Loesch falsely claims that "Liberals quiet on Conservative Assaults"

So, Dana Loesch is back to her usual tactic: Blame the Liberals... this time regarding on how "Media Matters's Eric Boehlert suddenly cares about women."

Libs Quiet on Conservative Assaults

September 25, 2010

by DanaLoesch

I’ve been watching Media Matters fake concern over the Reid-supporting chick punched at a townhall forum this week.

Suddenly Eric Boehlert is a defender of women. Except when those women are conservative, because hey, Kelly Owens and Allee Bautsch TOTALLY had it coming, right?

Because Media Matters likes to portray itself to its three readers as being objective and high enough to serve as a faux-journalism critique, I expected to find tons on the on-video, cop-witnessed (as per police report) assault of Kelly Owens by the SEIU crowd. So I did a little search in the Media Matters’ archives:

What? That bastion of media purity, the calvary to the rightwing media, the Soros-funded “media” outlet didn’t have anything about the assault of conservative Kelly Owens?

OK, so I imagine that they’re hurriedly drafting a post now to remedy that glaring oversight, since, afterall, they’re such huge defenders of women all of a sudden.

News for you, Dana: Media Matters is NOT funded by George Soros (unlike what the Republicans claim), but there are many Republican groups who do the EXACT same thing and do they bat an eye? NO!

- More lefty assaults, lefty screeching and intimidation, threats of assault, advocating violence, hateful rallies.

Meanwhile, the tea parties repudiate any such things.

Violence in lieu of discourse is wrong, period. Party, ideology is irrelevant.

Why are only the conservatives saying this, though?

Maybe Media Matters can do a story on it.

Dana Loesch is still harping on Gladney (and likely will never stop) and claiming that the "Liberals are violent," when it's the Conservatives doing these vile things.

And since the exact women of whom I speak couldn't bring themselves to repudiate the threats against my family, the Owens assault ...

. @JustinSnyderFL Prove racism. You are a typical sexist liberal male. Congrats for taking ur hand out of ur pants long enough to Tweet. 9:32 PM Sep 24th via Seesmic Desktop in reply to JustinSnyderFL

What a diva this woman is.

She (like rest of the STL Teabagger Hate Cabal) is also endorsing the dishonest Ed Martin in MO-03, Todd Akin in MO-02, and Roy Blunt in MO-Senate.

Paying Chris Loesch's business $5,000 while wife Dana Loesch attacked Martin's Republican primary opponent.

Hypocritically hiding from debates with John Wayne Tucker

Cheering on his supporters and campaigners booting and torching a photo of Russ Carnahan.

http://stlactivisthub.blogspot.com/2010/09/st-louis-tea-party-endorsements.html

A Recent tweet from @STLActivistHub:

It's excuse for Loesch to attack looks of women she disagrees with. For example, she has said that women in Emily's List have "hair lips."

Adam Shriver pwns Dana Loesch, STL Teabagger Hate Cabal Asskisses Roy Blunt

Adam Shriver, a blogger at the STL Activist Hub, attends the 9/12 Teabagger Rally and questions one of the members of the STL Teabagger Hate Cabal (Dana Loesch) harasses him as a "stalker" and a "defamer." She has also referred me as "a person who sits in Mama's basement defaming my character."

Some points about the conversation:

The reason I hesitated about whether I'm "a Washington University employee" is because I'm on dissertation fellowship this year, so I actually was not sure whether I would be classified as an employee. However, I am pretty sure that I'm not considered "staff." It's not because I was trying to "conceal my identity" as they claim. And for the bazillionth time, I'm not, "using the university's resources to smear and libel private citizens."

Dana and her cronies are outright defamatory jerks by going after Shriver with no facts to back it up.

Speaking of which, she's still ridiculously claiming that I "libel" and "defame" her by responding to her public political statements. She also claims that responding to her opinions is equivalent to "stalking" her. On this definition, I am also "stalking" Bill Hennessy, Ed Martin, Roy Blunt, Jim Hoft, Adam Sharp, etc. etc. etc. And, for that matter, Dana Loesch is "stalking" Eric Boehlert and President Obama. She sure as hell would be "stalking" Russ Carnahan when she burned a picture of him and said, "This is how a fire smells when it's burning Tyranny" on this definition. But on the real definition, it's not stalking to criticize other people's political viewpoints that they state on blogs or on Twitter. Most people with even a modicum of intelligence realize that once you put a political opinion out on Twitter, people are going to read and respond to it. Likewise, it's not "libel" to use evidence to point out when other people are wrong.

As I say in the conversation, all of this blabber about "stalking" and "libel" is an attempt by Loesch to shut down political discourse, and shows just how scared she is of having people actually analyze her comments.

Loesch can't stand smart, well-informed people owning her in a debate, so she is a coward and is well-known for refusing to open up the comments on the Dana Radio blog and on her youtube page. Suprisingy, her show's facebook page allows comments (if you fan her).

She said I tried to expose "payola situations" and hence was "coming after her job." Well, sorry, but if her husband's business Shock City Studios gets $5,000 from Ed Martin and she fails to disclose that while giving Martin favorable coverage, then I'm going to mention it (BTW, Chad Garrison and another reporter who wasn't in a position to write about it agreed that this was a newsworthy story). It's called "a conflict of interest" and most people are capable of recognizing clear instances of it.

She thought she was clever by saying that the Congressional Black Caucus also made a video there so, "does that mean she's in the pocket of the CBC?" But, as I said in the video, I think the rules would be exactly the same. If she was reporting on the CBC, then she would have a duty to disclose that she had a financial conflict of interest. Transparency isn't only a good thing for the government. It's also quite an important feature of a well-functioning media. I tried to explain this to her but her Fox News Guide to Conversation kicked in and she simply ignored my point multiple times before changing the subject.

She says that I "attack them personally" but "never address the merits of their ideas." Hilarious.

Dana alluded to the right-wing conspiracy theory that health care reform is "unconstitutional." As I point out, this is not true according to the dominent interpretation of the commerce clause: While I agree that the recent commerce clause cases hold that Congress may not regulate noneconomic activity, as such, they also state that Congress may reach otherwise unregulable conduct as part of an overarching regulatory scheme, where the regulation of such conduct is necessary and proper to the success of such scheme. In this case, the overall scheme would involve the regulation of "commerce" as the Supreme Court has defined it for several decades, as it would involve the regulation of health care markets. And the success of such a regulatory scheme would depend upon requiring all to participate. (Among other things, if health care reform requires insurers to issue insurance to all comers, and prohibits refusals for pre-existing conditions, then a mandate is necessary to prevent opportunistic behavior by individuals who simply wait to purchase insurance until they get sick.)

The 2010 Health Care Reform Act, while not perfect, is a start.

Finally, her comment about "poll numbers" was a complete distraction. We were discussing whether the law was unconstitutional, not whether it was popular. Incidentally, the latest poll shows a very small difference between the number who view it favorably and those who view in unfavorably, 43-45.

Dana must've been using Biasmussen polls as usual.


http://stlactivisthub.blogspot.com/2010/09/conversation-with-dana-loesch.html





Also, this moron tried to claim 14,000 showed up, when in fact maybe 4,000 at the most showed up.

Bill Streeter said this to me on Twitter:

@JGibsonATRL my estimate is 3k on the high side (99% white) about 13 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone in reply to JGibsonATRL

Want further proof that the STL Tea Party kisses up to Roy Blunt:
A long while ago, the St. Louis took their shot at being a group that actually fought for the values they claimed to endorse. They held a press conference demanding that Roy Blunt endorse Doug Hoffman in the NY-23 race over Dede Scozzafava. They said that if he didn't, "We will vote you out! We will come at you with so much heat, you won't even know how to handle it!"

Roy Blunt didn't endorse Hoffman. He completely ignored the St. Louis tea party. And that was the moment that any claims the St. Louis tea party had of truly standing for conservative values rather than the same old GOP establishment faded away forever. The St. Louis tea party was broken.

Blunt's primary opponent Chuck Purgason did endorse Hoffman. But that didn't make any difference to the St. Louis tea party leadership. They still supported Roy Bailout Blunt, even as 28 other tea party groups around the state did not (and as, nationally, tea party groups took out Republican incumbents). At yesterday's tea party rally in St. Louis, the St. Louis tea party gave Blunt center stage.



http://stlactivisthub.blogspot.com/2010/09/st-louis-tea-party-decides-to-be-even.html

9/12 Teabagger Rally in STL: The STL Teabagger Hate Cabal's run-up + Tony Perkins claims that "Christian Television will be off the air"

The STL Teabagger Hate Cabal is leading the charge on that the "rallies aren't political," when fact they are really nothing more than anti-Democrat/Obama rallies, because they can't stand the fact that we have a duly elected Black Democratic president in office.

First, the Ultimate Satan of the St. Louis Area has this piece, intercepted by Adam Shriver.

Unintentional Irony Alert: The Astroturf St. Louis Tea Party

Dana Loesch was angry about the fact that singer Kim Massie backed out of the 9/12 tea party rally because she didn't want to be used as a political pawn, and had the following to say on her blog:

Something to note: Massie was invited by the Lt. Governor of Missouri and was reportedly excited to debut her song about 9/11 at the 9/12 event. It was never marketed as anything but a tea party event.

Sad that the left is so uncomfortable with the idea of a huge grassroots movement which isn’t under the sway of a political party.

So Loesch says that the tea party "isn't under the sway of a political party," just two sentences after noting that the Republican Lt. Governor was helping to book guests for the rally! When Republican politicians are scheduling your guests for you, yes you are under the sway of a political party!

The St. Louis tea party has been astroturf from the very start, and their support of Republican insiders like Roy Blunt and Ed Martin only reinforces that fact.

Kim Massie WILL NOT Perform at Tea Party Rally

Out of the long list of usual suspects who will be speaking at this Sunday's tea party, there was one pretty surprising guest: renowned vocalist Kim Massie. I guess we found out why: apparently, the tea party didn't inform her that this was going to be a political rally.

At least Kim Massie has the balls to say no to the hatemongers, unlike LaRussa and Pujols.



Next, the Astroturfing whacko Ed Martin had this from his blog:

I'm all for people sharing their memories of and reflections about the tragic events from September 11, 2001. It was a catastrophic loss of life and something that is indelibly imprinted on all Americans who lived through that time. Its anniversary should be an event that brings us together in mourning and contemplation, but unfortunately shameless politicians like Ed Martin try to exploit that tragedy to attack their political opponents. Check out these paragraphs from Martin's post today titled "September 11th – Nine Years Later:"
http://stlactivisthub.blogspot.com/2010/09/ed-martin-exploits-911-for-political.html
http://edmartinforcongress.com/3197/september-11th-nine-years-later/

Next up: Islamophobia at the 9/12 Teabagger Rally: They really are racist whackjobs who hate ANYTHING that isn't white, straight, Christian, Republican, and/or Conservative.

Tea Party Attendee: "Wish Me Luck and No Muslims"

A member of the Dallas tea party flying in to St. Louis for the 9/12 rally had this to say today:



Every one of these idiots is implying that ALL of Islam is evil. I have no idea how anyone could grow up in a population center like St. Louis or Dallas and be so completely ignorant about the fact that decent, hard-working, peaceful Muslims are integrated throughout American society. They have to be locking themselves in a basement 24 hours a day with a radio that only plays 97.1. And even that wouldn't work perfectly, since I heard Dave Glover on the radio making some reasonable comments as he guest hosted Glenn Beck's show. Honestly, I don't understand how people can be that clueless.

Anyway, if the tea party wants their claims to be "open-minded" and "tolerant" to be taken seriously, they need to condemn these types of comments at their rally.

http://stlactivisthub.blogspot.com/2010/09/tea-party.html


If you think that the Teabaggers are just "average Americans who are trying to save our freedoms," then you better think again with this next article in that the Astroturfed Tea Party is encouraging the use of Public Transportation after they demonized it back in April and in other past instances (St. Charles County back in the 90's, etc...)

Tea Party Asks People To Use The Light Rail They Tried to Destroy

Only a few months ago, the St. Louis tea party was screaming "SOCIALISM" and claiming that St. Louis did not have the population density to support light rail. They tried to block a sales tax increase that was needed to restore the public transportation system in St. Louis. Fortunately for them, their attempts to defeat EVIL SOCIALIST public transportation failed miserably, because they are now encouraging people to use MetroLink to get to the 9/12 rally:



http://stlactivisthub.blogspot.com/2010/09/tea-party-asks-people-to-use-light-rail.html


ThinkProgress has this dandy: Tony Perkins is falsely trying to claim that "TBN, Daystar, EWTN, INSP, TCT, the whole Right-Wing Pro-Israel Lobby Religious Networks will be shut down." In fact, that will NEVER happen, as long as greedy, Right-Wing Bible-thumping snakeoil preachers are making money. They also love to say that "The Liberals/Anti-Christians are taking our rights away to preach the 'truth' and throwing us in jail" nonsense. A preacher WON'T go to jail for preaching against abortion, homosexuality, etc...

TBN, Daystar, EWTN, TCT, CBN, and all of the countless other channels ARE aiding and abetting not only the GOP/Focus On The Family/First Things (who Hoft blogs for)-issued talking points, but also peddling the Creationist, Messianic Jewish (Daystar and TBN especially), and the Prosperity Gospel Movement.

When David Boies debated Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on Face The Nation, he pointed out that while “it’s easy to sit around and debate and throw around opinions, appeal to people’s fear and prejudice, cite studies that either don’t exist or don`t say what you say they do, in a court of law, you`ve got to come in and you`ve got to support those opinions.” “And what we saw at trial is that it`s very easy for the people who want to deprive gay and lesbian citizens the right to vote to make all sorts of statements and campaign literature, or in debates, where they can`t be cross-examined, but when they come into court and they have to support those opinions and they have to defend those opinions under oath and cross- examination, those opinions just melt away,” he said.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/09/09/perkins-religious-belief/