAR: No, no, no. It`s unemployment insurance.
LOESCH: If the government got out of the way of job creation and stopped taxing the crap out of people who create jobs we would actually see a rise in employment. That is --
(CROSSTALK)
BEHAR: But that didn`t work on the Bush why would it work now? It didn`t work.
LOESCH: That is history, it worked under Reagan and --
(CROSSTALK)
BEHAR: That was then.
FUGELSANG: And here`s the thing --
LOESCH: -- and Bush administration in 1916 -- and you can you can go back. There are cycles of this.
BEHAR: Wait a second. Let me get you on that -- I want to just ask you.
LOESCH: Yes.
BEHAR: What would you say to somebody who`s unemployed now who has four children who is now -- now broke. What is he supposed to do this Christmas? You tell me. Tell me.
LOESCH: I would ask, if I were that person -- and I grew up with a single mother in that environment -- I would be asking why the administration is making it difficult for job creation by way of taxing --
BEHAR: Oh that`s what you --
LOESCH: -- people who create jobs. That`s where it starts. That`s where it starts.
(CROSSTALK)
When you have less discretionary income, you`re not going to -- employers aren`t going to be spend money on things like job creation or benefits.
BEHAR: Ok go ahead.
FUGELSANG: Can I add please?
BEHAR: Ok.
FUGELSANG: Ok, now I would love to see the Democrats force a filibuster on this. I`d love to see the Republicans filibuster and the Democrats actually call their bluff and make them do it. However, the modern Democratic Party is like an S&M slave that forgot its safety word --
BEHAR: A bunch of wimps.
FUGELSANG: Exactly.
BEHAR: I agree with you.
FUGELSANG: I mean, I love Obama.
LOESCH: So do I.
FUGELSANG: -- but the guy is like -- he`s Clark Kent without a phone booth.
But here`s the thing, getting back the -- getting back to this tax continuation, it`s actually a tax increase. And because Bush made those tax cuts designed to expire at the end of 2010, let`s call it what it is. It`s Bush`s tax increase and nothing else, ok?
LOESCH: Why is it Bush`s tax increase? It would be Obama`s tax increase?
FUGELSANG: Because he designed it. Because no, sugar because Bush designed these tax cuts.
LOESCH: Excuse me, sugar? I`m sorry, did you buy me a drink and take me out to a movie, first.
FUGELSANG: Well, I was hoping you would be here in person, Dana. Ok so forgive me for that.
LOESCH: Because you know don`t call me sugar, you`re like, I think, I was still in high school when you were on -- when you were on VH1. So you`re a little old for me.
BEHAR: We`ve had 10 years of tax cuts and still no jobs. We`ve had tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. The discrepancy between the very rich and the very poor in this country has never been bigger. You keep saying the same thing over and over again. It`s like Groundhog Day. I`m tired of that crap.
LOESCH: No, no. Tax --
(CROSSTALK)
LOESCH: Big government is expensive.
BEHAR: All right. We`ll be back in a minute. Take a break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEHAR: Part-time governor Sarah Palin seems to be showing which party she`s running for and it`s the party of Palin. She`s not just attacking Democrats but Republicans too. She dismissed the Ronald Reagan as an actor, calling the Bushes a bunch of blue bloods and blamed W. Bush for wrecking the economy.
I`m back with my panel.
Ok. You know, Dana, she`s the patron saint of the Tea Party of which you are a part, I presume, right?
LOESCH: Yes.
BEHAR: What do you make of this assault on Republicans all of a sudden?
LOESCH: I think it sort of -- Sarah Palin really identifies I think with the grassroots movement that is taking place, within the right and even within moderates on the left as well.
And I thought the little back and forth that she had over the air waves with the Bushes was really interesting. Because the Bushes represent for a lot of people, including myself, the sort of Republicanism that we don`t like to see. We don`t like the old Belt Way big spender type of Republicans. I think for a lot of people they look at the Bushes as being representative of that. But I`m wondering too --
BEHAR: Maybe she`s ticked off because of what Barbara Bush said about her, that she should stay in Alaska. And maybe this is just personal retaliation, you know, because that`s what she`s about.
LOESCH: Well, or it can be they`re setting up for -- they`re trying to clear the way for Jeb Bush. He said no --
BEHAR: Clear the Bush for Jeb Bush.
LOESCH: Right. They`re trying to clear the way for Jeb Bush. Maybe this is going to be like a Jeb/Palin thing, who knows?
Well, Joe Scarborough, a very interesting conservative --
FUGELSANG: An actual conservative.
BEHAR: An actual conservative who things about issues I think. He calls Palin`s potential 2012 candidacy a dopey dream and it`s time for the GOP to man up and shut her down. Will they shut her down? Maybe they should send her hunting with Dick Cheney? Go ahead.
FUGELSANG: Well, I wasn`t surprised that Joe threw her under the dog sled this week. And Dana, I do want to apologize for calling you "Sugar" if you took offense. I`m half southern, it`s how we talk. So please don`t get the wrong idea about me.
LOESCH: I`m southern too. But I just --
FUGELSANG: But what he had -- here`s the thing about Sarah Palin. It`s the same week that Sarah Palin said she could have stopped WikiLeaks from happening. Sarah Palin couldn`t stop her own daughter`s baby-daddy from leaking in "Playgirl". Ok.
BEHAR: That`s true.
FUGELSANG: That`s not going to happen. But here`s the deal.
Sarah Palin is sort of like, to the GOP what Jar Jar Banks was to Star Wars Episode 1. In that --
LOESCH: No, no. That`s -- no, I disagree with that.
(CROSSTALK)
FUGELSANG: May I finish Dana please? Well, let me give you my point. She`s there to distract the easily amused from a complete lack of narrative.
BEHAR: That`s right.
FUGELSANG: Ok. She`s a shiny thing we wave. People like it. And the only people who want her to run for president are gullible conservatives, smart liberals and comedians like me.
BEHAR: That`s right. And me, too. I can`t wait to see that.
But I mean she call the family blue bloods.
FUGELSANG: She was right.
BEHAR: Well, but the thing about it is that George Herbert Walker at least is a -- was a veteran of World War II.
FUGELSANG: Sure. But he was also --
BEHAR: He was shot down many times.
FUGELSANG: He`s a millionaire at birth. His son was a millionaire at birth with a fake Texas accent. I mean George W. Bush went to Andover, Harvard and Yale.
(CROSSTALK)
BEHAR: And the same people who love Sarah Palin worshipped at the shrine of George Bush. Let`s get clear.
LOESCH: Oh, no, no, no. No they don`t. A lot of it. The very first people in fact that there were out there for the Tea Party movement, these were the people who were complaining about all of the poor under the last eight years, of which four of those were Democratic rule with Congress.
(CROSSTALK)
BEHAR: She told Barbara Walters that she could beat Obama. Is that chutzpah or stupidity?
LOESCH: Well, no. I don`t know if it`s -- I mean look -- you have to look at some of the polls that have been released from the past several months --
BEHAR: She`s going down, down, down, baby.
LOESCH: Neck and neck -- it either shows them neck and neck or showed her beating him because his unfavorables are really, really high right now.
FUGELSANG: So are hers in her own state. What Joe Scarborough --
BEHAR: Don`t you think that it`s not going to pay to attack Ronald Reagan in Iowa. I mean really -- St. Ronald Reagan of the Republicans.
FUGELSANG: She didn`t so much attack Reagan. And I`ll defend her on calling the Bush family blue bloods because they are. But here`s the thing --
BEHAR: Blue hair, I think she meant --
FUGELSANG: What Scarborough`s right about is that the GOP leadership are afraid to criticize her until she announces whether she`s running or not. Until then, no one`s going to stand up so maybe Scarborough`s running.
BEHAR: Thank you very much guys.
Back in a minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Dana Loesch on AC360, spewing out more nonsense:
COOPER: Well, that's Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona saying that 80 percent of the American people do not want to see taxes rise.
In fact, it's not exactly true. According to that very poll he cited, the Gallup poll, just 40 percent of Americans want to keep all tax cuts for all incomes. Forty-four percent want to keep tax cuts, but set limits for wealthy Americans. And 13 percent want the tax cuts to expire for all Americans.
Joining me now is editor of BigJournalism.com and radio talk show host Dana Loesch and Democratic strategist and pollster Cornell Belcher.
Dana, this -- all this talk from yesterday of working together, I mean, is that all just complete hooey?
DANA LOESCH, EDITOR, BIGJOURNALISM.COM: Well, I don't think it is. I think that they -- I think both sides do need to work together. And they immediately need to start with figuring out what they're going to do with this tax rate.
It's not really so much a tax cut as it's talking about extending the current tax rate, which, when you look at our economy, you look at our unemployment, you look at where everything is, we cannot afford to pay more. We cannot afford right now to have the government take more discretionary income from people, especially the people who create jobs, and attempt to redistribute. That -- it just doesn't work that way.
COOPER: And, Dana, you -- and you support them...
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: ... sending a message nothing else gets done until a decision is made on these Bush tax cuts?
LOESCH: Honestly, Anderson, I don't know how we can really act on anything else at this point, until we figure out what's going to be happening with people's bank accounts after the 1st of the year. That is supremely important.
And that's going to affect everything -- it's going to affect everything, everything, every aspect of American life.
COOPER: OK.
Cornell, what...
LOESCH: And I think, once we figure that out, we can move forward.
COOPER: What about that? What about the fundamental argument that conservatives like Dana are making that the only way to fix the economy is to give more Americans more control over their money? A lot of voters like that.
CORNELL BELCHER, FORMER OBAMA CAMPAIGN POLLSTER: Well, I mean, a couple things.
I mean, before I try to go off to score just usual cheap political points, let's be -- try to be informative. I think what's happening actually right now is, you have five different parties, and they all five need to get to different places.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: What are the five different parties?
BELCHER: It's very -- Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans, House Democrats, House Republicans, and the White House.
Look, arguably, from a political -- purely political tactical standpoint, House Dems right -- right now have more in common with -- with the Senate Republicans. And look what -- because -- because, quite frankly, now you can see Mitch McConnell picking up the playbook of no, no, no, a day after saying, you know, we're going to be bipartisan, a very successful playbook.
And at the same time, you have Speaker Pelosi, you know, saying the other day that, you know, I'm -- I'm going to -- I'm not afraid to be the -- the sole voice standing out for -- for -- for the middle class, because now, all of a sudden, Boehner has to come in, and he -- and he has -- he has to govern.
Now, can Speaker Pelosi now pick up the -- the Boehner playbook and dust it off, because now she doesn't have to govern, and, from a purely political standpoint, be more in line with what you see Mitch McConnell doing right now, which isn't about governing; it's about politics?
COOPER: Dana, can't, though, members of Congress do multiple things at once? I mean, can't you have a vote on don't ask, don't tell or other issues at the same time that you're working on -- on whether or not to -- to continue these tax cuts?
LOESCH: Oh, sure, absolutely.
And I might say, I'm not -- I -- I'm just going to lay it out. I'm not BFFs with Mitch McConnell, by any stretch of the word. But, at same time, I'm a little impressed to see him get a little bit brassy, finally, and start getting tough with some of this stuff.
I agree, we have played politics for too long with American people's money, individual money. I don't understand this incessant push to have the state control the output of that -- that -- the fruits of the labor from people.
If you look back from -- you can go back so far as 1916 with Woodrow Wilson, and look at what happens when you raise taxes on folks. Look at the discretionary income be taken away, out of people's hands, and then look what happens to the revenue that comes into the government. You get more net revenue, the government does, by letting people have their own money and decide how to spend it. That's ultimately what this argument's about.
BELCHER: Look, Anderson, the truth of the matter, if these taxes -- if tax -- if these tax cuts were creating jobs, we would have jobs out of our -- out of our ear holes.
What this is fundamentally about is, is -- is, you know, we're in an economic crisis. And do the rich have an obligation to carry their fair share? I mean, the other day, you know, you...
(CROSSTALK)
LOESCH: They are carrying their fair share. They're paying the majority of the taxes.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: Let him finish. Let him finish.
BELCHER: No, actually -- no, actually, they're not paying the majority of the taxes.
LOESCH: Yes, actually, they are, and that's according to IRS data. Yes.
BELCHER: No. No.
LOESCH: Yes, absolutely.
BELCHER: And if you look -- and if you -- and if -- and if you look at sort of, I mean, what -- I mean, Warren Buffett said he went to his office the other day and he saw that he was paying a higher -- that his employees were paying a higher proportion of their taxes -- in taxes than -- than he was.
And the fact of the matter is...
LOESCH: You know what, Cornell?
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: Let -- let -- let him finish his thought, and then come in.
(CROSSTALK)
BELCHER: Can I finish my -- can I finish my point?
The fact of the matter is, look, we're in an economic downturn. We're in great debt. Why on earth would we take $1 trillion away from the middle-class children and give it to -- and give -- and give it to the wealthy under this ideal it's going to create jobs, and it hasn't created one job yet?
COOPER: Dana?
LOESCH: Well, yes, why don't we do that with the stimulus?
I will tell you what. If it was -- if the stimulus, that was supposed to create jobs, and it didn't do anything. If you want to pay higher taxes, you know that the Treasury Department accepts donations.
I -- why aren't -- are you donating more, Cornell, to the Treasury Department right now? You think that people should be paying higher taxes? So, I assume that you are freely and voluntarily donating to the U.S. Department of Treasury.
BELCHER: No, I...
LOESCH: Because, if you're not, then I believe that you like the government like to come in and force people to divide up their money as they choose.
And, quite frankly, I trust my own acumen...
COOPER: OK.
LOESCH: ... when it concerns my finances over that of the government, because they're not doing so hot right now. BELCHER: You know, the -- you know, the -- the heightened political rhetoric has just gotten so dumb in this country right now, that it doesn't move the argument.
LOESCH: That's not rhetoric. That's fact.
BELCHER: It doesn't -- it doesn't -- it doesn't move -- it doesn't move the argument.
COOPER: Let -- let Cornell respond.
(CROSSTALK)
BELCHER: It doesn't move the argument forward.
The truth of the matter is, these millionaires came out the other day saying that, you know what? We don't need more tax cuts. We want to pay -- pay our fair share.
And, quite frankly, what you're talking about doing is Robin Hood in reverse, is taking $1 trillion from middle-class families and giving them to -- and -- and giving that to the wealthy, and it's not creating jobs.
LOESCH: No.
BELCHER: And, by the way, the stimulus, if you do check your statistics, it did create jobs.
LOESCH: No, it doesn't.
BELCHER: And, quite frankly, the CBO said it create jobs.
LOESCH: No, it didn't. You're moving the goalposts. You're moving the goalposts with that.
BELCHER: No, I'm not.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: We have got -- we have got -- we have got to, guys. I'm sorry.
