Loesch falsely accuses the Dems of "playing political games with VAWA"

On TeaNN's Erin Burnett OutFront, "contributor" Dana Loesch was spewing a number of falsehoods regarding the Violence Against Women Act, including the defense of fellow St. Louis nutjob Phyllis Schlafly. 

From the 03.15.2012 edition of CNN's Erin Burnett OutFront:


Transcript:

BURNETT: All right, John Avlon is with us. (INAUDIBLE) Elise Jordan is a former speechwriter for Condoleezza Rice also joins us and Dana Loesch, CNN contributor -- all right, great to see all of you with us. Let me start with you Dana.
It is something everyone thought would be over by now. I mean and it was interesting, he was actually talking about Newt Gingrich (INAUDIBLE) I wouldn't want to presume to tell Newt Gingrich what to do, but I thought it would be over by now. And you know sort of it seemed like he was saying that maybe Newt should get out although he didn't directly say it. 
DANA LOESCH, EDITOR, BIGJOURNALISM.COM: Well there are a lot of individuals, Erin that are wondering whether or not Newt Gingrich should get out of the race. But at the same time, I was having a conversation with a friend a little bit earlier and we were discussing how the primary is a really good racket because the longer you stay in the longer you can really push to get higher speaking fees and maybe book deals and so on and so forth, but at this time, the delegate math. I just don't know if Newt Gingrich can make it happen, where it concerns delegate math. The fat lady is definitely warming up and everybody's been talking about this proverbial fat lady for a long time now. But it is -- you know it is different because the Super Tuesday this primary cycle, we had like 10 contests, but the Super Tuesday back in 2008, there were like 20, 21 contests -- 
BURNETT: Right.
LOESCH: -- so it is scheduled a little differently and it feels a lot longer. 
BURNETT: Well I think Elise we've all learned a lot of lessons, whatever your political party may be about how to not schedule a primary season. What about this video though that the Obama campaign is putting out? Seventeen minutes, Tom Hanks narrated, Academy Award winning producer, a real image of a documentary, even though of course it is a campaign ad. 
(CROSSTALK) ELISE JORDAN, FORMER SPEECHWRITER FOR CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Well I think it's pretty striking that the message seems like it's going to be disaster averted. Nothing really bad is happening in contrast in '08, where it was change you can believe in. And this video, he paid you know 300,000 for it. I think back in '08, someone in Hollywood would have done it for free. And I think that he's just very different phase in terms of how his supporters are getting behind him. 
BURNETT: Kony's video has 100 million plus views, John Avlon. Will President Obama's video get that many views? 
AVLON: The bar has been set. I'm going to say no in terms of that. I mean look this is a highly produced campaign video. Elise (ph) makes an interesting point though is that this is actually saying that wow, storm clouds were coming, we averted a disaster. It's not a narrative of triumph. It's a narrative of what could have been much worse.
BURNETT: All right. Let's talk about this issue about women. I mean this is becoming a bigger and bigger conversation and now of course you've got the act -- the violence against women act that Senate Democrats want to put forth legislation from 1994. They say it's finally time. Elise they, at the time, it was broadly bipartisan. Now, there are some Republican opposition to parts of it including would-be immigrants allowing you to say well if you're being used, you could get a visa. Republicans don't like that. 
(CROSSTALK) 
JORDAN: You can take it one of two ways, anti-women or anti- immigrant, whichever way you want to see it because their opposition is towards 5,000 u-visas (ph) that are given to the worst victims of domestic violence and those -- that's you know how many visas were given last year, they're up to 10,000 that can be given a year. It's a very small percentage of the nearly 5,000 visas we give a year. 
BURNETT: Right.
JORDAN: So they can say yes, it's about immigration, but really I think it's just this backlash against women that we're hearing a rhetoric that just really isn't very helpful. 
BURNETT: Yes, Dana, I mean how can justify voting against this bill? 
LOESCH: Well -- 
BURNETT: I'm not saying you would. I'm asking you hypothetically.
(CROSSTALK) 
BURNETT: I'm sorry if it came out that way. 
(CROSSTALK) LOESCH: No, well I mean this is -- this is -- I think it's very brilliant maneuvering on the part of Senators Leahy and Schumer because they realize this is where they need to take the conversation in order to appeal to their base, but the problem is as Senator Grassley had pointed out is that you know in the past this had been unanimously approved, the reauthorization of this. I think it was back in like 2006 I think was the last reauthorization. But because of all of the provisions tacked onto it and Grassley, Senator Grassley's concern, his chief concern is that there are no safeguards listed this time with this. 
I mean you know definitely people don't like to see violence against women and I know Phyllis Schlafly has a really good op-ed about this, about the act itself over at TownHall.com. But Grassley's concern was that there is no safeguards and this -- it is very easy to commit fraud in this system. There are no safeguards with this, the definition is very loose, it's very broadly defined and so the amendment that Grassley had put forward was to kind of -- was to remedy this. 
BURNETT: John Avlon, I mean does it make sense to keep the immigration part in? I mean regardless of what you think about the issue, I think it's outrageous that someone was offended by it or not. We should be able to pass the violence against women act without having it turn into a conversation about contraception or immigration or whatever it is that may be your sticking point. 
AVLON: That's right and let's be clear. I mean this is a political maneuver by Democrats, but it's a very smart one. 
BURNETT: Right.
AVLON: There's a bill that had broad bipartisan support in the past to some proposals that are now controversial. And the fact that it now includes same-sex couples is one of the things that some conservatives find very, very troubling and offensive. But you know the question is whether Republicans are going to let that agenda drive them into this trap in effect and let this narrative deepen because it's been -- it's a part of a pattern and that's the point I think Democrats are trying to surf off of. From Planned Parenthood fights on down, this narrative exists because it reflects a fissure, a fault line within the Republican Party. 
BURNETT: It seems to show, Elise, too that the Republican Party -- we talk about why the Obama administration has put out a 17-minute video, because they think they have lost control over their narrative. The Republican Party certainly seems to have lost control over the women's narrative. 
JORDAN: Definitely and I think what Rush did, his comments were so harmful to the entire health care debate to Republicans philosophical opposition to Obamacare and what -- by using that kind of vitriolic language, it just -- it totally destroyed -- it made the whole argument against for having Obamacare more attractive. 
BURNETT: All right, well thanks very much to all three of you. We appreciate it. Well you have heard the slogan, if you see something, say something. Well now a few police departments across the country like in Grapevine, Texas are taking the campaign to a whole new level. Take a look at this. 

Loesch, was lying as usual.

On her blog at Big Journalism, she baselessly accused "Democrats of starting a new war on women" and "playing games with WAWA."

A batch of new polls released this week confirmed the Democrats's worst nightmare: the majority of Americans strongly disapprove of the way in which the President is handling the economy and gas prices. The findings were a blow to a party that for weeks has pandered to women with the trumped-up bogeyman of an all-white male Republican party who wanted to gobble up all their birth control pills. The fabricated War on Women failed, and failed hard. Not ones to give up easily, Senators Schumer and Leahy devised another tactic: playing checkers with the Violence Against Women Act.  

The reauthorization of the VAWA is unanimously approved every year since the it was passed in 1994; the latest reauthorization was in 2006. This year there is resistance and Democrats are anxious to exploit the resistance from Republicans. Why is the GOP resisting? The language of the VAWA has remained the same throughout both Republican and Democrat congresses, except now. 
Democrats trotted out Sandra Fluke because the visual of President Obama verses a bunch of religious folk wasn't the bestoptic, but a woman against the progressive stereotype of a Republican was. (Rhetorical: is it "War On Women" to present them as victims and use them for messaging?) Unfortunately, Fluke didn't work out because a woman complaining of an annual $1k birth control bill when $9 per month birth control exists at places like Target and Costco doesn't cut a sympathetic figure. The polls cited above prove that the strategy to deflect from the economy didn't work, the attempt to frame radio talk host Rush Limbaugh as the "de facto leader of the Republican party" (rhetoric that's been around since I was in high school) failed and now his ratings are at an all-time high.  

Democrats are now in damage control mode. The NYT assists by burying poll numbers; David Axelrod appeared on CNN last night prior to my appearance, wherein he parroted the "de facto" talking point and tried to portray Mitt Romney, the most moderate Republican in the race who was formerly vehemently pro-choice, as part of the "War On Women." It was a deflection from Erin Burnett's question: if he planned to petition the Obama super PAC to return the $1 million dollar donation from Bill "c*nt," "tw*t" Maher (his words, not mine). Axelrod declined, saying that Maher was "different," which apparently makes it OK. The difference is that Maher is a progressive and donated a million dollars. 

Their message should focus on the shock of why Democrats, who claim to so strongly care for the well-being of women, would dare use federal assistance to victims of domestic violence as a political pawn? The answer is, of course, to score points in a battle to keep the public's attention off of their incumbent's abysmal record.  

No, you lying little fartknocker, it's the REPUBLICAN Party that's using VAWA as a political pawn, NOT the Democrats. People like Loesch and her cronies are attacking Sandra Fluke for trivial reasons.

The REAL facts (not the RWNJ spin) on WAWA, via the Huffington Post's Nancy K. Kaufmann:

Until this year, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was the poster child for bipartisanship. First passed in 1994 under the leadership of then-Senator Joe Biden, it garnered overwhelming support when it was reauthorized in 2000 and again in 2005. Now, however, it too has become politicized, a casualty of the culture wars. Although the legislation to reauthorize VAWA (S 1925) still has bipartisan sponsors, it was recently voted out of committee in the Senate 10-8 on a strict party-line vote and final passage is by no means certain. 

This year's reauthorization bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Mike Crapo (R-ID), seeks to ensure that VAWA includes protections and services for all victims, regardless of who they are or what their abusers look like. It addresses the unique needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) victims, and those of immigrant victims, foreign brides, and Native women residing on tribal lands. All these populations have, thus far, been denied the full power of VAWA. 

LGBTQ people encounter domestic violence at the same rate as the general population, yet a survey by the New York City Anti-Violence Project reported that in 2010 nearly half were turned away from domestic violence shelters and more than half of LGBTQ survivors were denied orders of protection.  

Immigrant women without legal status are especially vulnerable to abuse, since going to the authorities carries with it the risk of deportation while the abuser may go free. 

Finally, the bill would increase access to justice for Native women living on tribal lands. The numbers are stunning. Native women are 2.5 times more likely than other U.S. women to be battered or raped. One-third of Native women will be raped in their lifetimes. Two-fifths will experience the tragedy of domestic violence. And, their legal situation greatly complicates their access to justice. VAWA reauthorization would give tribes the authority to prosecute misdemeanor domestic violence-related crimes when the abuser lives or works in the jurisdiction of the tribe, or is the spouse or intimate partner of a tribe member. It is time to close the gaps in the law to ensure that rapists and abusers cannot commit crimes against Native women with impunity. 

Reauthorization of VAWA is imperative. The costs to victims and their families and to society are too large to ignore. Opponents of VAWA are trying to make its renewal part of an ongoing culture war in which the needs of women have been buried in an avalanche of rhetoric that devalues women's lives in the service of an ideological, partisan agenda. 

The GOP is desperate to try anything to appease the ultra-right base of the party, which will hurt them come general election time.

Also, Loesch has falsely accused Media Matters For America's Eric Boehlert of being "like David Duke" and being "anti-Semitic." In fact, Boehlert (a mainstream liberal) and Duke (a far-right white nationalist) are complete opposites.

On CNN today, Dana Loesch defends Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann

On this morning's edition of CNN's American Morning, hosted by Carol Costello, "Contributor" Dana Loesch took to the airwaves to misinform the viewers, and provide free advertising for Minnesota Congressman Michele Bachmann (R) and Texas Governor Rick Perry , who is regarded as Bush 2.0. Loesch was countered by Leslie Sanchez, who is a Republican analyst. From the 08.15.2011 edition of CNN's American Morning: Transcript:

The candidate who won the straw poll on Saturday and the candidate who stole some of her thunder collided in Iowa over the weekend. It was Michele Bachmann versus the newcomer to the race, Texas Governor Rick Perry. The GOP race is getting hot as President Obama hits the road with a counterattack.

Joining me to talk about it are Republican analysts Leslie Sanchez and cofounder of the St. Louis Tea Party, Dana Loesch. Welcome to you both.

LESLIE SANCHEZ, FOUNDER AND CEO, IMPACTO GROUP LLC: Thank you, Carol.

DANA LOESCH, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Good morning.

COSTELLO: OK, so Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry are both tea party darlings. What's the difference between the two, Dana?

LOESCH: Well, one of the big differences to me is I think Michele Bachmann has really been on the forefront of a lot of the grassroots movement over the past couple of years. And her campaign is a little bit more different than someone who normally just comes from the House of Representatives in that she has this national appeal because of the grassroots movement.

That being said, I think there's a huge difference because statistically nobody comes from the House of Representatives. I think we've had one president in the past 100 years that came from the House of Representatives. Our best bets are typically from the gubernatorial pool. So I think that makes a huge difference and I think that's something that grassroots voters will be paying special attention to.

COSTELLO: Leslie, there was something interesting on "Politico" this morning. Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry were in the same room in Iowa. They did not engage. The difference was Rick Perry was mingling with the crowd. He was putting his arms around people. He was saying "y'all" a lot. He was very charming. Michele Bachmann sort of stayed on her bus until she had to take the stage. She was surrounded by security and really didn't let voters get close to her. What do you make of that?

SANCHEZ: I think it's campaign style. I wouldn't make too much out of it. They're both uniquely passionate in the sense that they have good, strong -- as she said, grassroots appeal.

Rick Perry, though, he is a retail politics candidate. One thing a lot of people may not know about him, he likes to burn through the shoe leather. He likes people and to engage and handshake and call them y'all. He -- it is not uncommon for him to sit on a barstool and talk to folks, you know, regularly about issues because he's very engaged in issues.

I had a chance to talk to both Bachmann's pollster and Perry's pollster extensively and they both talk about the positive attributes in terms of campaigning. Again, Rick Perry. somebody just getting started but a very strong campaigner. His team likes that. He's very direct on message. He's had a core team that's been with him some since 1998.

They're both going to be doing a lot to engage the base of this party.

COSTELLO: Of course, they both have conservative values.

And, Dana, I want to ask you about this. Michele Bachmann took some flack from reporters this Sunday about her previous statements on gay people. In the past, she said that people who are gay are in personal bondage, personal despair, and personal enslavement. She also said that she would reinstitute the Military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

I want you to listen to this -- the exchange she had with NBC's David Gregory on "Meet the Press".

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

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 -- that's been my view. And I think that's --

DAVID GREGORY, NBC HOST, "MEET THE PRESS": So a gay couple with kids would not be considered a family to you?

BACHMANN: You know, all of these kind of questions really aren't about what people are concerned about right now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COSTELLO: But, still, the majority of the country was for overturning "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and many more people are for civil unions. If Republican primary voters are going to vote for the candidate who has the best chance of winning against President Obama, will they vote for Michele Bachmann?

LOESCH: Well, I don't think anyone -- and this is not an insult to any community -- is paying attention to a social issue like that at this moment considering that we're on a very bad trajectory economically. And I know that GOProud, the group of gay conservatives that are very active within the Republican Party aren't really even looking at this right now either because everyone is sort of looking to see what these candidates -- what these candidates are going to do when it comes to jobs.

We're looking to see what they're going to do when it comes to possibly some foreign policy, but it's all about the economy again. This election cycle, as it should be. We have 9.1, 9.2 percent unemployment. We're not in a really good place right now. And I think we have to make sure that we're even economically sustainable before we can start talking about issues like that, which I think are honestly downstream from the problems that we're dealing with right now.

COSTELLO: So, Leslie, on the subject of jobs, of course, Rick Perry is said to have a pretty good record when it comes to creating jobs in Texas. Mitt Romney is sort of running on, yes, I did a pretty good job in Massachusetts. So what's the difference between those two?

SANCHEZ: Well, in terms of the record, they're both governors, they both have proven records in the area, they both looked at the jobs issue and the health care issue.

With respect to Governor Perry, he's certainly somebody who looked at something a little bit different in 2010. He laid out a framework to say let's build and invest in infrastructure. If we do that with lower regulation, you're going to see increased revenues generated by the new generation of jobs. We can put that money into education and other areas that the state dramatically needs, especially because of the failure at the federal level. I think you saw the same kind of experience leading very much the way with Governor Romney. Both of them have different challenges in that sense. I think, ultimately, they're going to be appealing to a lot on the economic issues.

I was in Ames. That, again, is going to be the top priority, who can get the economy moving. The president has that kind of economic albatross (ph) around his neck and what voters are ideally looking for, what I heard in Ames, is somebody with credibility to prove they can get those jobs created and businesses to kind of relief that.

COSTELLO: So just quickly, because Warren Buffett has an op-ed in "The New York Times" and he said, you know, I talked to my really wealthy friends and we're ready to make a sacrifice, we want our taxes raised.

And since all of the Republican Primary candidates are totally against raising taxes, wouldn't that eventually work against them? Since the majority of Americans think taxes should be raised on wealthy Americans.

SANCHEZ: I'll tell you this much, too, what I heard a lot on the ground, you know, especially with some of these AARP voters is that they believe that 50 -- the 50 percent that are not paying taxes, that corporations, certain corporations, are the bad apples in the group and they are not paying taxes, and I had other business leaders who said, you know, we pay 31 percent taxes, we want to show that we're part and contributing to this economy.

I think there's a little bit of that class warfare debate that is really real. People feel that some are taking advantage of the system, gaming the system, so to speak. They want it fair all the way around, but what they don't want is to stifle the ability to grow private sector jobs. That they feel would burden --

COSTELLO: So there's no wiggle room, in other words, from any of these candidates. You don't -- you don't envision maybe Mitt Romney or Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann saying, maybe -- maybe we should raise a little revenue by making GE --

SANCHEZ: Not in this lifetime, no.

CHO: Not in this lifetime.

COSTELLO: Leslie Sanchez, Dana Loesch, thank you so much for joining us this morning.

SANCHEZ: Thank you.

And this woman claims to support the "grassroots." Wrong! She's all hat, no cattle, just like her heroes Bush and Cheney. Later this morning, on CNN Newsroom with Kyra Phillips in the 9AM CDT hour, Loesch trashed Mitt Romney and praised Bachmann and Perry. She accused the "left of hijacking the gay movement," which is false. Transcript:

PHILLIPS: All right. Coming up any second now, we're monitoring something and we've got it on our radar. At any moment, we are expecting to hear live from presidential candidate Mitt Romney. This is actually taped from earlier this morning.

As you know, he's the frontrunner for the Republican nomination. He's expected to take questions from reporters for the first time since Texas governor Rick Perry entered the race over the weekend. So as soon as he starts speaking, we will take it live.

All right. "Political Buzz," your rapid-fire look at the hottest political topics of the day. Three questions, 30 seconds on the clock. Playing today, Democratic strategist Maria Cardona, CNN contributor and independent John Avlon and CNN contributor and talk radio host Dana Loesch.

Hi, all. First question here --

MARIA CARDONA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Hey, Kyra.

PHILLIPS: -- over the weekend -- good to see you three -- Michele Bachmann, as you know, who won the Ames straw poll. Rick Perry stole many of the headlines, though.

So, what's your take, who did this weekend actually belong to? Bachmann or Perry? Dana? DANA LOESCH, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Gosh, it's kind of a hard call. I think ultimately it belonged to Bachmann. I think that she had a good turnout, she had a good performance at the debates and obviously, she won the straw poll. So I think ultimately, it belongs to her.

However, she's still sharing a lot of that spotlight with Rick Perry, who I thought his timing and the way he rolled it out in order to get attention was pretty slick. So, they're sort sharing it right now, but she's in the lead.

PHILLIPS: Maria?

CARDONA: I'm going to agree with Dana on this, Kyra. I think you cannot take it away from Bachmann, especially given where she started out at the very beginning, no one gave her a prayer to ever make it to the top tier. And the Republican elite had a lot to say about how unserious she was. And I think that she has really shown them her ability to organize, to fundraise, to really give a speech that riles up the base.

I think frankly, her rise has a lot more to do with the weakness of the rest Republican field, but having said that, you can't take away from the fact that she did win the straw poll. This will give her a big bounce. Definitely -

(BUZZER SOUNDS)

CARDONA: -- won't say whether she will win, but it gives her a big bounce.

PHILLIPS: John.

JOHN AVLON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Always beware when the Democrat is pumping up a candidate, especially if it's someone on the far right.

Look, Bachmann had a great day. But ultimately, Perry has the game changer, which is his entry into the race fundamentally changes what this field likes like. Therefore, in terms of the big picture, I think you have to give it to Perry.

PHILLIPS: All right, guys. Well, since we're talking about Michele Bachmann, she was being pushed on the specifics of her stance on homosexuality. In particular, I'm talking about "Meet the Press" over the weekend. Let's take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID GREGORY, HOST, "MEET THE PRESS": Would you appoint a gay, and openly gay person to your administration, to your cabinet or name them as a judge?

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: My criteria would be the same for -- which would be where do you stand on the Constitution, are you competent, and do you share my views? That's my criteria. GREGORY: But those views are pretty clear. So you would -- as far as the judge, you talked about that. An openly gay person is acceptable as a matter of your administration - as a member of your administration?

BACHMANN: I have my criteria for what my appointments would be based on, and it's whether you uphold the Constitution, if you're competent --

GREGORY: So it would not be a factor?

BACHMANN: I am not out asking any other question.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIPS: OK, guys, here is my question to you. Why not just give a yes-or-no answer? Maria.

CARDONA: Because we know in her heart of hearts that she would never do it. And this is where I think she would get into trouble if she does end up being the GOP nominee. There's no way she'll be able to get through the general election with those kinds of views.

We all know very well how she feels about gay and lesbian rights. And when you want to give more than 10 percent - more than 10 percent of Americans less rights than the rest, I think that is not a mainstream view. Especially when the majority of Americans now believe that gays and lesbians should have the exact same rights as other Americans, where it comes to marriage, when it comes to family and everything else.

(BUZZER SOUNDS)

PHILLIPS: Dana.

LOESCH: Were we listening to the same answer? because I heard her answer, and yes. What, gay people can't stand for the constitution? gay people can't be for fiscal responsibility?

I'm so tired of the left try to hijack the gay movement and present them as, oh, no, conservativism is patented only to Christian conservatives. That's such hooey. It's just ridiculous.

I thought her answer was quite clear. Yes, if they stand for Constitution and they're for fiscal responsibility, what's the big deal?

PHILLIPS: Guys, stay with me -

CARDONA: She didn't say yes or no. That's the problem.

PHILLIPS: Guys, we have to get to Mitt Romney speaking live. Let's go ahead and listen in. We'll come back.

PHILLIPS: All right, "Political Buzz" panel. I know you stayed with me because we had to break out of our segment to go to Mitt Romeny there. So, let's roll with this, okay? You just heard Mitt Romney there in Litchfield, New Hampshire. The first question thrown out to him, guys, was about Rick Perry entering the race.

So what do you think? I mean, it was the first question thrown out there. You heard his response. Is he nervous? Should he be nervous about Rick Perry jumping in? Maria?

CARDONA: yes, absolutely he should be nervous here, Kyra. Because clearly, Rick Perry just jumped into the race and he's already in a lot of the polls. Number two, at 15 percent with Romney at 17 percent. Romney absolutely should be nervous, but he should also be nervous about his own record. It's so laughable that he talks about job creation. When he was governor of Massachusetts, forty-seventh. Massachusetts ranked 47th in the state - or in the country -

(BUZZER SOUNDS)

CARDONA: -- among job creation. Laughable.

PHILLIPS: Dana?

LOESCH: I'm a little scared right because I'm agreeing with Maria on this. Romney's done, as far as I'm concerned. Perry is more conservative than Romney. Romney, the big small business guy who with his heath care mandate was taxing businesses over $200-something per employee if they had more than 11 employees.

That's not good for business. And he has a lot to answer to with his record.

(BUZZER SOUNDS)

LOESCH: He just didn't cut it.

PHILLIPS: John?

JOHN AVLON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Look, Mitt Romney sidestepped the direct criticism, but you heard something that's going to be a major theme of the campaign, which is that he's saying Rick Perry is essentially a career politician. And he's going to be trying to say, look, I've got business experience and private-sector experience.

But of course he should be concerned. Rick Perry's entry in this race immediately makes this at least a two or three-person race. I think it's going to very quickly whittle down to Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann. Those are going to be the top two.

(BUZZER SOUNDS)

PHILLIPS: Guys, thank you so much. And thanks for rolling with me. I appreciate it.

CARDONA: Thanks, Kyra.

St. Louis's favorite distorter of the truth Loesch goes on The Early Show

Today, after one week of The Dana Show's syndication to WIBC Indianapolis, she is sounding crazy as ever. She went on The Early Show, and was making excuses for the Tucson shooting, blaming the Liberals for exploiting the tragedy, when people like her were milking it for her own gain. The Right-Wing media is doing a circle jerk defending her. Frankly, having Loesch on ANY show, other than those on FNC, ruin a show's credibility.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4ZhnZ3XylY
==
Also: Dana Loesch cries like a baby over Priebus being named new RNC Chair.

From The Dana Show's fanpage on Facebook:

The Dana Show

Well, I won't be donating to or ever working with RNC after Priebus won. FYI reading: http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2011/01/priebus-poised-to-fast-track-barbours-2012-presidential-bid.html

Stimulus king: http://biggovernment.com/driehl/2010/12/15/is-reince-priebus-shovel-ready-in-race-for-rnc-chair/

She's griping about an alleged RINO being named the RNC chair, but watch by 2012 comes, she'll be back giving money to the RNC. She tried to pass herself off as an "Ultra-Conservative Independent," when she is in fact a GOP watercarrier.