More baseless conspiracies from Loesch and Hoft: They falsely accuse the Ladue PD of "profiling Conservatives"

Today, we have more baseless conspiracies from St. Louis' duo of leading right-wing extremists to debunk: KFTK radio host Dana Loesch and Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft lying about the Ladue Police Department. Hoft went on The Dana Show today to explain his misleadingly false accusations that "Ladue PD were profiling Hoft because he was a Conservative".



From the 10.25.2012 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:



-==

Loesch's demented mobster Danahead trolls still attacking me on twitter for telling the truth about her

Looks like Dana Loesch and her band of sicko sycophants are attacking me for telling the truth about her and the rest of the corrupt Breitbart thugs who infiltrated the Netroots Network Convention.

.@jgibsondem called @DLoesch 'the moron infiltrator'. W/that statement JG concedes that #nn12 is a band of morons.
— TipOfTheSpear (@CHOWSTL) June 8, 2012

Blocked by .@JGibsonDem already..he's such a stand up guy.. fights his battles in mommys basement behind a keyboard. #Losercc @CHOWSTL
— Nancy Couch (@ShadowPatriot) June 8, 2012

Hey chubs, what's wrong with black people? @JGibsonDem
— Jack Tomczak (@JackTomczak) June 8, 2012

.@JGibsonDem Still hating on blacks in radio? #Racist @DLoesch
— TipOfTheSpear (@CHOWSTL) June 8, 2012

@CHOWSTL and yes, I called @jgibsondem Fatboy. It takes one to know one. @dloesch
— Carlos A. Leiva (@caleiva314) June 8, 2012

@CHOWSTL @JGibsonDem @DLoesch // @JGibsonDem is such a whiny brat. Mommy didnt hug him enough and his favorite troll left the basement.
— Nancy Couch (@ShadowPatriot) June 8, 2012

Someone shld let the maggot @JgibsonDem know the #wirecall is over, & he & his ilk got smashed to bits. He might want to change avi @dloesch
— Robert (@ARuffLife) June 8, 2012

@ShadowPatriot, .@JGibsonDem HATES his mother: bit.ly/GIjUmF @DLoesch
— TipOfTheSpear (@CHOWSTL) June 8, 2012

.@JGibsonDem 'Journalism student' hates black people : bit.ly/GIeojO and his mom: bit.ly/LfgusS @DLoesch @stlactivisthub
— TipOfTheSpear (@CHOWSTL) June 8, 2012

@ShadowPatriot You too huh?LOL @JGibsonDem is a pansy who can't handle the truth. @CHOWSTL
— Lorraine Yuriar (@thekytikat) June 8, 2012

Loesch herself got into these smears against me:

Hey @JGibsonDem , remember when you sent me a litany of death threats and I called the cops on you? twitpic.com/212udu Fun times.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 25, 2012

@CHOWSTL Did Justin say that before or after making another racist statement? I get confused.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) June 8, 2012

The racist Kos diarist Justin Gibson writes this, yet I'm the "moron": twitpic.com/1f1oft
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) June 8, 2012

My Rebuttal:

Lying RWNJ teabagger @dloesch still falsely attacking me because I tell the truth about this deceptive moron instagr.am/p/LoKJD7nRR0/
— Justin Gibson (@JGibsonDem) June 8, 2012

A look at Dana Loesch and the STLTP split-up

The St. Louis Activist Hub has reported extensively on Dana Loesch and Jim Hoft's exit from the astroturfed St. Louis Tea Party group. And now, RFT's Chad Garrison broke this news yesterday:

The co-founder of the St. Louis Tea Party has officially left the organization.

In a tweet this morning Dana Loesch writes: "Yes, I am finished with the St. Louis Tea Party. Not keen on grassroots organizing under a candidate, even unofficially. Never will be."

The St. Louis Tea Party this morning issued its own press release this morning, confirming the split. "The St. Louis Tea Party certainly benefited from Dana's rising stardom and talent," wrote St. Louis Tea Party board president, Bill Hennessy, who founded the organization along with Loesch in 2009. "And we can't help but think our energetic and effective grass roots have propelled Dana's career."

 Since helping to found the Tea Party, Loesch has had a meteoric rise on the political landscape, getting a job as a CNN pundit and editor of the right-wing website Big Journalism.

Daily RFT has messages out with Hennessy and Loesch for comment. At this point it's unclear exactly why Loesch left the organization, but Hennessy suggests in today's press release that the two leaders had different opinions on conservative candidates.


 Progressive blogger Adam Shriver, who often chronicles the goings-on the Tea Party, reported yesterday that Loesch and Hennessy disagreed on which Republican to support in Missouri's Second Congressional District, with Loesch backing the establishment candidate of Ann Wagner and Hennessy favoring Ed Martin.

Shriver also reported yesterday that Loesch's husband, Chris Loesch, demanded that the St. Louis Tea Party quit using the logo that he designed. That logo (right) no longer appears on the Tea Party site.

Loesch will do anything to further her career, even if that means abandoning her principles and throwing her friends under the bus. She is a GOP shill, while supposedly pretending to "hate all political parties equally." For this reason, she's known as Dana The Diva.

 The St. Louis Tea Party put out a press release today confirming what I reported yesterday: they broke up with Dana Loesch. Loesch, naturally, is convinced this proves how heroically principled she is:

 And, of course, there's the fact that the St. Louis tea party appeared to have violated their 501(c)4 by using their money to support Ed Martin's candidacy with advertisements. Oh, and by systematically putting their logos on "Taypayers for Ed Martin" signs. Did Loesch complain then about organizing for a candidate? Sure didn't.

It's funny. Loesch threw the St. Louis Bloggers Guild under the bus when she no longer needed them. She threw her former website designer under the bus when she no longer needed him. She pushed Gina Loudon out of the tea party. And now she's throwing the tea party under the bus cause they're a drag on her minor celebrity status. Amazingly, it's always someone else's fault.

 Dr. Gina Loudon still has a radio show on KJSL from 4-6 in St. Louis, and is a big-time Evangelical Conservative homophobic racist bigoted buttmunch kook.

Back to Loesch. Proof that she will do anything to gain influence in the conservative movement at large:

 This was a result of a fight between two different factions in the St. Louis Tea Party. One group (the Loeschs, Gateway Pundit, and Jen Ennenbach) supported GOP establishment candidate Ann Wagner (a candidate for the head of the RNC and the campaign chairman for Roy Blunt) and another group (John Burns, Ben Evans, Michelle Moore, Bill Hennessy, and Darin Morley) supporting nutty Ed Martin.

 For the record:

• Dana Loesch voted for Mitt Romney in the 2008 Republican primary.
• She explicitly said that she liked RomneyCare.
• She supported Roy Blunt over the more conservative Chuck Purgason for the U.S. Senate.
• She supported Ed Martin over John Wayne Tucker, and in fact attacked Tucker on her show after Ed Martin paid her husband to make a commercial for him.
• Now's she's supporting the ultimate GOP establishment candidate Ann Wagner over the comparably more conservative Ed Martin.
• Oh, and she's "edgy" for some reason.

 Her BFF, Jim Hoft, also decided to side with the establishment.

 Obviously, I have no love for Ed Martin. And I'm on record as being critical of the St. Louis Tea Party for claiming to be principled while supporting Roy Blunt over Chuck Purgason and Ed Martin over John Wayne Tucker. But I have to say I actually do have some sympathy for the core group that, unlike Dana Loesch and Jim Hoft, is at least attempting to move forward by holding true to their ideals and opposing the GOP establishment. Though I think they're wrong in believing that Ed Martin is a principled conservative, it is at least clear that they felt like voting for Blunt was merely an imperfect step towards their ultimate goal, and that they would have to try to more actively oppose the crony capitalism of the modern Republican party in the future if they really wanted to live up to their ideals.

On the other hand, Dana Loesch, who voted for Mitt Romney in the 2008 primary and explicitly said that she liked RomneyCare before realizing that it was more profitable to be a "tea party spokesperson" on national television, is unsurprisingly abandoning Ed Martin in favor of Roy Blunt's 2010 campaign manager, GOP insider Ann Wagner. And Jim "Gateway Pundit" Hoft, writing on Loesch's website Big Journalism, also recently launched an attack on Ed Martin. However, members of the St. Louis tea party leadership Michelle Moore, John Burns, and Ben Evans wrote a recent post dismantling Hoft's attacks on Martin. You can read the full post here, but I'll share a few highlights:

• First, they point out that Martin didn't turn the race ugly; he was actually the target of an attack from Dan Riehl earlier in the year on Breitbart's Big sites (where Loesch is an editor).
• They reiterate Darin Morley's point that it was ridiculous for Hoft to try to imply that Ed Martin is more connected to Roy Blunt than is Ann Wagner.
• They criticized Hoft's attempts to pretend that Wagner's husband is no longer involved in advocating on behalf of Enterprise Rent-a-Car:

  As everyone in the Tea Party knows Ray delisted himself in preparation for Ann’s campaign; however, he is still Enterprise's Government & Public Affairs Vice-President. In that capacity, he oversees Enterprise's lobbying and he helps determine where their campaign funds go. Again, Jim knows this, but deliberately ignores it in the post.

• They point out that Chip Gerdes, a familiar creepy scuzzbucket for readers of this blog, said that he wrote Dan Riehl's original attack on Ed Martin as a "warning shot:"

  As mentioned at the top, Hoft was quoted in the first hit piece against Ed Martin that came out last August on Big Government. That piece, supposedly written by Dan Riehl, sparked a firestorm among Tea Party conservatives in Missouri. Upon questioning, Chip Gerdes, another paid political consultant, stated that he wrote the piece as a “warning shot” to Ed Martin because of comments that Martin made on a Christian AM radio station.

• They also question where Hoft got his data and whether he even did his own writing:

  If Gerdes is writing hit pieces for Ann Wagner and publishing them under Dan Riehl’s name, what else has he written?...We ask: Where did those figures come from? Dan Riehl and Dana Loesch have written on Twitter and in Tea Party emails that hundreds of thousands of dollars were given to Ed Martin by Ann Wagner’s Enterprise connections. This has been proven false. Who gave Jim the data and where is it? Let’s see some research.

Could this be the beginning of the end of the Loesch Crime Mafia's (aka the Breitbart/Loesch/Hoft Axis of Evil) influence on St. Louis politics or will be the beginning of national prominence for her cronies? There might've been signs of this happening back in
 September 2010.

Follow-Up to Shriver vs. Loesch/Breitbart (100th post at DanaBusted)

Today, our friend at the St. Louis Activist Hub Adam Shriver released videos of Toilet Mouth and Senile Liar Dana Loesch telling blatant lies to her followers at the Move-On-Up Conference this past weekend. As we detailed here a day or two ago with the full video and information of Shriver confronting her and Andrew Breitbart-- which Shriver won. Meanwhile, Loesch was making up phony as hell claims such as "That WashU Stalker Blogger Adam Shriver was stalking my kids," "Shriver used WashU resources to defame me and other Teabaggers," and more ridiculous shit along those lines.

Here's Shriver's take on the follow-up:

A few clarifications about the press conference. First, the NAACP was one of the groups at the press conference, but the conference itself was actually composed of several different groups. Zaki Baruti, the guy who made the "Uncle Tom" comments because he believed that Gladney was faking his injuries and attacking the NAACP as a direct result of the fact that tea party and Breitbart's sites were continuously raising money for Gladney, might be a member of the local NAACP, but he's more commonly associated with the United African People's Organization (UAPO).

I distinctly remember being uncomfortable with the term, and in fact the video Breitbart's sites used to claim that the NAACP was "racist" proves that I did not laugh at the claim. In the video, I'm sitting immediately to the left of Zaki (from the viewer's perspective), and it's obvious that I don't laugh when he uses the terms "negro" or "Uncle Tom:"


It's pretty despicable for CNN contributor Dana Loesch to accuse someone of racism based on a completely dishonest claim about a video, but that's exactly what she does.

St. Louis's Most Despicable Toxic Liar falsely claims that "Shriver is a paid SEIU thug blogger."

So what's the evidence for this claim? Loesch says that SEIU "called me their blogger" at the same press conference referred to above. Actually, there were no employees from SEIU at the conference. Elston McCowan and Perry Molens were both former members of SEIU, and here's the video Loesch was basing her claims on.

McCowan and Molens were right, and Delusional Loesch was wrong.








Loesch falsely accuses Shriver of stalking her and her kids:

When I ask her what evidence she has for this obnoxious claims, she responsds, "you've clicked on the site where my children are at." Based on conversations with other tea partiers, I know that this obnoxious claim from Loesch comes from the fact that one time, after Loesch tweeted a link to her Mommy blog from her political twitter account, I linked to that post in one of my blog posts. You can read my post here.

It's pretty amazing that CNN allows their name to be dragged into the mud and slime by paying Loesch as a "political analyst."

These clips are all proof that Dana Loesch is an ultra-right wing psycho. And why would Emmis (who owns KFTK, KHITS, KPNT, and KSHE in the St. Louis market) lets her spew her filth on two stations (KFTK [her home station] and WIBC) for 2 hours per day, 10 hours per week, called The Dana Show? Why in God's name does CNN continue to allow her on the air as a paid "contributor" to say disgusting, false, and loonytunes statements without challenge?

This is the blog's 100th blogpost, which started about a year ago.

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."

Dana Loesch = DIVA!

If you want proof that Dana Loesch is an arrogant lying Diva, then look no further than this posting:

Trouble in Tea Party Land?

Is St. Louis big enough for two tea party divas? There was an extremely interesting comment the other day that read as follows: There sure was a big distance between Dana and Gina Loudon that day. Later Gina had on her Facebook wall:

Loesch bills herself as the "conservative alternative to old white dudes." Gina Loudon says she's the, "the freshest conservative, Christian voice in the St. Louis area." Hmmm, sounds kinda similar to me. Is Dana peeved that Loudon is copying her schtick? Knowing Loesch, she's probably threatened to sue for copyright infringement about 10 times by now.

Dana trying to play her "Liberals are using Obama = Hitler imagery" Card again: It's the LaRouchists and Teabaggers doing it.

The Tea Party Guide to Thoughtful Political Discussion

Dana Loesch had a post up yesterday bragging about how the tea party "polices" their rallies because they asked a guy to remove a Hitler picture from his sign:


It's pretty funny that Loesch would brag about that, considering that she defended a billboard comparing Obama to Hitler back in July, on Red Eye:



It's actually not the first time she forgot her previous ridiculous comments, claiming in August that all Hitler comparisons were from left wing plants.

More crap from @DLoesch on Twitter:

Will @debbiehalvorson condemn the behavior of her campaigners after they protested with Palin, et al. Nazi signs? http://bit.ly/9d3dOl #tcot

Dana Loesch on Good Morning America against James Carville (Carville pwns Loesch):



Loesch is playing the "Liberals = Trolls/Stalkers" Card again (which she has referred to me, Adam Shriver, and a lot of Liberals):

Guy is threatening to come to the station. This is what progressives do. This is how they act. And they will never repudiate.
Just had a hatemailer threaten my children and am contacting authorities NOW. WTF pricks?

Where are the feminists when yet another conservative female is threatened? Oh, right, heads up asses. Great job, gals.

Okay, nobody should threaten @dloesch's children, even though she habitually threatens people's jobs (which threatens THEIR children). 8:24 AM Sep 17th via web, theboneblog

Eric Boehler of MMfA calls her on it:

Why is RW nut @DLoesch stalking me? http://su.pr/1fjfbl

Dana Loesch on Fixed and Fools:



Dana Loesch also is blaming Liberals for an assassination attempt on Jay Nixon (D).

Wow. Our prayers are with the college dean as he recovers and his family.

What’s that? Another case of leftist violence?

Can we get some folks on the left to calm down their rhetoric and CHILL OUT?

Who's the ones doing all (or most of it) the violence? The Teabaggers.

The rebuttal from Chad Garrison over at Daily RFT.

Casey Brezik: Paranoid Schizophrenic Intended to Kill Gov. Jay Nixon

By Chad Garrison, Thu., Sep. 16 2010 @ 7:41AM

The man who allegedly stabbed a community college official on Tuesday just before a scheduled appearance of Governor Jay Nixon had intended to kill the governor.

The Kansas City Star reports that 22-year-old Casey Brezik, a student at Metropolitan Community College -- Penn Vally, thought he had stabbed the governor and was disappointed when learning that the victim was actually the school's dean of instruction, Al Dimmit Jr., who survived the attack.

The paper reports that Brezik was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia several years ago and had only recently enrolled at the community college. His family says Brezik has a habit of writing anti-government rants on his Facebook page. In 2007 he was committed to mental hospitals at least four times and convicted of drug possession. He wears an anarchist symbol tattoo on his arm.


She falsely claims that Karl Rove is a RINO, when in fact Rove is nothing but a dirty huckster who belongs in jail.

The 09.15.2010 edition of Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN transcript with Loesch, Castellanos, and Spitzer segment

COOPER: Well, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine is -- says he's loving the GOP turmoil.

He told The New York Times -- and I quote -- "Republicans thought they were embracing the Tea Party, and, at times, it turns into the Donner Party."

Despite Democratic hopes of Republican cannibalism, however, the enthusiasm and energy of Tea Party supporters should worry Democrats in November.

Joining me now is Eliot Spitzer, former New York governor and co- host of CNN's new program Parker Spitzer.

Also tonight, Republican consultant and political contributor Alex Castellanos and blogger and radio host Dana Loesch, who is also the co-organizer of the St. Louis Tea Party Coalition.

Appreciate all of you being with being us.

Eliot, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said -- and I quote -- "that shows there's a very vociferous debate going on inside the Republican Party for the hearts and minds of Republican voters." Is he right?

ELIOT SPITZER (D), FORMER NEW YORK GOVERNOR: Well, of course he's right, but he's also the victim of that debate, because that debate has created enthusiasm, energy.

The Tea Party is taking over the Republican Party in many states -- in Delaware, not so clear. But, right now, the Democrats are saying, we're no longer setting the agenda. And the fear the Democrats have is that this enthusiasm, even for candidates who Karl Rove admits are not credible, from many other perspectives, may continue through November, and this could be a tsunami that nobody could possibly have predicted.

COOPER: Dana, do you think O'Donnell is credible? Do you think she can win?

DANA LOESCH, ORGANIZER, ST. LOUIS TEA PARTY COALITION: I do think she can win. I think she can win as soon as Karl -- people like Karl Rove stop going on television and trying to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

We haven't even begun to try yet. I liked Michael Steele's approach. And I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think Karl Rove could possibly take some notes from how Michael Steele approached this.

But that doesn't help, going on camera saying that a candidate isn't credible and just -- and talking about how, well, it took her two decades to pay off her college loans. Well, forgive her for not being rich, like you, Karl Rove, but it doesn't really -- you want to talk about winning moderates and independents, that's not the way you go about it.

It's really bizarre.

SPITZER: That's not the only measure of credibility. I don't think Karl Rove is focusing -- is focusing exclusively on, can she win?

I think there's a reputational harm that he is worried about, when the Republican Party that has a Mike Castle, who has been a serious, thoughtful public servant, is defeated by somebody whose views on issues seem to be so completely disparate and far afield from normal ideas that are tethered to fact and reason.

I think that is what Karl Rove is scared about. There's a reputational hit the Republican Party will really suffer from if they embrace candidates like this.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Alex, are you concerned about this?

ALEX CASTELLANOS, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: No, I think it's -- I think it demonstrates a lot of energy in the Republican Party. Look, this is an anti-establishment year, anti-Washington year. People look at all these -- these qualified people we have in Washington and working together in a bipartisan way.

And in a bipartisan way they've spent the country into bankruptcy. They've put us in debt for -- that will take forever to pay. So they want it to stop.

And that's what you're seeing, I think, this year is a -- is a populist, a revolt against the establishment of both parties. And they've just eaten the Republican establishment for a snack. Now dinnertime is November, and only Democrats are going to be on the menu.

SPITZER: Well, you know, that's a great metaphor and I applaud you for it. The problem is that the closest metaphor I think many people can see historically is to the Know Nothing Party, the Know Nothing Party of the 1840s and '50s, which was a populist uprising of anger and venom against the establishment. It burned out pretty quickly when economic times returned to normal. In that case it was anti-immigrant fervor.

CASTELLANOS: I think there's another historical precedent, Governor Spitzer. I think there's a much larger -- excuse me. I think there's a much larger historical precedent, and that's a country that was founded -- founded by a group of people that didn't want to be told what to do by an elite royalty that thought it had the answer to everything.

And right now Washington is doing that. It's bankrupted the country. And people are really concerned about it. I think the Republican Party just got a wake-up call that said, "Look, we don't want to send a message out that says we're more concerned about keeping our power in Washington than to listen to Republicans."

COOPER: Dana -- Dana, do you think it's going to burn out in any way?

LOESCH: I don't think it's going to burn out. And I want to -- Mr. Spitzer said something that was very interesting, that this isn't tethered in fact or reality.

I have to point out that Mike Castle is a very incredibly -- he's a very established beltway candidate for sure, but he's also a candidate whose record differed from where the majority of Americans polled, where they fall.

The majority of people are more identifying with the grassroots movement than they are with people like Mike Castle. I mean, there was a Rasmussen poll that was taken just -- I believe it was in August, where something like 75 percent of -- or thought of the American people thought that the congressional Democrat agenda was too extreme.

And then you look at all of the tracking that has been taking place. Gallup released a poll also in August showing that the majority of independents, they are favoring the Republican Party, meaning they're favoring the grassroots conservative candidates that are really actually providing a difference in parties.

SPITZER: You're talking...

LOESCH: Mike Castle is Democrat light.

SPITZER: You're talking -- you're talking very persuasively about poll numbers. I'm not talking now about poll numbers or what might happen in a moment in one election at one moment in time.

What I'm talking about is the seriousness of confronting deficits with policies that will really do something about it. A Bill Clinton who gave us a surplus versus George Bush, whose tax cuts created this. And so I think the difference is certain objective facts that, at the end of the day, will emerge that will shed light -- I think Ron Paul is a fascinating guy, but when he says Keynesianism is dead, he just is simply fundamentally wrong. What is dead is...

LOESCH: Castle...

SPITZER: ... the procession of libertarianism that he was a proponent of that took us over the cliff in terms of an economic crisis as close to a depression as we've had in 80 years.

LOESCH: And TARP Has been supporting policies which tripled our deficits.

CASTELLANOS: I'm sorry. Excuse me, but look, there's something out there happening that's much bigger than the Tea Party. The Tea Party is certainly a part of it, but when you look around the country, there's a new generation of Republican candidates out there.

You have independent business women outsiders in California, Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire. You have Bob McDonnell in Virginia; Chris Christi in New Jersey; Scott, Massachusetts.

All these new candidates have one thing in common. They're outsiders. They're fresh faces. And they don't want to grow Washington's economy; they want to grow America's economy. They want to stop taking money out of the American people's economy and sending it to Washington.

SPITZER: Let me make something very clear.

CASTELLANOS: The Tea Party is the easiest part to focus on, because it's got the brightest feathers and is the most colorful, but it's much bigger than that. That's why Republicans are probably going to gain something like 52, 53 seats.

SPITZER: Alex, I could not agree with you more.

CASTELLANOS: Ask Americans about Keynesianism being dead. They're voting on it this election. SPITZER: Well, I could not agree with you more about growing the private sector and private sector job creation versus government. And in fact, that is what smart politics is all about.

What I'm saying is the policies coming out of the Tea Party are simply so disassociated from reality in terms of what it takes to do it. And if you sit down with a Meg Whitman; you sit down with business leaders who have grown business, who have run businesses, they will tell you that what the Tea Party is talking about and what Ron Paul is talking about is simply contrary to good economics.

And I would suggest to you the nations right now whose growth is outstripping us by huge margins, whether it's India, Vietnam, Japan, even France and Germany, you look at what they're doing, in fact I think you would find out that your perspective is being proven dead wrong by what economics is working.

COOPER: I want to give Dana the last thought.

CASTELLANOS: The Democrats...

LOESCH: Excuse me, with all due respect, though, you can't -- you can't say that economic policy which talks about spending billions of dollars for yet another stimulus after we spent 11 frillion [SIC] dollars for yet another stimulus that contributed to the deficit, that contributed to high unemployment. You can't say that that's good economic policy. And those are all things which the grassroots movement is vehemently against.

SPITZER: The underlying -- if I could just...

LOESCH: That's not good economics, that's irresponsible and that's fact.

SPITZER: I know Anderson -- The reason that was necessary, unfortunately, was because of the deregulatory policies, libertarian policies that were put in place by Tea Party-like false regulators like Alan Greenspan and Larry...

LOESCH: You mean like Chris Dodd? Because he was...

SPITZER: Absolutely. Yes, absolutely.

LOESCH: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and things like that.

SPITZER: I agree with that. That was not genuine government smart policy. I agree with that critique.

CASTELLANOS: Spitzer, advice to Democrats, spend more. I love it.

SPITZER: It's not spending. It took years to do it. What you're saying simply doesn't work.

LOESCH: ... to keep going.

COOPER: Good to have you on. Alex Castellanos, Eliot Spitzer, thanks very much.

A quick reminder. Don't miss Parker Spitzer right here on CNN, 8 Eastern Time October 4, every weekday thereafter until the competition cries uncle, I guess.

Still ahead on 360, a revelation that has Pennsylvania's governor fuming. It's one thing to keep an eye on potential terrorists but another to conduct surveillance on ordinary Americans. We're going to tell you what this is all about and the fallout that's followed.

Plus BP back on the hot seat. Tony Hayward grilled in London, insisting that short cuts were not taken to save money. Back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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/