Over a year ago today, CNN (or TeaNN) hired the disgraced far-right Teahadist cretin Big Journalism Editor-In-Chief by the name of Dana Loesch.
Here are some of the CNN-related highlights (or not-so-highlights) by Loesch:
February 17th, 2011: Loesch misleadingly declared Michelle Obama's initiative to promote breastfeeding is "nanny state behavior."
On tonight's John King, USA, Dana Loesch was complaining about the breastfeeding promotion as a "nanny state tactic." She was on her anti-Obama high horse. Her counterpart Leigh Ann O'Connor, defended the use of breastfeeding supplies for women.
DANA LOESCH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I kind of have to answer yes and no with this. And I don't think it's necessarily Michelle Obama that's trying to do this. I don't necessarily think it's the first lady, but rather some of the actions that the administration has taken. Look, I am all for breast feeding. I myself breast my children until they were well passed a year. And I think it's fantastic and advocacy for that. I'm a very vocal support it.
But at the same time, from a conservative perspective, I have to question what the White House is doing, because breast pumps actually fall under medical devices, which as you know, under the health care law, those devices are going to be hit with a massive excise tax. So, don't make something tax deductible that you're taxing, just don't tax it. That's sort of the first criticism I think I have over it.
But the second thing and this I don't think necessarily pertains to the first lady, but the way that the White House is kind of positioning itself towards this -- as far as breast feeding is concerned, I realize that the White House is trying to exert some influence over businesses to offer, to be more breast-feeding friendly -- again, fantastic. But I don't think it is the government's role to direct business in that. Leave that choice up to the individual businesses, to the parents, to the individual, period.
March 8th, 2011: She compares Sebelius and Democrats to "terrorists."
DANA LOESCH: Absolutely. Well I hope that you are successful in negotiating. I feel like we’re negotiating, and I’m just going to say this, I feel like we’re negotiating, sort of, with, it seems like terrorists to do this to our economy, especially right now. Quite honestly it does. That you would be able to–
Of course, her guest, Teahadist looncase Michele Bachmann (R-MN06) supports Loesch's vile rant. And typical of Dana The Devil, her loonytunes antics will get worse as time goes on.
April 8th, 2011: Loesch rudely talked over Democratic Congresswoman Jackie Speier on the now-cancelled In The Arena.
Loesch was also scheduled to be on Anderson Cooper 360 last night, but thankfully CNN canned her at the last moment and replaced by another Conservative, Susan Molinari, who was a GOP Congresscritter from New York. She is supposed to appear on CBS's The Early Show later today (check local listings, airs on KMOV at 7-9AM CDT) and on CNN later this afternoon.
Of course, she did the usual routine of talking over the others when they're speaking. Eliot Spitzer put her in her place when she claimed that the "Government should shut down due to Planned Parenthood holding up everything." No, the GOP would've been blamed if there was a shutdown, which was temporarily averted just before 10:00PM CDT last night. Better yet, Planned Parenthood was NOT cut.
May 19th, 2011: She falsely accused "Obama of siding with the terrorists over Israel."
June 29th, 2011: She wanted the country to default so Obama and the Democratic Party can lose in 2012.
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.
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.
July 18th, 2011: Loesch suggested that "mosques should have to disclose ties to any anti-American organizations."
On today's CNN Newsroom, St. Louis's leading hate jock Dana Loesch went on the air and made this statement: "Mosques should disclose if they have "ties to any organizations that present a conflict of interest to US security."
LOESCH: Well, really quickly, 55 percent of American oppose tax hikes in the debt ceiling talks. But according to -- going along with Herman Cain's discussion here, I'm against mob rule. But I believe that any sort of mosque that's built in a community needs to disclose whether or not it has ties to any organizations that present a conflict of interest to American security. I think that two-way street is fair, so hopefully we can have more of that in the future. PHILLIPS: Maria. CARDONA: It is as far from presidential you can get. It's downright shameful. Would he ask the same of Christians, of Buddhists, of Hindus, of Jewish people wanting to build those kinds of institutions and places of worship in their communities? He is in essence equating American Muslims, Americans in their community with al Qaeda and with Osama Bin Laden, downright shameful. PHILLIPS: Pete. DOMINICK: This is so stupid and insulting. Herman Cain and anybody who shares this kind of idea that says you can't build a house of worship is a joke. It's insulting. I'm no fan of religion myself, but this is too sad. He actually has a lot of executive experience. He should focus on that. Muslims have helped disrupt every plot in America. We need to be their friend, not their enemies and that's exactly what he's doing.
August 15th, 2011: Loesch defended Bachmann's question-dodging on AC360.
Why does CNN allow Dana Loesch on? Simple. Makes them more money and gets the right-leaning audience from Fixed Noise.
October 18th, 2011: On Anderson Cooper 360, she baselessly declared the "Nazis support the OWS Movement.
CNN "Contributor" and St. Louis's Leading Hatemonger Dana Loesch took to CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 last night to make outrageous statements about the Occupy Wall Street Movement, baselessly implying that the "Nazis love the movement." Patently false.
And how many times does CNN's hosts get away with allowing Dana Loesch to spew out lies with little or no pushback?
Alex Burns, who isn't exactly liberal (like most of Politico's writers are), told the facts on the 2012 GOP horse race. Even the former chair of the Denver Republican Party Mary Smith thinks Bachmann is a liability be elected and is running on her social issues in addition to her Fiscal Conservatism, who unlike the Bachmannshill Loesch claims she's running solely on her Fiscal record, tells the truth on that point. And she hammered Perry on that point as well. Smith states that addition attention on "Palin and other candidates will benefit from it."
Dr. Drew Pinsky hosts his radio show, Loveline, with co-host Psycho Mike, which airs on Emmis-owned KPNT (105.7 The Point) from 10PM-12AM CDT on Sunday-Thursday. Pinsky has also hosted the TV version of Loveline on MTV, Discovery Health (now OWN)'s Strictly Sex With Dr. Drew and Strictly Dr. Drew, VH1's Celebrity Rehab and its spinoffs Sober House and Sex Rehab, and more recently his HLN show (Dr. Drew) and coming to syndication this fall, Dr. Drew's Lifechangers (which will air on KPLR [CW] in the St. Louis TV market). He has been both praised and criticized for his tactics.
PINSKY: It`s very funny, but you can`t boil a person down to slipups and bloopers. And politics aside, Bachmann`s way is powerful. It`s undeniable. Her message resonates with many, and she angers many as well. Tonight, we`re looking at the person behind the politics and what our reaction to her says about us.
So, joining me now is Alex Burns from Politico. He is on the phone. I`ve got CNN contributor and editor of bigjournalism.com, Dana Loesch, also a political fundraiser and strategist, Mary Smith joins me. Alex, to you first. That clip we just saw, late night comics singling out Bachmann. Are they doing so unfairly?
VOICE OF ALEX BURNS, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, POLITICO: You know, Drew, I think that the question is sort of what`s important for Bachmann whether it`s fair or unfair, but it`s certainly politically beneficial to her to be perceived as being under attacked like this. Her core supporters see her as a political outsider who`s willing to speak truth to power.
And when you see these prominent figures in the mainstream media, the comics that you played and the cover of "Newsweek" with unflattering pictures of her last, this sort of reinforces her core appeal.
PINSKY: Does it bring anybody over though who sort of have issues with her or does it just reinforce the sense that people have of her as kind of a cartoon character?
BURNS: Well, I think that`s a very fair point. For someone like Michele Bachmann who really does appeal to a niche part of the electorate, she`s not necessarily going to command a majority support in any sort of general election outside of her Congressional district. You know, for her to make an impact on the national stage, what she needs is that passionate, you know, 15, 20 percent that`s available to her and it`s ginned up by this kind of stuff.
PINSKY: Now, Bachmann took hit from the left for her views on homosexuality. This is how she put it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BACHMANN: It`s part of Satan, I think, to say this is gay. It`s anything but gay. If you`re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it`s bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair, and personal enslavement.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: And as recently as Sunday, she reiterated her stance on gay marriage. Listen here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BACHMANN: When it comes to marriage and family, my opinion is that marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think that`s been my view.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: She also says she`d bring back "Don`t Ask, Don`t Tell." And, she and her husband caught a good deal of grief for using what, sometimes, call this pray the gay away approach at their mental health clinics. Dana, does this impress her base and infuriate her detractors?
DANA LOESCH, EDITOR, BIGJOURNALISM.COM: Well, I think so if it`s presented in the manner in which it usually represented. Michele Bachmann`s views on gay marriage and "Don`t Ask, Don`t Tell" and so on and so forth, I mean, really, when you look at it, it`s in line with the tradition of most other faiths. And what she said in 2004, a lot of people focus on that, but at the same time, it`s not really a fair break, because no one questions the president on things that he said or the churches that he`s been to or sat in for 20 years.
But, the bottom line is that, one of the things that Michele Bachmann had said, and I understand that. She had said, I`m not running to be the judge of gay people. I`m running to be president of the United States. And I think the question comes down to whether or not she can govern in an impartial and fair way. And I believe that she can, and I have not seen any reason from her to say, otherwise.
PINSKY: Dana, I`m going to ask you a follow-up, and that is, I find her very appealing as a person, but, you know, we`ve just been through a thing in California here where a referendum overturned the concerted opinion of the Supreme Court of the state, and a minority was expunged of their rights as a result of just the tyranny of this majority. Some of the things she says scares me.
LOESCH: Well, I mean, one of the things that I notice with -- if you`re referring to Prop 8. I mean, that was passed by a majority of individuals who ruled in a certain way. And I think that if you want to get into a discussion on gay marriage and civil unions, you know, that`s one thing, but that`s not what she`s running on.
And honestly, I think if you look at where the country is right now as someone who`s an independent conservative, I`m not so much focused on gay marriage or "Don`t Ask, Don`t Tell" right now as I am the economy. And, she`s been asked before, would you or would you not appoint an openly homosexual person into your administration, and she had said, look, if they can go by the constitution, I don`t this why this would even be a viable question, because that`s what it comes down to.
And ultimately, I think this issue -- and I say this constantly. I see this issue as something that has been hijacked by honestly progressives and to use as kind of a wedge issue when, really, limited government, fiscal responsibility, constitutional aspects that govern us, that is something -- it`s not patented by one group or another. That`s something that`s open to everybody regardless of your sexual orientation, regardless of your ethnicity, et cetera.
PINSKY: Well, it seems like limited government is what resonates with a lot of people, and we`re hearing the same thing from the governor of Texas. Alex, back to you, how do we distinguish these two candidates?
BURNS: You know, Drew, I think that for supporters of Governor Perry, these are people who are genuinely in line with Michele Bachmann ideological views. They`re also very conservative, very (INAUDIBLE) to federal government, want to get government out of business. This term constitutional conservative gets used by both of them.
But what Governor Perry has that Congresswoman Bachmann doesn`t have is the ten years running the second largest state in America. So, you know, he has proven himself to be the kind of person who can handle the pressure of a very big campaign with a, you know, more diverse voter base than a Bachmann has in her Congressional district, and frankly, to just raise the kind of money that you need to compete.
PINSKY: Now, I want to read you something from a speech Michele Bachmann gave in 2006. She said, quote, -- this is interesting -- quote, "My husband said, now you need to go and get a post-doctorate degree in tax law. Tax law? I hate taxes. Why should I go into something like that? But the lord says be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands."
Mary, I`ve been reporting this story about Warren Jeffs and that`s the kind of nonsense I heard from them. I hope that was just some sort of an out of context quote. But, these kinds of controversial statements, do those cause her trouble?
MARY SMITH, FORMER CHAIR, DENVER REPUBLICAN PARTY: They absolutely cause her trouble. And, with respect to other people on the panel, I think until these people can wrap their minds around issues like civil rights for all people, the Republican Party will be climbing an uphill battle before they can actually send somebody to the White House again. Michele Bachmann is out there talking about a lot of issues, and she`s not running on anything but fiscal conservatism.
The truth of the matter is it`s a four-year term. She needs to be open to having people of many faiths, of many beliefs, and of many life practices that make sense to them and allow them to continue as part of the American fabric. Same goes for Rick Perry. Same goes for everybody running.
PINSKY: Well, I just heard -- I think Dana saying that that`s actually what she intends to do, but don`t you think she needs to calm down her rhetoric a little bit if that`s really her belief system?
SMITH: I think that if it were really her belief system, she wouldn`t be using that kind of rhetoric to begin with. And I think it makes it very clear as she continues her path across America, that it`s important to ask her these hard questions. Yes, an unflattering picture in "Newsweek" is a tough day. But the truth of the matter is, she has to be out there and on about all of these other issues. It`s not about the gaps. It`s about being taken seriously as a candidate.
PINSKY: Dana, last word to you.
LOESCH: Yes. I`d like to add something about the submissive part. I would really hope that if people are going to quote the bible, that they actually get the full verse in. The other half of that scripture is that husbands should adore their wives and hold them up to the level that they do the church. That is an order that has not given to women.
That means that while women should be respectful to their husbands, men has to treat their wives as good as they would the church, and that`s something that`s repeated over and over again in the New Testament. That is incredibly tally (ph). And I think that`s very empowering to women, as well. So, I wanted to note that.
(CROSSTALK)
SMITH: Reach out to independents and people of all faiths. They really need to be able to expand beyond this kind of very specific --
LOESCH: And they absolutely have.
PINSKY: Wait, one second. One second. Host here, guys. Hang on. I got to interpret, because we have to go to break. We have more to come.
And up next, I have a question which is, do we treat Michele Bachmann differently because she`s a woman, and she`s an attractive woman? Another female power player thinks so. I`ll tell you who straight ahead.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BACHMANN: Before we get started, I have to apologize to everyone in this room, because I did forget something, and I have to confess. I forgot my teleprompters today. And I know you`ve never seen a president without their teleprompters, at least, not the current (ph) one, but in the Bachmann White House, there will be no teleprompters.
(APPLAUSE)
BACHMANN: Because I Believe South Carolinians can take the raw, unvarnished truth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SARAH PALIN, FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR: Just because there may happen to be two women in the race that they would, you know, as Michelle had put it once, get in the mud and engage in cat fighting, that`s ridiculous. It`s kind of even a sexist notion to consider that the two women would be kind of duking it out. No. If I want to duke it out, I`m going to duke it out with the guy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: That, of course, Sarah Palin, undeclared but potential Republican presidential candidate, addressing friction between she and candidate Michele Bachmann. Back with me are Dana Loesch, CNN contributor and editor of bigjournalism.com and political fundraiser and strategist, Mary Smith.
Mary, I want to go to you first, and Dana, I`ll give you quite a chance to ring in here in a second here, but is it -- do we not sort of reserve a special should we call it aggression or enmity for women in politics, and particularly, attractive women in politics? And if we do, does it ever benefit them?
SMITH: Sure, it benefits them. The additional attention benefits them. People are drawn to attractive people. That is well proven across lots of different spectra. The issue with women in politics is special one because there are so few of them. So, the occasional gaffe by Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann seems (INAUDIBLE) to everybody watching, and the truth of the matter is it just doesn`t have very often.
So, it`s a shiny new toy that people are watching, and they get a little bit of additional scrutiny. But, there`s a lot to be said for the - - all press is good press. They`re getting the attention. And it`s allowing them to get their ideas out there too and to be heard on a huge stage and on a huge scale. So, I wouldn`t -- I don`t feel sorry for these women. If you can`t take the heat, get out of the political kitchen, and neither of them are.
PINSKY: Well, Dana, I`m going to go to you. I`m wondering if it just says something about us that these female Republican candidates are often, when they`re attractive, often portrayed as dumb or silly.
LOESCH: Yes. That`s something that seems to be consistent. And quite honestly, having followed politics for and been involved for quite a while, I`ve seen this on both sides of the aisle. I definitely saw it with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I`ve seen it with Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. And yes -- being good looking is definitely an asset. And I think any female candidate, if she`s good looking, use it to your advantage, because why not?
I think if you`re full well and able, then do it. But I definitely do think that something that Mary had said is that because there are so few women still involved in politics, anything that they do makes a much bigger statement than anything a male candidate does. And quite honestly, a lot of the sexism that I have seen against women hasn`t been from men. It`s been from other women. And I`ve seen a lot of women especially during the last presidential election.
They didn`t know whether or not Hillary Clinton would be able to do as well as Barack Obama, and they wondered how Sarah Palin would be able to deal with the White House when she had young children. And these were things that are never asked of male candidates. But, I heard them and I kid you not, more often from women than I did for men. So, what does that say about women?
PINSKY: It says you guys beat the crap out of each other, and you`ve been --
(CROSSTALK)
PINSKY: Hang on. And you`ve been doing so since you were 12. You`ve been doing it since you were 12 years old, and that`s my question to women is why are you so rough on each other? What`s that?
LOESCH: Women are catty. Women, I think, are catty. And I had this conversation the other day with a friend of mine. Have you noticed that so many reality shows are centered around women? Because women bring the drama. They`re manipulative. And I`m not saying it`s a bad thing. I`m just saying that that`s something I see more in women than I do in men.
We watch it because we like the drama for the same reasons that I think a lot of people get involved in politics and watch what`s going on in the political arena. It`s the new gladiator arena with women as gladiators.
PINSKY: What I do think -- I do think and Mary maybe you`ll agree with me on this, that we need to check ourselves and think about it when we mindlessly do this, particularly, women against other women, and merely -- and stop doing that. And us that are men if we find them attractive, they`re going to get our vote. Let`s listen to what they said.
And interestingly, Dana you sort of completed that scripture reference in that last segment from Michele Bachmann about submitting to your husband. I found that bordering on reprehensible in its incomplete form. You know what I mean?
LOESCH: Right. It sounds awful. It sounds horrible.
PINSKY: It sounds awful.
LOESCH: Yes.
PINSKY: That`s right. So, in a way, I mean, maybe it`s time for some of these Republican candidates to stay away from some of that material and really focus on the governing. Mary, do you agree with me on that?
SMITH: Take almost any sentence out of the bible out of context and you`ll find something that`s reprehensible if it stands on its own. In context with the rest of it, a lot of it makes a lot of sense. A lot of it is across the board a good way to live your life. But -- and it`s not about women targeting other women. It`s a great stage. And now, we have serious candidates.
Michele Bachmann wouldn`t be on the cover of "Newsweek" if they weren`t taking her seriously. They are. You didn`t see Donald Trump actually making it, talk about a caricature. He`s gone. It`s gone. What we have are some serious people bringing up serious issues. I find it fairly disappointing that we`re spending so much time on John Wayne versus John Wayne Gacy or somebody`s birthday or somebody`s, you know, the day of their funeral.
That`s disappointing, because the substance is lost when we, as Americans, maybe there`s just too much news because we`re concentrating too much on this little stuff and not actually listening to what`s going wrong in the country and the solutions that people are offering to fix it. We need to look more towards the fixes and really hold their feet to the fire. If somebody`s making chitchat about the corn dogs or the fair or whatever, change the dynamic. Change the conversation.
Talk to them about what their ideas, what they are actually going to do. Not their track record, not what they have done in the past. How are you going to bring that to the fore so that you can solve the problems that are right here right now?
PINSKY: More after this. Stick around.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BACHMANN: I`ve been at the tip of the spear.
I`ve been at the tip of the spear.
I`ve been at the tip of the spear, and I`ve been a champion for people.
I was the leading voice in Washington against raising the debt ceiling.
I`ve been leading on this issue of not raising the debt ceiling.
I was leading on not increasing the debt ceiling.
We took the biggest punch to the gut this week.
This last week, we got a punch to the gut in the United States.
We saw a punch to the gut in the United States this last week.
We really had a punch in the gut.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BACHMANN: Better late than never is no way to conduct United States foreign policy. Finally, after weeks of violence by President Assad against his own people, President Obama has called for President Assad to step aside in Syria. This is yet one more instance of President Obama leading from behind on foreign policy.
The president should have acted weeks ago to call on President Assad to step down when his regime started slaughtering and oppressing his own Syrian people. By this count now, it`s thousands of Syrians.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMITH: Where are those people who decided to vote for Barack Obama? I know a lot of them who wish they had voted for Hillary Clinton in that primary race and believe that she, as a woman, but more as the candidates and as the leader, would have done a better job if she was in that position today than he is. I agree with them.
PINSKY: Mary, you bring up the point, and this is something, Dana, you do the final word on this, which is I hear -- I`m clearer about what Rick Perry`s position is on his stance towards how he plans to govern, although, it`s a little unclear. I`m clearer about it than I am, say, with Michele Bachmann where so much noise gets in the way. How do we get passel the noise and the jokes to hear what it is she would do as a candidate?
LOESCH: Are you asking me this?
PINSKY: I`m asking you that.
(CROSSTALK)
LOESCH: Well, something Mary said that I thought was incredibly interesting when she was saying that -- when she said that there`s -- maybe there`s too much news. I don`t know if there`s too much news rather, I think sometimes the news focuses on the wrong thing, because when you go to the ballot box, you`re not going to be thinking about what Michele Bachmann said about Elvis` death day.
You`re going to be wondering, well, why did she vote the way that she did on cut, cap, and balance? Why did she vote the way that she did on TARP. What has her record then? And I think -- and Dr. Drew, you made a very interesting point in terms of you know more how Rick Perry would govern as oppose to Michele Bachmann.
And this says, we could -- I could go off on a tangent on this that`s because, you know, the gubernatorial poll obviously very different than coming from House of Representatives, and presidential candidates don`t normally come from the house. One in the past 100 years, in fact, has. But, I think, it`s very important.
The media is there to sort of enhance and give platform to what is going on news wise. And instead, it seems that a lot of regular supposedly objective news organizations seem to try to adopt the tabloid style of reporting and focusing on things that, in the end, don`t really matter.
PINSKY: Well, it enhances our ratings. That`s why we do it. But guys, I`ve got to stop the conversation there. It`s very sad. Yes, it`s very sad. That`s why I`m trying not to do that tonight. I would like to cut through that and really find a candidate who`s going to change things for the better for all of us. So, thank you, ladies, for joining me.
Now, whatever else you might say about Michele Bachmann, she is a force to be reckoned with this election season. Underestimating someone because of gender is unfair. There is a wrong (ph). It`s also unfair to take shots at a person`s strong sense of values. But it`s important question to ask, do we worry about values that might translate into laws that are unfair?
That`s what I was asking about here a little bit. These are the questions we have to ask ourselves and the ones who come to light when a magnetic and polarizing figure like Michele Bachmann emerges on the landscape. These are the things that we start thinking about. So, it`s going to be an interesting election season. I want to thank you all for watching. We`ll see you next time.
END
Why does CNN and HLN give her a platform to spew out falsehoods uncontested? Dr. Drew (whose political knowledge is not that great and I don't associate politics with him) was being too passive on Loesch.
Dana Loesch was on tonight's Joy Behar and was worried about getting her tax cuts for the rich more than getting our openly Gay troops to serve honestly. Ron Reagan was spot on with his arguments.
Loesch defended DADT's policy and made homophobic excuses to defend the policy and to deny openly LGBT troops the right to serve, much like I'd expect with Dana The Diva's rival, Dr. Gina Loudon. She loves to play the "Will Of The [Conservative] People" card when it suits her, such as the Health Care Reform and the Park51 building. Dana, I have news for you, the ACTUAL "Will Of The People" and about 7/10ths to 3/4thsof the active Military service members support DADT's repeal.
From the 12.16.2010 edition of HLN's The Joy Behar Show.
Transcript:
BEHAR: "Don`t ask, don`t tell" the controversial law banning gays from openly serving in the military could soon be a thing of the past -- I hope. The House voted yesterday to repeal it and now it is in the Senate`s hands. Some Republicans there have changed their minds to support the repeal but will that be enough?
Here now to discuss this and more are political commentator Ron Reagan and Dana Loesch, editor of bigjournalism.com and radio host on KFT 97.1 FM.
You know, I`m sorry I say Reagan. I get confused.
RON REAGAN, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It is a difficult name.
BEHAR: There was a Don Regan. There is a Ronald Reagan. There`s a Ron Reagan.
REAGAN: We used to be Reagans. We used to actually -- back in Ireland we were the O`Reagans.
BEHAR: See, I just went back to Ireland for a second there.
REAGAN: Yes.
BEHAR: So, Ron, the Senate is going to vote to repeal DADT?
REAGAN: We hope so. Now, Harry Reid says he is going to allow this to come up for a vote. We really have to watch to see whether he schedules a vote and whether that vote is scheduled before Christmas.
If he waits until after Christmas, which the Republicans would like him to do, it`s possible that some Democrats could not come home from Christmas vacation or come back to Washington from Christmas vacation and you`d lose votes. We`re at 60 right now, apparently, with four Republicans now onboard or three Republicans and Blanche Lincoln now back in the senate.
BEHAR: That would be Senators Snowe, Brown, and Murkowski?
REAGAN: Right, exactly. Exactly. So, you know, if Reid can schedule a vote now the votes seem to be there; 60 votes for the repeal.
BEHAR: Yes.
REAGAN: But it`s all about the timing.
BEHAR: Ok. Dana, now, why are most Republicans not willing to appeal it, despite the polls showing almost 8 in 10 Americans support gays openly serving in the military? Why can`t they just do it?
DANA LOESCH, BIG JOURNALISM.COM: I think right now, Joy, it`s not so much as substance but looking at this from a procedural point of view.
And that you have to remember Republicans back before the lame duck session started they said, look. These are some of the things that we need to have done. The tax extension -- the tax rate extension must be passed before we start considering other pieces of legislation. So if they flinch at all it`s going to look very bad in public relations terms for the GOP.
I think that they`re just looking at it as to what is immediately going to impact people after the first of the year.
REAGAN: They`re playing all sorts of games, Joy. Jim DeMint wants the entire 1900-page omnibus spending bill read aloud.
LOESCH: Why not? They haven`t read it. They haven`t read it.
REAGAN: I think it`s probably they don`t need to read it.
(CROSSTALK)
LOESCH: Ron, are you telling me that they don`t need to read legislation before they pass it?
(CROSSTALK)
REAGAN: Do you think that senators actually read 1900-page bills, Dana? You really think that they do?
LOESCH: Well, they ought to.
(CROSSTALK)
REAGAN: Ordinarily? Do you really think that Jim DeMint wants to educate the senate by having this bill read or do you think he is trying to push things back into the next term?
LOESCH: No, no, no. So you support passing a trillion dollar legislation without reading it?
BEHAR: Cut.
REAGAN: Yes. In this case.
BEHAR: Ok. What about Senator McCain? Who is he pandering to, Dana?
LOESCH: McCain, I don`t -- I don`t really try to pretend even to want to get into John McCain`s mind. He is not one of my favorite people on earth.
BEHAR: Why not?
LOESCH: Well, I haven`t been very impressed with his big RINO record. I think that a lot of the stuff that he does is pretty much just advantageous. He is not one of my favorite Republicans.
BEHAR: Is he not conservative enough for you?
LOESCH: No, he`s never been conservative enough for me.
BEHAR: Well, he is on this topic. Even though, you know, Defense Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen support repealing, he still doesn`t want to appeal it. He should know better.
LOESCH: Well, then again, too, Joy, I look at it like this. Personally, "don`t ask, don`t tell", when I look at what this is, what the military should be, when you go into the military when you volunteer to be a part of the military, individuality ceases to have any significance once you join the military.
It does -- nobody cares or should care what your sexual orientation is. They shouldn`t care what music you like, what your favorite food is, nobody gives a crap. People need to get over self-importance.
REAGAN: But apparently they do.
BEHAR: To me it`s bad policy. I mean I was reading that dozens of Arabic translators were kicked out of the military because they were gay. That`s really stupid. That is just stupid and dangerous.
REAGAN: It is. What is amazing is to recognize the low opinion the people who support "don`t ask don`t tell" appear to have of our fighting men and women. You would really think that the people in the Marines, if you listen to General Amos, are all a bunch of juvenile bigots, that they can`t handle the stress of having a gay person or a gay man or lesbian anywhere near them.
LOESCH: Well, that`s not -- that`s not the perspective that I hear.
REAGAN: Well, it`s the perspective I hear.
LOESCH: What I hear from people and just on my show today I had a ton of veterans who called in from all branches of the service and they were saying, look. We don`t care. We served with gay people. Gays have served before "don`t ask don`t tell" which I don`t know why Democrats put it into effect in the first place.
REAGAN: I don`t either.
LOESCH: But they`re freaking out trying to get it out of the way.
REAGAN: Yes, I don`t know.
BEHAR: That was a bad idea.
LOESCH: Gays will serve after "don`t ask don`t tell".
The point that I heard from every single veteran who called into my show today was, look, the most important thing is, can you serve? Can you serve? Can you serve well?
REAGAN: Exactly.
LOESCH: We don`t care what you are. Quit putting the focus on individuality. It`s all about breaking a person down, rebuilding them up to be a part of a cohesive unit.
REAGAN: That`s what I`m saying Dana.
BEHAR: But it`s they`re out -- if people find out you`re gay, you lose your job. It`s a job, too, you know.
LOESCH: It is a job, too. But also, infidelity is illegal. You can get court-martialed if you cheat on your wife in the military. There are a lot of things in the military.
BEHAR: This is different. This is about who you are. It is very difficult I think to be in the closet all day and all night constantly. It is very unfair.
REAGAN: Well, it also forces people to lie, which would seem to be against, you know, military ethics.
BEHAR: One would think.
REAGAN: Yes. One would think. But again, Dana was making my point. I don`t think our military personnel, our fighting men and women if you will are all, really (INAUDIBLE), as Sarah Palin might say, about serving alongside gay people. They know they already do. It is just some of the people that are fighting this repeal who seem to think that they`re such juvenile bigots that they can`t handle it.
BEHAR: Let me ask you something, Ron. Yes, Ron.
REAGAN: Yes.
BEHAR: President Obama released this statement. "We must ensure that Americans who are willing to risk their lives for their country are treated fairly and equally by their country."
If this gets repealed do you give any credit to the President or do you blame him for taking so long?
REAGAN: Well, I don`t think he got out in front of this parade if you will. He may have made a political calculation in that, though, that if he did get out in front too much on this that the Republicans would get even more obstructionist about it, would dig in their heels even more about "don`t ask, don`t tell" because they would see it as a signature issue for him and of course they want to stop anything that he`s going to do.
So he may have made that political judgment. I`m not sure. I don`t know what --
(CROSSTALK)
BEHAR: The Tea Party seems to be all about the will of the people. Well, this is the will of the people. It`s time to move on from this. Don`t you think, Dana?
I`ve got to go. Thank you guys very much.
REAGAN: You bet.
BEHAR: We`ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
== Last night on Anderson Cooper 360, Paul Begala and Loesch were on, and you guessed it, making excuses for supporting the Republican Party's obstructionist tactics while claiming to despise all political parties.
Transcript:
I spoke about -- about repealing don't ask, don't tell, as well as the congressional work ethic, earlier tonight with Democratic strategist Paul Begala and Dana Loesch, editor over at BigJournalism.com and host of KFTK Radio in Saint Louis.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Paul, we just heard Senator Lieberman sounding very optimistic about the chances for repeal. But, obviously, he and other supporters sounded optimistic before last week's vote as well. How confident are you about the -- the chances now?
PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: You know, it's -- it's usually a safe bet that things die in the Senate. That's been the pattern for many years now.
But, you know, Senator Lieberman's been working this issue hard. I'm impressed that Senator Snowe has come out in favor of it. I -- I -- President Obama, I know, called her last week and personally lobbied her on this. So -- so, with her addition -- the don't ask, don't tell repeal lost by three the last time around. So, she comes around.
So, now the supporters only need two more. Well, Lisa Murkowski, the senator from Alaska, Republican, has said she supports repeal. Scott Brown, the senator from Massachusetts, Republican, he supports repeal. Blanche Lincoln, the Democratic senator, outgoing, but the still the senator, from Arkansas, she supports repeal, but was at the dentist when they cast the vote.
(LAUGHTER)
COOPER: Right. She was at a dentist last time.
BEGALA: So you could pick up -- and maybe even Joe Manchin, the new Democratic senator from West Virginia. So you just need two out of those four. It's getting awfully close. So, forgive me for being a little optimistic.
COOPER: Dana, what do you make about the brouhaha over schedules, people's schedules? I mean, basically, you know, there's -- there's more than a week until Christmas. I'm working today. You're working today. Most of the country is working today.
You know, firefighters, policemen, people who have really important jobs, work on Christmas Day, work on Christmas Eve. Are senators' complaints making any sense here about -- you know, about -- I mean, is this really the kind of argument that's going to fly with most Americans, that they don't want to work up until Christmas?
DANA LOESCH, EDITOR, BIGJOURNALISM.COM: Yes, I don't think so, Anderson.
I have no sympathy for elected officials. They knew what they were signing on for when they decided to run for elected office and when they were campaigning. They're in it for the long haul. This is about the future of the country. There's a lot of huge things at stake here.
And it's not like they're on the street in the cold in Washington, D.C., under a cardboard box. They're -- they're in -- they're in the Capitol Building. They have nice accommodations. So, I don't feel -- I don't feel sorry for them at all.
(LAUGHTER)
COOPER: Paul, any time, like, I complain about my job or listen to these people on Capitol Hill complain...
BEGALA: Right.
(LAUGHTER)
COOPER: ... about their jobs, like, you know, there are folks working in coal mines around the clock. There's, you know, people working all night long in bakeries, you know, and, as Dana said, delivering newspapers out in the cold. It just -- it kind of makes my head explode.
BEGALA: Well, and, in fact, this is -- you know, it's Senator Kyl of Arizona, Republican, who's like the chief whiner about this.
And Senator Kyl and all of his Republican colleagues are the guys who blocked even debating the 9/11 health care bill. I mean, this is for -- there's 58,000 men and women who inhaled -- frankly, inhaled the pulverized particles of the World Trade Center. Many of them are ill. They need health care. It's a national priority.
The Republicans filibustered against that. I guess that's in keeping with the Christmas season, as Senator Kyl is very concerned about offending his -- his Christmas celebrations. Of course, Jesus would have wanted those 9/11 first-responders to not get any health care.
LOESCH: Oh, come on. I have heard... BEGALA: And let's -- let's kill the nuclear...
LOESCH: I have heard Harry Reid invoke Christ: What would Jesus spend? I already heard him talk about Christ on the floor earlier.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: This was the Republican talking point. See, they're saying that, if the senators have to work, somehow, that offends Jesus. So, they're going to -- they're going to...
LOESCH: That's not all Republicans' talking point.
BEGALA: They want to go home -- yes, that's...
LOESCH: Paul...
BEGALA: It's the Republicans who are saying this. They want to go home because Jesus would want...
LOESCH: We would not in this position. Democrats had two years. What were they doing, twiddling their thumbs?
BEGALA: What they were doing was...
LOESCH: I mean, come on, we wouldn't even be having this decision -- this discussion...
BEGALA: What they were doing was...
LOESCH: ... if they had been doing something.
BEGALA: What they were -- what they have been -- this is like -- Lincoln told a story about the man who murdered his parents and then threw himself on the mercy of the court because he was an orphan.
(LAUGHTER)
BEGALA: The Republicans caused this. They delayed, delayed, and delayed. And this -- now they want to invoke Jesus because it will offend Jesus if we have like a nuclear arms treaty. Jesus, hey, he loved nuclear weapons. Jesus would want us to not control nuclear arms with the Russians. It's nuts.
COOPER: I just think, in a day and age where you have, you know, tens of thousands of U.S. forces serving overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan, for people to be complaining about their work schedule, for public officials to be complaining about their work schedule, just boggles my mind.
LOESCH: No, I...
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: But -- but, Paul, realistically, though, time is running short. There is a whole lot left on the Senate's plate. Even if they work every available minute, can they wrap up their -- their -- their lame-duck agenda?
BEGALA: The problem is, the majority doesn't rule in the Senate. The Senate is supposed to be deliberative and slow and difficult.
But it also -- and I have checked the Constitution -- it's supposed to run on a majority, not 60...
LOESCH: Yes.
BEGALA: ... 50.
And the Democrats have tried in good faith to bring up this legislation. The Republicans have, using the filibuster rule, which only used to be used once or twice a year...
(CROSSTALK)
LOESCH: It used to be 67 votes, instead of 60. And it was a Democrat who changed it.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: They even filibustered -- they even filibustered the -- the -- the help for these 9/11 first-responder responders. They will filibuster anything in order to get their tax cuts for the rich.
And that seems to be their one agenda.
LOESCH: Oh, don't even go down the "tax cuts for the rich" road, Paul.
BEGALA: ... which, of course, in the Christmas season, again to come back to the baby Jesus...
(CROSSTALK)
LOESCH: Come on.
BEGALA: No, Jesus said...
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Didn't he say it's more difficult...
LOESCH: What would Jesus spend?
BEGALA: ... for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a poor person to get a tax break...
(CROSSTALK)
LOESCH: You know what? That's -- that's -- that's the little-known 11th Commandment.
BEGALA: Yes. No, it's just silly.
LOESCH: Paul, did you know that? That's the little-known 11th Commandment. It was written on the side margin of the tablets that Moses had.
(LAUGHTER)
LOESCH: Thou shalt not pimp Jesus for the sake of an argument.
(CROSSTALK)
(LAUGHTER)
LOESCH: Nobody -- nobody -- because it was written on the side, because there wasn't enough room, nobody remembers that.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: I'm simply -- I'm picking up the motif the Republicans have given us. Senator Kyl has said that...
(LAUGHTER)
BEGALA: ... somehow, it's going to offend the baby Jesus if these guys have to work over the holiday. And I -- I just don't -- I have been talking to Jesus about it. I haven't heard back from him, but...
LOESCH: Harry Reid said that: Do it for Jesus.
BEGALA: No.
LOESCH: Pass the big porker omnibus bill for Jesus. What would Jesus spend?
COOPER: Wow.
(LAUGHTER)
COOPER: I haven't heard Jesus mentioned so much in a political debate in quite some while...
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.
