On Anderson Cooper 360, Dana Loesch wants the country to default

On last night's Anderson Cooper 360, Dana Loesch was back on and guess what she did? Went back to her bread and butter-- which was lying, misinforming, and being childish to other guests. Her idea to cut the deficit: more tax cuts for the rich and gut Medicare. And of course, she blamed the Democrats for the debt problems, with no facts to back it up. Loesch also supports this country defaulting for the sake of defeating Obama and the Democratic Party.

From the 06.29.2011 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:


Transcript of the Loesch/Gergen/Begala segment:

Right now, though, "Raw Politics" and President Obama today throwing down the gauntlet to Republicans on cutting the budget and passing legislation so America can pay its bills. The country is facing an August 2nd deadline to do the second part, raising the debt ceiling, something no Congress, Democrat or Republican has ever failed to do.

This time, though, Republicans say it won't happen without big spending cuts and no tax increases. Today, responding to a question from chief White House correspondent Jessica Yellin, the President slammed Republican leaders for not budging on taxes and for playing chicken, he believes, with that August 2nd deadline.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We've got to get this done.

And -- and if -- if by the end of this week, we have not seen substantial progress, then I think members of Congress need to understand, we are going to, you know, start having to cancel things and stay here until we get it done.

You know, they're -- they're in one week, they're out one week, and then they're -- they're saying, "Obama's got to step in." You need to be here. I have been here. I have been doing Afghanistan and bin Laden and the Greek crisis and -- you stay here. Let's get it done.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, a moment before he said that, he compared lawmakers to slacker kids.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: You know Malia and Sasha generally finish their homework a day ahead of time. Malia is 13; Sasha's 10. It is impressive. They don't wait until the night before. They're not pulling all- nighters. They're -- they're 13 and 10. You know, Congress can do the same thing. If you know you've got to do something, just do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, that drew this response from the GOP House Speaker John Boehner -- quote -- "The President's remarks today ignore legislative and economic reality and demonstrate remarkable irony. His administration has been burying our kids and grandkids in new debt and offered no plan to rein in spending. A debt limit increase can only pass the House if it includes spending cuts larger than the debt limit increase, includes reforms to hold down spending in the future, and is free from tax hikes."

Tough talk now on both sides.

Joining us now is senior political analyst David Gergen; Tea Party organizer Dana Loesch; and Democratic strategist Paul Begala.

Paul, was it really fair for the President to claim the Republican congressional leaders aren't working as hard as he is? I mean, he has been known to enjoy a golf game or two in his time.

PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, they're certainly not making enough progress. And I guess that's kind of where I would take it.

There's reports that the -- the Democrats, the President, is willing to accept as much as $2 trillion in cuts and that the Republicans won't even accept like $400 billion in revenue. And I thought the President was exactly right. His party, my party, is going to have to agree to cuts, painful cuts in constituencies that we care about.

The Republican Party is going to have to agree to new revenue. They're just going to have to. It should be focused on the rich. He pointed out tax breaks for corporate jets and for oil companies. I mean there's some low-hanging fruit that the Republicans, for reasons I can't understand, are defending.

So, I thought that he made a very good point about the Republican intransigence here.

COOPER: Dana, the -- the -- the private jet thing, though, I mean, as Paul said, that's kind of low-hanging fruit. If the President is really serious about cutting spending, I'm not sure that's the biggest item he should be talking about.

DANA LOESCH, EDITOR, BIGJOURNALISM.COM: Yes, I think that only saves $3 billion.

And he actually continued that tax break in 2009 with the stimulus. I think that the $2 trillion, I believe, was over a 10-year period. That's a drop in the bucket over what can be cut. We really have to look at entitlement reform. And we also have to realize that history shows when government seizes capital, revenue for the government goes down. It doesn't increase. You have to have that private sector incentive, the job creation, all of that.

And tax cuts or an extension of the current tax rate is going to be the thing to do it, coupled with massive, massive cuts.

COOPER: David, it's interesting, though, because I mean, while -- while the debt ceiling talks were under way, the White House was pretty quiet about it. Does this seem to signal that they think the whole thing has fallen apart and the President is just kind of going campaign mode?

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Anderson, it certainly suggests that the mode -- the tone the President set today is a -- is a tone set by someone who thinks that talks are near collapse or not going anywhere and he's trying to scold the Republicans into action. If he really were truly near an agreement, I imagine he would have dropped all those snide comments about Republicans. It would have been a much more constructive, sort of encouraging kind of press conference. Instead, what we had were these snide comments, which I think will -- and some of the arguments. I think Paul is right. Some of the arguments are going to play pretty well with the public that the President made.

But the snide comments are really going to alienate Republicans, I think, and make it less likely they will come to the table in a compromising mood. And I think ultimately, Anderson, we're not going to get a big mega-deal. I think we're looking at some sort of patch.

COOPER: So, Paul, what is the strategy behind him doing this, do you think?

BEGALA: Well, I think David makes a point. I think David is right. It looks like the Republicans are not going to right now agree to anything.

So, the inside game has not worked -- and they have been at this for weeks -- if the inside game has not worked, well, then maybe you try the outside game.

I hate to even use phrases like game. Most of what I do and talk about is politics and its fun and there's no real harm done. People who really know the economy -- and I don't -- but people I trust say that the potential damage to the economy if America defaults after two and a quarter centuries is really serious. People use words like "cataclysmic".

I thought the President on that was pretty muted today. He said, well, it's -- it would actually be very unpredictable and it could cause a lot of damage, it could hurt jobs.

People are telling me it could be a whole lot worse than that. Can you imagine being the President knowing that we have to cut spending, knowing that we need new revenue, especially if we have to, from the rich and from big corporations -- it's an obvious deal -- and not having partners who are willing to accept the obvious?

COOPER: Dana, I think you have said, though, you have expressed doubts that it's as cataclysmic as Paul is indicating. Is that right?

LOESCH: Well, right. I mean, as -- well, as Jessica Yellin questioned the President at the press conference today, she asked him, well, there's been four dates that have already gone by and all of this apocalyptic stuff that Democrats keep saying is going to happen never actually happened. And we have gone past these dates and we have kept -- we keep having these extensions. So how do you reconcile that?

So, I don't think it is. I think there's a little bit of fear- mongering there. I don't think it's as bad. And it's definitely not as bad as what is going to happen, as what the CBO has said is going to happen, if we don't get entitlement spending under control. And if we look at Medicare, the spending for that is going to double in 25 years. We're talking about having the possibility of Medicare spending being 11 percent of our GDP. I mean, it's astronomical. It's -- there's no way we can sustain spending like this.

COOPER: David, I see you shaking your head.

GERGEN: I'm sorry. Just let's get -- factually, the administration has never set four dates and said it's -- we're going to have real consequences if we don't hit this date. They have always -- they have said for a long time --

(CROSSTALK)

LOESCH: Oh, yes they have.

GERGEN: -- August 2nd is the big date. That's just been very clear right from the beginning.

And secondly, listen, we're playing with fire here. Every major economist, every major financial institution -- the International Monetary Fund today issued a report saying there's going to be a severe shock to the economy nationally and internationally if we don't -- if we go into default.

Standard & Poor's has warned that they're going to cut our credit ratings. I don't know how many different kinds of warnings you have before you realize this is going to be really a very dangerous game we're playing. And both sides need to act like adults.

The President sort of accuses the Democrats, I mean, of -- I mean the President accused the Republicans of going off and loafing. He's going off to fund-raisers. He's got another one tomorrow night. He's had a series of fund-raisers.

I mean, you know, if both sides are going to get serious, let both sides stay in town.

(CROSSTALK)

LOESCH: Right. Right.

And can I add one quick point onto what David said -- David said? We would not even be having these Biden debt talks; we would not even be having these discussions if Democrats had produced a budget in the past two years.

COOPER: Paul, I want to give you the final thought. And then we have got to go.

BEGALA: If -- the budget the past two years doesn't have anything to do with it. We have a debt crisis. The American economy is facing default. The American government is facing default.

It has potentially really damaging consequences. And it's not an even-steven deal. The Democrats don't like the spending cuts. They hate it, but they're agreeing to it. Republicans have got to agree to ask wealthy people and big corporations and big oil companies to pay a little bit more.

And -- and until they're ready to acknowledge the obvious, then we're -- they're going to plunge this country -- I worry that maybe they're rooting for America to fail, so that Obama can be defeated. I hate to think that.

(CROSSTALK)

LOESCH: No, no, no.

BEGALA: But the only -- it's the only possible explanation here. Why would they -- because they don't want -- why would they want to drive our country into default?

COOPER: We have got to go.

Dana, I appreciate it. Paul, David, thank you.

Let us know what you think. We're on Facebook. Follow me on Twitter @AndersonCooper. I'll be tweeting tonight as well.

At least Begala and Gergen have enough sense to tell the truth--especially on the Republicans rooting for the economy to fail so that they can attempt to win the Presidency come 2012, unlike a certain moron who hosts a radio show on KFTK. And why the hell does CNN let her on to spew blatant lies with very little challenge from either the host and/or other guests?

#LoeschFail alert: On CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, Cornell Belcher and David Gergen pwn Dana Loesch

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.

UPDATE: Heather from Crooks and Liars has more on the Loesch ruining CNN's credibility.

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.

Dana Loesch still making excuses on Anderson Cooper 360

Dana Loesch, as usual, was lying her ass off on Anderson Cooper 360. She was playing the "victim" card, while making excuses for her empty rhetoric.

From the 9PM EST/8PM CST Special Hour of AC360:

COOPER: We should keep in mind there's been nothing to clearly link the shooter to any of this rhetoric. In fact, he's registered as an independent. You heard Drew Griffin saying that a teacher actually described him as a liberal pot-smoker.

We're joined by Dana Loesch, Tea Party organizer and St. Louis radio host, and David Gergen, CNN senior political analyst and a former presidential advisor.

Dana, in the past, a lot of conservatives have blamed violent acts -- whether it's, you know, shooting up a school, on something like video games or music or certain teachings. If one can blame those things, why shouldn't one be willing to blame heated or violent political rhetoric?

DANA LOESCH, ORGANIZER, NATIONWIDE TEA PARTY COALITION: Well, and Anderson, I don't think that it was correct for anyone to blame any of the past violence in schools on music or on anything that they see in film because it -- it immediately passes responsibility of the parents to assume responsibility of their children and for the people who carry these acts out to assume responsibility.

And I apply the exact same thing to this instance. There's a lot of stuff that's said on both sides, but I don't -- both sides aren't speaking in literal terms. Both sides are free to make metaphorical analogies. And I think that they're also free to not be blamed when someone of their own will decides to commit a heinous act such as what we saw in Arizona.

COOPER: David, what about that? You served in White House when passed presidents, you know, have faced this kind of tragedies. Is examining political discourse in the wake of an incident like appropriate or without any evidence he was a follower of anyone in particular? Is it premature?

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I think we have to exercise great care here, Anderson. As you remember, there were many times during the election campaign, even going all the way back to the town halls, when we lamented on this program the incitements that were there.

People showing up with guns. Someone yelling out at a Palin rally, you know, kill him, kill him. And to his great credit, John McCain put a stop to that. But we worried about would this eventually lead to some sort of violence. And I think there's a continuing concern about that.

But having said that, which is very important, we need to deal with it. There is no connection, clear or vague, between that rhetoric and what this deranged fellow did. And in that sense, I think it's inappropriate to point fingers and make accusations, trying to link the rhetoric to this rampage.

If anything, the accusations and all of this name-calling is only further poisoning the discourse in this country and further polarizing us as a people. President Obama had it right today. We need to pull together as a people.

COOPER: We're going to have Bill Maher on in a moment for a couple of blocks. And he frankly does point the finger at the rhetoric and at the vitriol and at Republicans in particular.

Dana -- and we're going to have Dana and David on afterward to get to respond to what he said. But it does seem like some on the right now may be trying to score political points by accusing people on the left of trying to score political points.

I mean this whole thing, it's interesting in the last couple of days how quickly it became politicized.

LOESCH: Oh, it's very -- it's kind of shocking to sort of see it. And it's interesting to think that simply a conservative defending themselves against the charge of being called a murderer, as I've seen done with Sarah Palin, I've seen done with more people than I can count, including myself.

I myself have received threats in e-mail and been called a murderer from people who are trying to condemn this vitriolic rhetoric while also engaging in it at the same time. It makes no sense to me.

But the bottom line is that all of this is completely obscuring two massive points. Those two points are the fact that five people are dead including a child. And the second point is that this is in a long line of -- this is a trend. We see these lone wolf sort of antagonists over and over again. And nothing preemptive is done.

We find out after the fact that all these warning signs are there. Confessions all over the Internet, people from like -- with Jared Lee Loughner, the community college, his parents, friends were saying that he's been this -- been this way for incredibly long time. Nothing was done.

And so I think we need to just kind of start focusing on what can be done preemptively to identify this kind of stuff. He's been stalking her for three years and he's made a death threat before. Why was this allowed to happen?

COOPER: David, it does seem like in the wake of these things --

GERGEN: Yes.

COOPER: -- that a lot of questions are always raised about whether it's on gun control or the mental health system. And yet it doesn't seem like much changes.

GERGEN: It doesn't. And I just wanted to ask, and you say something needs to be done. How is it possible that someone who is this unhinged, when so many people understood that he was in mental deterioration, that he could still walk into a gun store and buy, you know, .9 mm semiautomatic Glock handgun? And also then carry it concealed?

I mean that's -- if there's some cultural insanity here, it is the fact that we haven't put a stop to the capacity of these deranged young people to buy guns and then spray at people. It's just unbelievable.

LOESCH: It's not the -- I have to --

COOPER: Dana?

LOESCH: I have to disagree with you, Mr. Gergen, on that. It's not the gun law. It's the fact that he was refused from the military. He made a death threat before. And he had problems and was removed from community college. None of this was reported.

GERGEN: Do you think --

LOESCH: That has nothing to do with the gun laws on the book.

GERGEN: Do you think it's appropriate that he was able to buy a gun?

LOESCH: I think it's inappropriate the fact that you had his parents that knew about his behavior, the community college and the military --

GERGEN: Well, just answer the question. (CROSSTALK)

LOESCH: Well, do you think that those people are able to orchestrate the -- do you think those people should be able to decide who can and cannot get guns? These -- why wasn't this reported? If these had been reported, he wouldn't have been able to get one in the first place.

So the argument that there's some -- a problem with the law is irrelevant. The fact that if his behavior had been reported, he would not have been able to purchase a firearm. End of story.

COOPER: We're going to have more with David and Dana coming up. We'll talk more to both of you shortly.


COOPER: Welcome back to this special 9:00 edition of 360, the Terror in Tucson. We're joined again by Dana Loesch, Tea Party organizer and St. Louis radio host, and David Gergen, CNN senior political analyst, and a former presidential adviser.

Dana, you heard Bill Maher there. Obviously very pointed opinions. What did you think?

LOESCH: Well, I wasn't -- didn't Bill Maher -- wasn't he the one who was saying that said Obama wasn't gangster enough? I'm curious as to where that speech went.

Just a couple of quick thoughts that I got from listening tot his. First of all, if we're going to talk about Arizona gun laws, let's actually talk about it. In Arizona, you can't just give a mentally ill person a gun. It's called the prohibited possessor. It's part of the law.

If there's a person who presents a danger to themselves or someone else, pursuant to a court order, they can't get a firearm. So, no, the laws haven't been loosened.

Then let's talk about the gun culture as being respective to just Republicans. Harry Reid almost won an NRA endorsement over Sharron Angle in Nevada. In fact, the NRA took so much heat for it, it split conservatives in two. And it actually drove a lot of people to leave the NRA for the Gun Owners of America. He did photo ops at a huge gun range in Nevada and --

COOPER: You feel nothing needs to change in gun laws in the United States?

LOESCH: I think that there needs to be something different in terms of reporting people like this instance with Jared Lee Loughner. If he had been reported, if they had had a court order, he would not have been able to go in there. You don't change the laws. You be more alert and aware.

COOPER: David Gergen, for you, what did you think?

GERGEN: Well, Anderson, I'm not here to carry water for conservatives or Republicans. But that was so one sided, a few points have to be made on the other side. I'm very much for toughening the gun laws. And in fact, the Arizona law was loosened with regard to concealment. And Governor Brewer signed that into law.

But I also think for Bill Maher to call it the Assassin's Lobby is pretty deeply offensive to a whole lot of people. The idea that this guy was out on the streets because we cut back to a small government, that's not true. A lot of people today -- we changed our whole approach to institutionalization of people who are mentally unbalanced because we thought it was oppressive to have so many people locked up.

And there are going to be people walking around our streets -- they shouldn't have guns, but there are people walking around our streets. As long as they're not dangerous, we have come to accept that as a society.

But I also thought to paint the Republicans with a broad brush and say they're all conservative loonies, in effect, and where are the moderates? Where are the adults? Give me a break. Come on. I just think that's unfair. Back in the '60s, people used to argue that about the Democratic party when there was all the unrest in the streets. There were a lot of good people who were trying to tone things down. There are a lot of good people in the Republican party who want to tone things down here as well.

COOPER: Dana, it seems like after Virginia Tech, schools made a better effort and a more concerted effort to look at the mental health of their students. It seems like the community college in this case did see this guy -- see the problem and rectify it. They got him off campus. They got him out of the classroom.

But it seems like after that -- and his parents were notified of that. They were in the meeting where they were told he has mental health issues. We don't know their response. We don't know if they sought help. We haven't heard from them. But it seems like after the school got out of the picture, he kind of dropped off the radar.

LOESCH: Right. I have to say how much I appreciate Mr. Gergen's comments there. It was spot on and I agree with everything he said. I agree. This is -- the community college really should have -- they honestly -- when you have students that are so terrified of this guy, and they write about his disruptiveness and how they are absolutely fearful of him, and the teacher even had some fear of the guy -- that should have been reported, especially when you were all they would have had to do is --

Look, all they would have had to do was look at him. They could have looked -- do a simple Google search. Look how many bloggers found that stuff easily.

COOPER: We're out of time.

LOESCH: This would have been found out.

COOPER: We're going to have more with Dana, more with David Gergen in the 10:00 hour. Guys, thanks very much.

From the 10PM-12AM EST/9-11PM CST edition of AC360:


COOPER: Well, the tone of political rhetoric in general is something that Congresswoman Giffords herself has been concerned with. The night before she was shot, she sent an e-mail to Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, a Republican, congratulating him for being named director of Harvard University's Institute of Politics. This line was in the e-mail. Quote, "We need to figure out how to tone our rhetoric and partisanship down."

Earlier, I spoke with Dana -- excuse me, Dana Loesch, Republican -- radio host and Tea Party organizer, and senior political analyst David Gergen, as well as political analyst Roland Martin.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Roland, the local sheriff in Arizona pointed a finger at political rhetoric. A lot of Democrats have been echoing that since the shooting. A lot of Republicans pushing back.

Given there's no evidence this kid was particularly political but plenty of evidence he was mentally unstable, is it appropriate to be using this shooting to blame politicians?

ROLAND MARTIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I think it is appropriate for us to examine the kind of rhetoric we have in this country right now. Here's what I found to be interesting. Americans always want for something to happen before we react. I think, even though there's nothing directly related to the political rhetoric in this particular case, we should be saying, "Wait a minute. How hot is it right now when people are getting death threats? You get people are going after folks' families? When you see the kind of letters and e-mails?"

So I think the opportunity to examine ourselves is appropriate, even though there's no direct correlation.

COOPER: Dana, is this an opportunity to examine ourselves? Is that what's been happening?

DANA LOESCH, RADIO HOST/TEA PARTY ORGANIZER: Well, I think that the rhetoric -- the rhetoric has been the same as it has always been. Nothing has changed from now from the '60s until now. Everything has always been the same.

What we have to realize is that people can say what they want to on both sides, but we cannot excuse the fact that someone chooses to willfully interpret or perceive things how they want to. And again, there's no evidence at all whatsoever that this guy listened to talk radio or watched news programs on the right or the left.

COOPER: David, what about that? I mean, Dana raises the point that it's always been the same kind of rhetoric. I mean, if you look back to history going back to, you know, Revolutionary War days, politics has always been a rough-and-tumble business in the United States.

DAVID GERGEN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: It has been rough-and- tumble, Anderson, but I think it's time to call (ph) the finger- pointing and the accusations about this particular incident.

But there might be a silver lining here. And that is I do think it's an opportunity, to go to Roland's point, an opportunity for President Obama and the Republican leadership to come together and jointly try to sort of see if there are ways they can get everybody to calm down, to tone down the rhetoric in our political discourse.

We ought to be doing that, regardless of whether Tucson happened or not. It would be healthy for the -- for the governess of this country and for a sense of pride again, once again, and a sense of unity.

And I do think that John Boehner, just like President Obama, they both handled this well so far. And I do think they could come together from both sides of the aisle. This will be a moment for real bipartisanship, to try to get us pulled together.

COOPER: Dana, a lot of people have raised the issue, again, about gun control in this. Should this guy have been able to get a gun? A guy with a -- you know, people in his school -- he gets kicked out of school, mental instability. He's able to pass an instant background check. LOESCH: I go -- I go to my original point, what I said earlier, Anderson. And that is, again, if his behavior had been reported, there's no way he was going to walk into a firearms store and purchase the firearm. It's not going to happen.

But there -- the ball has been dropped, and it doesn't have to do with the law. Because the laws are incredibly strong enough already. The problem here is the fact that there's no awareness. There's no alertness. People should -- there was ample opportunity for people to say something about this kid's behavior or this young man's behavior, rather. But nothing was done. Nothing...

MARTIN: There was a process. The university had a process, but the question then becomes what do they then do? Who do they call? According to our system, unless a judge declares this individual mentally ill...

COOPER: Yes, seems like...

MARTIN: ... it's easy to say, Well, report it. He can't get a permit.

LOESCH: Then pursue it.

MARTIN: Not true.

LOESCH: If it's important enough to change the law about it, it's definitely important enough to pursue it.

COOPER: David, where do you come down on the gun issue?

GERGEN: I think it's insane that people like this are able to get guns. How many incidents does it take like this for us to realize that people who should not have guns are able to get them too easily?

I'm sorry. The law has been loosened in Arizona, unfortunately. And he could carry a concealed. What are we doing allowing a 22 year old to carry a concealed weapon around like this? He would be able to walk into a bar. I'm sorry. The laws are too loose. They are not too tight.

LOESCH: No. No, no, no, no, no.

GERGEN: We have lowered the standards. The NRA has been behind this.

LOESCH: No.

GERGEN: And I understand the need for hunters, and I'm all for that.

LOESCH: I reject that.

GERGEN: But I'm sorry, Dana, there are people who disagree with you. If it takes licensing to... LOESCH: No, statistics show that when you enact concealed carry, the crime rate plummets. Show me a county, prove to me, show me a county where concealed carry has been implemented where the crime rates haven't dropped. I put the burden of proof on you.

(CROSSTALK)

GERGEN: ... Tucson, Arizona.

COOPER: David, I want you to give the final thought. But then we've got to go.

GERGEN: Tucson, Arizona, if that doesn't make the case, I don't know what does.

COOPER: David Gergen, Dana Loesch, Roland Martin, appreciate it. Thank you.

MARTIN: Thank you.
From the 01.10.2011 edition of Anderson Cooper 360:

Dana Loesch on AC360 and now on HLN talking more lies

The St. Louis Tea Party queen bee, Dana Loesch, was on yet again on CNN, and go ahead and add HLN's The Joy Behar Show to that list of shows that she's spewing lies on.





Dana on the 11.18.2010 edition of AC360:



ROBERTS: Ouch. The American people are the losers.

Joining me now, political analysts David Gergen and Roland Martin along with Tea Party organizer, Dana Loesch, she's also editor of BigJournalism.com and a radio host at KT -- KFTK, 97.1 FM.

Folks thanks so much for being with us.

David, let's start off with you, is it really such a big deal, this idea of cutting the earmarks, particularly when you look at how small a percentage of the total budget they really represent and the fact that this money's probably not going to get saved, that it'll just get spent elsewhere.

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, John this is a small amount of money, $15 billion is less than one percent of the budget but it's a big deal, because the -- the money has been used essentially as a piggy bank by a lot of members. They go off and do their favorite project back in their home district or their home states and then they seek voter credit for doing that. And you know and -- and they get into the habit of loose spending; undisciplined spending.

I think it's very wise in time, particularly in these -- when -- when we're so tight on the budget, to cut this stuff out. Yes, there are going to be some good things lost in the process but we've got to get back to essentials. And listen, if they don't need the $15 billion, cut it out of the budget. We've got to start somewhere.

ROBERTS: Dana, how much of this do you think is about members who truly believe that earmarks are a bad idea and how much is about members who simply want to get on a bandwagon?

DANA LOESCH, EDITOR, BIGJOURNALISM.COM: I think that any -- this whole -- this whole debate has really fascinated me simply because I think that those who are arguing in favor of earmarks I think it's sort of a smoke and mirrors situation. Because what they're essentially arguing for, John is -- is the opaque process that has been going on in Washington, D.C., for so unbelievably long. Earmarks as they're being argued for right now, they're talking about tacking on spending requests, un-vetted spending requests on to appropriations bill that bypass the -- the traditional typical two- committee approval process that earmarks are supposed to go through.

And so I think that these people who are -- who -- these Congressmen who are advocating for this, they're -- they're trying to shore up their political capital. This is how they trade powers, through this process.

ROBERTS: Roland Martin, Mitch McConnell in -- in supporting the ban on earmarks said, look, I don't really believe in this, because, three weeks ago he was against it, but gave to Tea Party pressure. But he said I'm worried about just giving more budgetary discretion to the White House and putting it in the hands of the president. Is -- is he right to be concerned about that?

ROLAND MARTIN, CNN ANALYST: No, that's utter nonsense. I mean, look and first of all, I disagree when we categorize this as, well, it's just less than one percent, because if you ask anybody when it comes to their own personal budget, when you need to make cuts, every little bit helps.

But it is clear that senator -- Senator McConnell and Republicans want to, to the American people, to try to make it all about Obama, he's going to somehow spend the money when you have Republicans and Democrats who want to spend, spend, spend. But in your opening, John, you're absolutely right. Where are they going to cut? Are they willing to touch defense?

You see right now Senator John McCain in a constant battle with fellow Republican, Senator Tom Coburn, when it comes to defense spending, when it comes to Rand Paul. That's going to be the real test of the political will. Will they touch Medicare, Social Security, and defense? That's where most of our budget comes from.

ROBERTS: Did --

(CROSSTALK)

LOESCH: Well -- can I -- can I add something to Roland's point too?

ROBERTS: Go ahead Dana.

LOESCH: The argument that -- that came from Mitch McConnell who -- until very recently was against earmarks, the idea that somehow they are ceding power to the president, that they are letting go of the purse strings is a lie. Because when you write appropriations bills, unless they write it specifically to say that it is up to discretion of President Obama to decide how this money is spent, he doesn't get to decide. That is Congress's responsibility.

MARTIN: Right.

LOESCH: They're playing upon the ignorance of the American people and that's not going to fly anymore.

ROBERTS: David, there's a -- there's another point that some people make, and -- and that perhaps in supporting the ban on earmarks it will obscure that really tough choices that lawmakers will have to make if they want to really take a whack at the -- at the deficit and the overall debt. They can say, hey, look, we took action on earmarks. How much more do you want us to do?

GERGEN: I -- I think it'll go the other way, John. And I think this will help create momentum for more spending cuts. And one of the reasons if you couldn't do a deal with earmarks how in the world are you going to deal with -- as Roland says and I think he's right -- the really tough issues like Medicare and Medicare -- Medicaid and defense.

Listen, this money is basically incumbent protection money. It's -- it's -- it's you know, it's to help them back home. And sometimes it goes for good causes but it's often to increase the popularity of -- of the incumbent. We all know that. And they've got to start somewhere. And I -- you know, I think the argument is a phony one about it's going to give all this stuff to Obama. If they get this one percent, ok, let's go for the three percent --

(CROSSTALK)

MARTIN: Right.

GERGEN: -- let's go for the next five percent and --

MARTIN: John --

GERGEN: -- they've got to go -- I think Roland's right they've to go after Medicare, Social Security, and defense and put those on the table and let's thresh it out in a serious national debate.

MARTIN: Here -- real quick John --

ROBERTS: Yes.

MARTIN: -- here's the next battle and you're going to see it. When it comes to Medicare, Social Security and defense, you're going to hear members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans say, oh, this will cause us to lose jobs. Losing jobs is always Congress's way of preventing any kinds of cuts from being made. Watch that language. You will hear it from both sides.

(CROSSTALK)

LOESCH: Well --

ROBERTS: And there's one other point I'd -- I'd like to get Dana to ring in on here and that is Michele Bachmann is hedging her bets a little bit, she's saying well, maybe what we need to do is we need to redefine what an earmark is. For example, transportation projects, perhaps they shouldn't be considered to be earmarks. Which I guess if you looked at it in the purest sense would mean that because it was a transportation project, that bridge to nowhere was an earmark. Does she have a fair point?

LOESCH: Yes and no. I -- I think that there's a million things that we need to do. First of all, let's -- let's have things go through the authorization and appropriation committees as they're supposed to do in order to be vetted. Let's bring a competitive grant process in, and let's vet these earmarks before we just tack them on.

The point that I think that she is making is that the way that the earmark process stands right now is that we have a lot of pork going towards things like bike paths, yay, bicycles are fantastic but we have bridges across the country that are falling into disrepair. And so a lot of the super important stuff that needs attention is getting overlooked.

And a quick thing about defense, if we want to spend defense money wisely, we can start by reflecting upon the appropriations bill from 2009 that was loaded with earmarks that our president did approve.

ROBERTS: All right we want to take a pause here because we've got a lot more to talk about tonight, so Roland Martin, Dana Loesch and David Gergen, please stay with us.

And we want to know what you think as well. Join the live chat going underway right now at AC360.com.

Coming up next, more from our panel, we're going to get their take on Congressman Charlie Rangel's possible punishment for breaking House ethics rules. Does the punishment fit? And see how it compares to other members of Congress who've gotten in trouble in the past.

Plus our special series, "Amazing Animals, Smarter than you Think," inside the science of how dogs think.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We don't want to look at cute pet tricks. What we want to know is what does the dog understand about its world?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ROBERTS: On to "Raw Politics" tonight: a House ethics panel is recommending censure, what amounts to a public scolding, for New York Democratic Congressman, Charlie Rangel. That's after the committee found Rangel guilty on 11 counts, including failing to pay taxes for 17 years on a rental home in the Dominican Republic, misuse of a rent- controlled apartment in the Bronx for political purposes and improper use of government letterhead and government mail.

The 20-year Congressman pleaded for mercy today before learning his potential punishment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. CHARLIE RANGEL (D), NEW YORK: There's no excuse for my behavior, and there was no intent for me ever to go beyond what has been given to me as a salary. I never attempted to enrich myself, and that I walk away no matter what your decision, I'm grateful that I had this opportunity to serve.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: 20-term Congressman we should say. 40 years in Congress. You might recall on Monday Rangel walked out of his ethics trial when the committee rejected his request to delay the case so he could hire a new defense team. His original team member left him in September. This whole case has been full of drama.

Tonight a lot of people are questioning whether the suggested punishment fits. We want to show you how it stacks up against other politicians who are found guilty of House violations.

Only 22 House members have ever been censured, the last two were in July of 1983. Republican Congressman, Daniel Crane of Illinois who broke down crying, he was found guilty of sexual misconduct with a female House page years earlier. Congressman Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was found guilty of sexual misconduct with a male page years earlier.

Another type of punishment is a reprimand only eight House members have faced that, most recently Georgia Republican, Newt Gingrich in 1997 when he was Speaker of the House. He was slapped with an unprecedented $300,000 fine for allowing a member affiliate tax exempt organization to be used for political purposes. He also gave false information to the committee investigating the charges.

Now, the harshest punishment is expulsion, just five House members have been forced out of office. The most recent you may recall is Ohio Democrat James Traficant. He was kicked out of the House in 2002 after he was found guilty in a federal corruption trial of conspiracy to commit bribery and of racketeering among other things. Traficant had quite a message for the ethics committee back then.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES TRAFICANT (D), OHIO: And I want to say to this committee, I love America but I hate the government. I love the elected members. I've met many of you and love you all and I mean that. That's not patronizing to get your vote. I don't expect your vote.

But we have an aristocracy in the judiciary that is afraid of the FBI and the IRS. They're scared to death of them. And they trampled all over my rights and I'll be damned if they're going to do it to me.

So I will take an upward departure and I will die in jail, because I did not commit these crimes.

(END VIDEO CLIP) ROBERTS: Of course he didn't die in jail. He's out.

Now for more perspective, you might be wondering what happened to Congressman Joe Wilson. He made headlines for this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: The reforms -- the reforms I am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.

REP. JOE WILSON (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: You lie!

OBAMA: It's not true.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: That was Wilson in September 2009 when President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress on health care reform. The South Carolina Republican dodged serious punishment. House members issued a resolution expressing disapproval of Wilson's actions.

So did Rangel get the right punishment?

Back now to our political panel: David Gergen, Roland Martin and Dana Loesch.

So David, start us off here, was 9-1 in favor of censure in the committee, first time as we said since 1983. Is it the right punishment?

GERGEN: I thought it was, John, because censure is usually for people who've done unethical things. Expulsion, the highest punishment is -- is actually for people who have been found to do unlawful things. And there's been no finding so far that Congressman Rangel has done unlawful things.

And a censure is a pretty powerful tool. It -- we've reviewed the House history, you remember one of the most famous incidences in the Senate was the censure of Senator Joe McCarthy, and it broke him. It broke his power. And -- and I dare say in this case that Charlie Rangel has basically seen his best days.

ROBERTS: Dana, you -- you disagree with David, you just think that he should be expelled from the House. You're in favor of expulsion.

LOESCH: Yes.

ROBERTS: What did he do to rise to that level?

LOESCH: I think that the level of hypocrisy with Charlie Rangel is one of legendary proportions. And I -- I don't think that it -- I -- I don't think that comparing it to Joe Wilson, the censure and that -- and that situation, it's -- it's -- it's unbelievably different. I mean, this is a guy who is -- who was on the committee that helped write our tax code that that didn't go by the law himself but yet he would write it for other people.

This is a guy who, I mean, if they -- if they decide to investigate further and they think that there is -- it warrants criminal penalties or -- or what have you, then I just think that censure seems to be a super light way to go, considering all of the charges that were against him.

ROBERTS: Roland --

MARTIN: You know John -- I -- I think first of all that analysis is absolutely nonsense. Ok? It is nonsense. He -- he -- first of all, the lead attorney on this committee stated there was a corruption. The lead attorney on this committee said he did not believe there was personal benefit. I do believe that first of all he should have followed the rules.

LOESCH: Yes.

MARTIN: I do believe there should be some penalty. But to sit here and suggest remove him from Congress when you just read a list of individuals who committed sexual acts with a House page and received censure and then you saw what Newt Gingrich did as Speaker of the House, utilizing a committee for political purposes and he doesn't get --

(CROSSTALK)

LOESCH: What, Charlie Rangel?

MARTIN: No, no, no, excuse me.

LOESCH: No, no, no.

MARTIN: Excuse me, excuse me. I didn't interrupt you.

LOESCH: No.

MARTIN: You did not have censure in that case.

And so when you judge it based upon the history of the House, I believe it is ridiculous to say expulsion. I do not believe it has risen to the level of censure. I think the same level of rebuke that Gingrich got Rangel should get as well.

ROBERTS: Charlie Rangel stood before the committee and he basically begged for mercy. He said I'm 80 years old, I don't know how much longer I'm going to live. And -- and then he said this, let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RANGEL: And I recognized that you cannot deal with issues that's not before this committee. Or what the press has done to me and my community and my family is just totally unfair. Counsel knows it. All of you know it. And it's not your responsibility to correct them. But they will continue to call me a crook and charge me being corrupt. (END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: David, blaming the press, it's a tried and true tradition. But is it -- is it applicable in this case?

GERGEN: Well, I -- the -- the press actually did uncover some of this. Now, let's be -- let's be clear about this. We didn't know about this housing business and 17 years of unpaid taxes, had the press not gotten into it. That's the role of the press, is to play the watchdog. I don't think he was done in by the press.

Charlie -- he can make that argument and it's fine, but I don't think that's the real issue. The real issue is he had these violations and there's no -- there's no evidence to controvert it.

MARTIN: Right.

GERGEN: I mean, and it is -- it's a clear-cut case. It's a series of violations. I think they did the right thing.

ROBERTS: And we'll see where it all goes from here.

David Gergen, Roland Martin, Dana Loesch, thanks very much for being with us. I really appreciate it.

MARTIN: Thanks a lot.

LOESCH: Thank you.

ROBERTS: Still ahead, could there finally be a break in the case of Natalee Holloway? The Alabama teenager disappeared in Aruba five years ago. Forensic tests now being conducted could provide some much-needed answers. We'll explain just ahead.

Plus, why Tiger Woods says he is infinitely happier now than before the sex scandal that destroyed his marriage and tarnished his image one year ago.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

Dana on the 11.17.2010 edition of The Joy Behar Show: