Loesch falsely accuses OccupySTL of special treatment

The lying liar from St. Louis is back again, demonizing Occupy protestors as a "bunch of ACORN-funded thugs" in her blog over at Big Government. 

For the past few weeks, a small group of rag-tag occupiers have set up a shanty town in Keiner Plaza, the site of many St. Louis Tea Party rallies. They have done so without a permit and without insurance — things the city demanded of the St. Louis Tea Party before they were allowed use of the space. Demonstrators plug their laptops and space heaters into the park’s power outlets. Should an accident occur, the lack of insurance will place the city on the hook for liability. Yesterday in an interview with Mayor Slay’s spokesman Jeff Rainford, I learned that the city isn’t exactly keen to bring the group into compliance with the law.

The cost for renting out Keiner Plaza isn’t cheap, though not as expensive as permits for usage of federal park space. A letter to my STLTP Co-Founder Bill Hennessy detailed a list of actionable and monetary requirements before the city would allow an August 4th, 2011 Tea Party event to take place:

Page two:

The city should have evicted the occupiers when the free permit was refused and city law broken. When the St. Louis Tea Party lost its insurance the night before the November 2009 protest, we had to scramble to replace it, or the city would have disallowed the demonstration. Rainford’s excuse for the city’s allowance for breaking the law was that the occupy group may not have beeen able to afford the permit, but they were able to afford a Cardinals World Series sign.

 Rainford tried to make this about protecting free speech, so if it is, why then was the city less interested in the Tea Party’s free speech? Why did the city demand that the Tea Party pay for their free speech via permits and insurance while giving the occupiers a pass? Why did the city attempt to withhold the Tea Party’s right to free speech and peaceful assembly by revoking use of Keiner the night before a rally due to insurance? By Rainford’s logic, that would be the promotion of one group over another before the law, which itself is a violation of civil rights.

So the city is refusing to enforce the law because the self-described “peaceful” occupy group may act like domestic terrorists and riot and damage property? Isn’t that more reason to stop this now? The city makes itself a larger accessory the more this continues.

 Typical lying nonsense from Dana Loesch regarding the Occupy movement.

Now the bigger question is why the hell did Slay's Chief of Staff Jeff Rainford go on KFTK's The Dana Show?

 Adam Shriver at our sister blog, the St. Louis Activist Hub, has more:

First, Mayor Slay's Chief of Staff Jeff Rainford copied Dana Loesch's inflammatory rhetoric against OccupySTL, ridiculously claiming that the group was "unruly" and falsely suggesting that they were relieving themselves all over Kiener Plaza rather than in the port-o-potty's provided by local unions:

Jeff Rainford, Slay's chief of staff, said the camps are getting unruly, the plaza is beginning to smell like urine, and a few were recently arrested for public intoxication.

Then, Rainford mimicked Loesch again by seemingly suggesting that the OccupySTL group might want violence:

"All I'm trying to do is to keep this from becoming Oakland," he said. "I'm trying to get this solved with no violence."

Still, he said, he understood that the occupiers may not have the same plans

So I guess it really should be no surprise that Rainford decided to appear on Loesch's radio show today to explain why the city has decided they need to kick the Occupy group out of Kiener Plaza. After all, Loesch has been trying to portray the campers at Kiener as filthy, violent, parasite-infested, astroturf, drug-crazed, sexual deviants from the very beginning, so it makes perfect sense that Rainford would help provide validation to St. Louis's Queen of Hate Radio.

From the 11.07.2011 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:

Dana Loesch and other Conservatives complain about Tea Party's so-called snub for Time's Person Of The Year

We have more whining from selfish spoiled brat Dana Loesch, this time whining about how the Tea Party didn't get Time's Person Of The Year award for the 2nd year in a row. Her Big Journalism blog had a crow over Mark Zuckerberg being named Person of the Year, which he deserved.

A nice, safe, inconsequential choice? Time couldn’t bring themselves to award information distributor, worshipper of hubris, self-styled rockstar Julian Assange the nod, though he dominated Internet voting. Of course, they couldn’t bring themselves to give the award to the tea party even though the tea party changed the course and discourse of a nation in a single year.

Media Matters and Time magazine itself debunks the spin that that "Tea Party was snubbed," by pointing out that they were also in the running for Time's Person Of The Year.

The surprising thing about the Tea Party movement is how many experts were surprised by it. The U.S. has always been home to a large group of people who think the government is too big and spends too much. Why wouldn't those people rise up when the already gargantuan federal deficit more than tripled seemingly overnight? Some lexicographers say refudiate was the word of the year, but for sheer political impact, it's hard to top the word trillion.

The Tea Party victories didn't magically heal the age-old divisions of the right. Senator-elect Rand Paul, the movement's flag bearer in Kentucky, is the son of libertarian icon Representative Ron Paul of Texas. Dad has often split with the neocons of the Republican Party over military interventions around the world. Like father, like son? For that matter, how will the hands-off libertarians get along with the factions of the GOP that want to enforce drug laws and ban abortion and same-sex marriage? Already the self-proclaimed Tea Party Caucus of the House of Representatives is clashing with GOP leaders over how to pursue repeal of the Obama health care law. Should the new Congress propose an alternative medical system or take a harder line: Just keep the government out?

Far more likely is a long, closely fought race, which means sharply targeted efforts by skilled, well-funded candidates to split the GOP into blocs and win voters one faction at a time. Today's cracks in the Tea Party facade will be probed and wedged open. Traditional conservative divisions — libertarians, Evangelicals, corporate interests, Joe Lunch Bucket — that were masked while everyone banded together against Obama could return. Only now, every faction will be able to stake a claim to the Tea Party mantle, having served the movement in the Great Midterm War.

MMfA notes that the Tea Party was a runner-up, in lieu of being on the Finalists list.

Tea Party Was Chosen As Runner-Up Even Though It Was Not On Finalists List. The Tea Party was not on Time's list of 25 finalist candidates, though the other three runners-up were.

Dana Loesch: Certified Insane

As everyone knows, Dana Loesch is a certified lunatic and a modern-day version of Phyllis Schlafly. She was on her high horse being a baby when things don't go her way.


Dana The Diva doing her "Libel and Defamation Card" routine.

From the St. Louis Activist Hub's article entitled: Is Dana Loesch suing herself for libel

Dana Loesch was upset about my previous post pointing out her criticisms of third party candidates, so she went back to her dusty old bag of tricks:

Blah blah, libel, defamation, blah. At this point, is there anyone in St. Louis who hasn't been accused of libel and defamation by Loesch?

From the 11.03.2010 edition of The Dana Show:


Even prominent Conservatives went after Dana Loesch for her remarks about Hedrick and Ivanovich costing Martin a seat in Congress.

The tea party does not tolerate dissent, especially from other conservatives.Recently, a local conservative on Twitter criticized Loesch for attacking third parties. Loesch responded by claiming that he didn't know what he was talking about, and that he should listen to her radio show before he said anything. Here's the conversation (in reverse chronological order):

Bungalow Bill, another conservative, criticized Loesch for blindly supporting a "joke" like Ed Martin:

I first heard Dana Loesch speak at the Branson Tea Party earlier in April. I was inspired by her passion, but today I am conflicted with her blind enthusiasm for a GOP that also turned its back on the Constitution. Totally ignoring what a joke Ed Martin was claiming to be Constitutional conservative, Loesh blames the Constitution and Libertarian parties for Russ Carnahan's win.

He quotes Loesch as saying the following:

Good job constitution partry and libertarian party candidates. How does it feel to be solely responsible, along with massive fraud, in possibly handing a victory to a Carnahan? Livid at these foilers. LIVID. Your strategy sucks. You wanted liberty and you got socialism because you have no idea how the hell to win.

And then Bill responds:

It's no wonder the Tea Parties on a path to fail. They would rather compromise with a GOP guilty of killing the Constitution than take a real stand. I know I won't be attending another Tea Party in which Dana Loesch speaks at. It's just like Tera Sukman over at the Tea Party Patriot HQ who doesn't even have the clarity to see the sins of the GOP as she labels Roy Blunt as a Constitutional conservative.

God bless you Libertarians and Constitutional Party members for doing something most Americans don't have the guts enough to do. Vote against both parties which have violated our Constitution. I know I did this year and it felt great to break the shackles of the Republican Party. Screw Dana Loesch and her ignorant comments!

Loesch's fellow employee and former KMOV journalist Jamie Allman slams her and Hennessy.
From the 11.04.2010 edition of Allman In The Morning:


Dana may as well be getting coal for Christmas.

==
From the 11.05.2010 edition of AC360:


As expected, Paul Begala owned Dana Loesch. Loesch was repeating her own falsehood-laden talking points.

Transcript:
KAYE: It looks like job one, as they say in the auto industry, will not be jobs but health care repeal. Or else. The New York Times reporting the pressure is on from Dick Armey's FreedomWorks which was a big supporter of Tea Party candidates during the campaign. A FreedomWorks memo being sent to all incoming House Republicans, it says in part, "Politically speaking, your only choice is to get on offense and start moving boldly ahead to repeal, replace and defund Obama care in 2011, or risk rejection by the voters in 2012".

And one footnote, there is new economic data out tonight. It shows private sector job growth for the fourth straight month but the unemployment rate stuck at 9.6 percent.

Joining us now, Democratic strategist Paul Begala and Dana Loesch, blogger and talk radio host and co-organizer of the St. Louis Tea Party Coalition.

Paul, let's start with you. Will we see a fresh GOP move to repeal health care, do you think?

PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Oh, I think so. I think -- I -- I do think, in fairness to the Republicans, many of them and probably most of them, did campaign promising to repeal Obama care. They're not going to be able to do it, and they knew it when they said that. Our Constitutional system does not allow one Party and one House to repeal legislation. They know that the Senate would never pass repeal, these new House Republicans, so they know the president would never sign it.

So it's a bit of a false promise to begin with. But I do think they risk being wound around the axle of a year-long fight trying to undo or defund Obama care when in fact people do want jobs. I hope the president will step into that breach with the new ideas, with new proposals to create jobs and -- and make that contrast. Democrats can then be for jobs and let the Republicans be for trying to empower insurance companies to -- to have more control over your life.

KAYE: And Dana isn't this really what happened to President Obama? He said we could do both jobs and health care but the perception politically that his energy was split, it cost him, and the fact is, as Paul said, Republicans don't control the Senate. They can't repeal this bill. So was this really a genuine promise on their part?

DANA LOESCH, BLOGGER, TALK RADIO HOST: I do believe so. I mean, there's a lot of things that the Constitution doesn't necessarily provide for, including what we saw the -- the -- the thing with the commerce clause and the health control law.

But at the same time, when we listen to everything that Nancy Pelosi said and everything that President Obama said, Nancy Pelosi herself on video, it's all over YouTube, saying that the health care bill will bring about four million jobs or some such. Health care is tied so closely to jobs.

So while I think it's really important for Republicans to focus on the economy and make things easier, lessen up so that these businesses can create jobs, you also have to note that health care has been so unbelievably wound in with jobs that -- I mean you kind of have to address both sort of simultaneously.

KAYE: So if nothing changes, are you saying voters will be happy with just a symbolic gesture?

LOESCH: Oh, no, voters are not going to be happy with just a symbolic gesture. Republicans need to go whole hog with this. They really do. They need to put forth more than just a symbolic gesture. And I think their -- their speech has been strong, but whether or not they're going to follow that up in the next couple of years, that remains to be seen.

KAYE: And Paul, let's talk about --

BEGALA: And here's -- here --

KAYE: -- go ahead.

BEGALA: -- here's my proposal, and maybe Dana will agree to it -- with this.

These Republicans who ran, they said they hated Obama care, they hate government-funded, government-guaranteed, government-mandated health care. They can't repeal it but you know what they can do, repeal their own.

So repeal your own, Mr. Speaker Boehner, Mr. Speaker to-be- Boehner. They can decline to accept the Congressional health care package, which is a really generous package of health care coverage, paid for by the taxpayers, guaranteed by the government. So they could at least repeal their own. And they should become the change they seek. They should lead by example and reject government-funded health care for themselves and their family.

How is that, Dana? Don't you think they should do that? Because it's socialism you know.

LOESCH: Well, Democrats -- the Democrats exempted themselves from this law. Democrats already exempted themselves from this law.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: Well, that's -- that's not true -- actually. That's actually not true. That's actually not true. But -- but shouldn't they --

(CROSSTALK)

LOESCH: Oh, so they are going to subject themselves to it, then?

(CROSSTALK) BEGALA: -- shouldn't they -- shouldn't repeal their own health care.

LOESCH: So you're saying that it's not true, so are Democrats going to subject themselves to this legislation then?

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: Right. Well, of course they are. They're covered by it. They're -- they're going to be covered by the law. There was --

(CROSSTALK)

LOESCH: So -- so if they choose to not go on government care, will they accept the penalties that go along with that when those are enacted?

BEGALA: Dana, here is my point. The Republicans say they hate government health care. Democrats like it, so of course they're going to accept it. Why don't the Republicans decline -- why does not John Boehner who has almost 20 years now been on government health care, why doesn't he decline it? Because it's good. That's why. It's a heck of a good policy.

(CROSSTALK)

LOESCH: Well, why don't we just actually -- why don't we rework it and make it -- Paul, why don't we rework it and have actual good health care that really addresses being able to have affordable insurance and across state lines.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: It's fine, repeal their own law, it is -- it's pernicious socialism. Oh, scary.

(CROSSTALK)

LOESCH: Why can't we address that, let's be serious for a moment and let's really address the problem.

KAYE: All right, you two. Let me -- let me jump in here for just a second.

One thing the GOP could try and do is -- is defund health care. Could we see a government shutdown possibly, Paul?

BEGALA: Oh, definitely. Yes. You're going to see a government shutdown and then maybe, you know, impeachment. And there's nothing going to stop these folks.

LOESCH: Impeachment?

BEGALA: They -- they have -- oh, sure. You watch. Hide and watch. There's already -- Rush Limbaugh has called for it, Mr. Beck, who's this -- this TV clown over at Fox News has called for it. LOESCH: Oh, come on.

BEGALA: A whole variety -- by the way, about a third of Republicans back in March before the negative ads and everything, back in March, one-third of Republicans, 38 percent, actually, in a Harris poll said they wanted to see Obama impeached.

So they'll get to that. But they'll start with the government shutdown. Sure they will. Now, they -- they have that power under the Constitution. The president, I doubt, would go along with some of their kind of radical plans and so we -- I -- I think we definitely, late 2011, you're looking at a government shutdown.

KAYE: Dana --

LOESCH: I think it will be gridlock. I do think it will be gridlock.

KAYE: You do.

LOESCH: But shutdown, I'm not so sure. Yes.

KAYE: Do you think that -- that -- that -- I mean voters are saying, that we -- that we saw the numbers in the -- in the intro, I mean, a very small minority of the voters are saying that health care is their top priority.

LOESCH: Right.

KAYE: So is this a push that's really more about scoring political points than -- than really addressing the country's priorities?

LOESCH: Yes and no. I think one of the reasons that Republicans are prioritizing this is because the -- the Grassroots Movement which really sustained the life of the Republican Party this past couple of years I think that they're sort of -- it's sort of a gesture towards the Grassroots but at the same time I think that they recognize some of the unconstitutionality of the provisions that were included in the law to begin with.

But at the same time, it is unbelievably tight with jobs. You're talking about the Congressional -- the Congressional Budgetary Office is just -- I think like this year they released a report, their economic report, which said that this could cost up to 800,000 jobs. That's more than like Ford, GM and Chrysler combined. You have 550,000 union workers with those three auto plants. That's -- that's more than those -- that's more than that combined.

So that's, when you're talking about jobs, when you're talking about the economy, that absolutely has to factor in. But at the same time, I think that there's a million things that we could do in the interim before we really go aggressively and look at health reform, and -- and talk about remedying things to -- to increase jobs, and like the Bush tax cuts, for instance after the first of the year. That's -- that's one of many steps that could be taken. KAYE: All right, Paul, Dana, stick around.

Let us know what you think. Join the live chat now under way at AC360.com.

Up next, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann has done plenty of complaining about money and politics. Tonight, he is on suspension without pay for injecting money into politics. We'll explain.

Later, the $200 million myth: conservative talk radio slamming President Obama's trip to Asia, saying it's costing $200 million a day. They don't have the facts to back it up and they also don't have our Ed Henry who will join us from Mumbai, India, after doing a little price checking of his own.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: We ordinarily don't talk much about the competition around here, but, tonight, it seems like everybody is.

Keith Olbermann, who anchors Countdown over at MSNBC, is off the air, suspended indefinitely without pay. You'll see why in just a moment.

First, you should know that he is a vocal critic of money in politics, especially big corporate money, especially undisclosed money.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST, COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN: Fox has not only employed numerous Republican politicians, at least two of whom actually were Republican governors, many of whom are active GOP fund-raisers on air and off, but many of its media employees have also raised money for the party or openly campaigned for or endorsed Republican candidates.

We now have another million reasons Fox News is the Republican news channel, correct?

Congressman Clyburn, is there a legislative response to the idea that there is a national cable news outlet that goes beyond having a point of view, and actually starts to shill for partisan causes and actually starts to donate to partisan groups of one party?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: That's Keith Olbermann railing against media figures spending money to influence politics without disclosing it. He gets pretty worked up about it.

With that in mind, take a look at a bit of some interviews he did with Raul Grijalva, a Democratic congressman from Arizona.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Congressman, good to talk to you again.

REP. RAUL GRIJALVA (D), ARIZONA: Good to talk to you, my friend.

OLBERMANN: Congressman Raul Grijalva, who is one of the great representatives of that state. Great thanks for some of your time tonight. Good luck with this, and we will stay in touch with you on it, if we can.

GRIJALVA: Thank you very much.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: Very friendly, very complimentary. In fact, you would be hard-pressed to find an interview in which the two men disagree on anything, which is not unusual. Congressman Grijalva is a friend of "Countdown" and, by all appearances Keith Olbermann is a friend of the congressman.

What is unusual and until undisclosed is this. Keith Olbermann was also a donor to Mr. Grijalva's campaign this year. In a statement to Politico, Olbermann writes: "One week ago, on the night of Thursday October 28th, 2010, after a discussion with a friend about the state of politics in Arizona, I donated $2,400 each to the re-election campaigns of Democratic Representatives Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords."

He goes on: "I also donated the same amount to the campaign of Democratic senatorial candidate Jack Conway in Kentucky."

The revelation, prompting quick action from his boss. Said MSNBC president Phil Griffin in a statement today: "I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay."

Before taking this any further, some disclosure of our own: All three parent companies of all three cable news outlets give hundreds of thousands of dollars to candidates and political parties, Democratic and Republican. As a matter of policy, neither CNN, nor MSNBC permit employees to do the same, with the exception of our political contributors. And, there, we try to be as up-front and open as we can about any conflicts of interest.

But Keith Olbermann was not up-front, while expecting others to be.

Back now with our panel, Paul Begala, Dana Loesch, also Joan Walsh, editor of Salon.com and, a few years back, Keith Olbermann's editor.

Paul, let's start with you once again.

Keith's criticisms of the -- of News Corporations' political contributions seem utterly hypocritical, now that it's clear that he's done the very same thing, would you say?

BEGALA: Well, I -- you know, I don't know. The guy, he's a liberal, obviously, and he gave money to liberals. Congressman Grijalva is the Chairman of the Progressive Caucus. And Keith's a progressive.

I suppose, you know, what's fair for one -- obviously, you know, he did criticize Fox News, which gave $1 million. And that was apparently legal under the Citizens United ruling from the Supreme Court. So, I guess it's -- you know, it's not my network. It's not my job. It seems to me an employment dispute. There was a rule there.

MSNBC apparently says he violated that rule, so I guess they are going to sanction him for it. But -- but I don't know. I just -- to me, it's not all that big a deal.

KAYE: You're not surprised at all? And you don't think anybody would be surprised --

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: Right. I would be surprised --

(CROSSTALK)

KAYE: -- given that he --

(CROSSTALK)

KAYE: -- views on the air?

BEGALA: Yes. I would be surprised if he gave money to Michele Bachmann, one of the leaders of the conservative movement in the Congress.

But it seems to me like, dog -- not even dog bites man. It's like dog barks. What the heck?

KAYE: Joan, you're the editor of a liberal publication, and you know Keith. But you think the decision to suspend him may actually be the right one. Explain.

JOAN WALSH, EDITOR IN CHIEF, SALON.COM: Well, I -- I think that there are still a lot of questions open, Randi.

There is a question about whether everyone knew that this policy of NBC News actually applied to MSNBC. There's some reporting on that today that said it -- it didn't necessarily apply. And Keith has not spoken since the Politico story. And Phil Griffin has not spoken. So, the actual clarity of the policy is now in dispute.

There's also a question, did it apply to CNBC? Because we've got plenty of hosts over at CNBC who -- Larry Kudlow, the main one, who have also contributed to Republicans.

So, you know, and I think NBC and -- and MSNBC are going to have to answer some more questions about whether this rule, if it was a rule, was applied fairly. There are other hosts. My friend -- again, my friend -- full disclosure -- Joe Scarborough, gave money to a Republican. Pat Buchanan gave money to a Republican.

So, there seems to be now a lot of murkiness about what NBC's policy actually was and when it began. And I'm not going to judge Keith at this point without having more answers to those questions.

KAYE: And Dana, we know you don't see eye to eye with Keith on many things, so it may come as a surprise to people that you actually don't agree with the decision to suspend him.

LOESCH: Well, I think as -- honestly, I'm trying to figure out what all the drama's about. For anyone to be surprised that Keith Olbermann would donate to -- to congressional Democratic campaigns is -- if you're shocked, I have a bridge to sell you.

And plus, GE owns NBC, and I know that they contribute to organizations and causes and campaigns and all of that nature. But, at the same time, to me, I -- I kind of side with Paul on this, in that this seems to be a rule that a private business had, and if anything, it would be insubordination, if that.

I think the thing that -- I don't know -- I don't really quite understand why anyone's shocked over this, unless they think it's a credibility thing. But I don't look at Keith Olbermann as a news anchor. I look at him as sort of an editorial-like figure. And so, I think, because of that, I don't understand the drama. I just don't see the need for it.

KAYE: Well, I think the drama or the shock goes back to the idea that he didn't disclose it. It wasn't that he gave money to these people.

LOESCH: Right. Well, yes, right.

KAYE: It was that he didn't disclose it after criticizing News Corporation.

(CROSSTALK)

WALSH: Right.

(CROSSTALK)

LOESCH: Yes, it was completely hypocritical. But --

(CROSSTALK)

WALSH: Disclosure is an issue. And I'll -- I'll just stand up for -- you know, Salon actually has a policy of not allowing editorial employees to contribute to political campaigns.

And I'll tell you why. It's important to us to be a news organization. And also, even though we are liberal, liberals disagree. So, you know, back in the 2008 campaign, I didn't want the problem of somebody reporting on Barack Obama, but having given to Hillary Clinton or vice versa. So, there are reasons to have those policies. But, if have you them, they should be crystal-clear and they should apply to everyone, and there should be no ambiguity.

So, is it in Keith's contract? I would ask that. I would just ask how widely this policy was known about and how -- how fairly it was enforced at this point.

BEGALA: Right and --

(CROSSTALK)

LOESCH: Well, and I have an addendum to this, too.

(CROSSTALK)

LOESCH: Go ahead, Paul.

WALSH: Paul.

BEGALA: Go ahead, Dana.

LOESCH: Oh, I was just going to say --

BEGALA: The reporting I have seen suggests that --

(CROSSTALK)

KAYE: One of you wrap this up for us.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: I think -- the reporting I have seen says the policy is that not that one cannot donate, but that one must disclose it to MSNBC or NBC bosses and then get permission.

So, maybe that explains the disparity that -- the allegations are that apparently Mr. Olbermann didn't get his bosses' permission before he donated --

(CROSSTALK)

WALSH: Well, that's --

(CROSSTALK)

WALSH: My understanding, Paul, is that that's the NBC policy and so one of the disputes is whether that even applied at all to MSNBC.

(CROSSTALK)

WALSH: And I'm sorry to come on here and be, like, not as informed as I would like to be, but nobody's informed right now about this.

BEGALA: Right. WALSH: That's going to be the thing that we keep talking about.

LOESCH: Well, from -- from what I looked at it --

(CROSSTALK)

KAYE: Well, when we see their policy, I'm sure we will get some answers.

(CROSSTALK)

LOESCH: Well, the statement given by his boss --

KAYE: What was that, Dana?

LOESCH: -- the statement that was given by his superior said that it could also be applicable on a case-by-case basis.

But the bottom line is that Olbermann's bosses didn't know about it until the Politico piece ran.

WALSH: Right.

BEGALA: Right.

LOESCH: So, he possibly could have gotten permission from them. But --

WALSH: Right.

KAYE: Well, we will -- we will know when --

LOESCH: We don't know. We never will.

KAYE: -- when all sides start talking, we hope.

We'll -- we'll stay on this, I'm sure.

Dana, Joan, Paul, thanks very much, as always.

WALSH: Thanks.

KAYE: Up next: We're one step ahead of President Obama with a live report from India, where he will be staying and where critics are trying to claim it'll be costing taxpayers $200 million a day. We will separate fact from myth -- straight ahead.

Later, we'll talk with Sean Penn in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, about the storm coming through, on top of the cholera outbreak and all of that earthquake damage.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

More Dana Loesch insanity

We got even more Dana Loesch insanity for you: My earlier blogpost says that Loesch should be fired from Emmis. She WILL the The Big Tool of the Week and likely Assclown on the Week.

Adam Shriver of the St. Louis Activist Hub had this:

More From Loesch: If MoveOn.org Was "Chivalrous," They Wouldn't Let Women Attend Political Events

I wrote earlier about how horrible human being Dana Loesch demanded that a MoveOn activist apologize for having her head stomped on by an angry Rand Paul supporter while being held on the ground by other Paulites.

Now Loesch is doubling down, claiming that MoveOn wasn't "chivalrous" because they didn't prevent a woman from attending a political debate:

She's still harping about "'Union Thugs' beating up Gladney" nonsense.

Adam Shriver of the St. Louis Activist Hub calls her bullshit out.

Dana Loesch, who really does not actually know very much about the Kenneth Gladney case (as evidenced by her embarrassing attacks on a local county counselor), has recently been spreading more verifiable misinformation about the altercation. Pointing out some of these falsehoods will serve as a nice reminder of some of the main flaws in treating the police report on the incident as gospel. In fact, the police report contains several falsehoods and is based entirely on the testimony of biased tea party activists. As stated by someone arguing with Loesch on Twitter:

The record that debunks Dana's lies: http://www.scribd.com/doc/31481339/Records-Letter

Even more nonsense from Liar Loesch claiming that "Conservatives got beaten up for being Conservative."

That, as we will see, is particularly salient in this case, but first I'll focus on some of Loesch's specific falsehoods. For starters, Loesch repeatedly claimed that Kelly Owens was "beaten" and "punched in the face." And, in fact, the police report also states that Owens was hit in the face. However, in an extended video from the night that includes Owens being interviewed by the police, Owens specifically responds, when asked by the police where she was hit, that her camera was hit which in turn hit her face. So she was not "punched in the face," and she certainly was not "beaten." Now, I'm certainly not saying that Cheryl Joiner's act of hitting Owens' camera was OK. Joiner was wrong to do that and I'm glad that charges were filed. However, to claim that a simple act of slapping a camera is the same thing as beating someone or punching them in the face, and specifically as being in the same category as stomping on a woman's neck, is just plain wrong.

So, just to review:

We have at least three central claims in the police report being directly contradicted by video evidence from the scene or later interviews with the same witnesses.

We also have only three "witnesses" who didn't actually witness the fight starting and who all happen to be tea partiers with clear ideological agendas.

And finally we have a ridiculous arrest of Post-Dispatch reporter Jake Wagman by the same police during the same events.

Show Me Progress had this to say:

UPDATED: Expecting to hear crickets

by: Clark

Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 12:36:22 PM CDT

The only thing I've seen from St. Louis Tea Party blogs on the brutal attack on the MoveOn supporter at the Rand Paul rally was a couple of posts by Jim Hoft essentially claiming that Paul supporters were forced to drag the woman to the ground and step on her head.

Loesch wants to start trouble on her BigJournalism blog:

If she didn’t want to be restrained she shouldn’t have gone with the intent to start trouble, but congressional members also need to provide their own security. Sure, the man shouldn’t have placed his foot on her head. Me writing that just now is more than Soros employees Eric Boehlert and his Soros crew over at Media Matters will ever say on Kenneth Gladney and Kelly Owens, two victims of actual violence. They’re too busy defending the people who beat them, mocking and slurring the victims. Boehlert is terrified to touch the subject of Kelly Owens’ beating because he’s more concerned with making sure he remains popular amongst an organization that would condone the beating of women and minorities.

People like this fraudster Dana Loesch are the scum of the earth and should go to Hell. I hear there's a room for her down there next to Breitfart and James O'Keefe. Also, for any aspiring musician in St. Louis, boycott Shock City Music because it is owned by Dana's jerkass husband, Chris.

Dana Loesch being a racist yet again, lying about the NAACP

In today's BigJournalism (aka BigFraudulism) entry by Teabagger Dana Loesch, she falsely claims that the NAACP are "racists". Let's not forget her pal Jim Hoft's own problems on this topic.

Third Time’s a Charm? NAACP’s Latest Tea Party Smear

Posted by Dana Loesch Oct 20th 2010 at 8:13 am

The NAACP is back again with yet another attempt to defame and smear the multicultural tea party movement.

Strike 1: July 2010 the NAACP’s demand for tea party racism repudiation fell flat when video emerged the day before showing an NAACP press conference where the victim of a racially-motivated crime was mocked, called an “uncle Tom,” slurred, and had his melanin content questioned.
trike 2: The NAACP releases teapartytracker.org, a website devoted to all things tea party extremist.

NAACP “proof” of tea party extremism:

Still no word from the NAACP on BushHitler.

STRIKE 3: The NAACP realized their mistake with the last statement and this time brought in the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights. The IREHR is a group comprised of liberal journalists and activists who are led by ideology and seek to use their bias against conservatives as a fulcrum to further push apart the country. I would bet that most – I really believe all but I’m being generous – have never been to a tea party event like UCLA grad student Emily Ekins.

Yes, I remember that when a far-left “reporter” asked the SPLC to comment on local television if they thought that I and St. Louis Tea Party Co-Founder Bill Hennessy were Klansmen because of our belief in more individual liberty.

You get the idea.

In St. Louis the local NAACP sent out a press release – yes, the same NAACP who publicly mocked and used slurs against Kenneth Gladney, the man beaten in the parking lot of a Russ Carnahan townhall by SEIU workers (Kelly Owens was punched in the face, police witnesses, on camera, by a woman with SEIU) and essentially stated at their press conference that Gladney wasn’t black enough for the NAACP’s help.

What Loesch did was make excuses for White Supremacy.

Today's TeaPartyNationalism.com report had this regarding the STL Tea Party:

The St. Louis Tea Party passed a resolution which included language that: “The very term ‘racist’ has diminished meaning due to its overuse by political partisans including members of the NAACP.”240

Must Read: Tea Party Nationalism Report

It is here, at the conjunction of nativism, opposition to birthright citizenship, the denigration
of President Obama, and the fear of the new majority in American life, that the unstated racism
embedded within the Tea Parties becomes vocal and unmistakable.

The Tea Party Caucus:
Name Party State Dist HIRC MEM HR 1868 Co-Sponsor
Robert Aderholt R AL 4 YES NO
Roscoe Bartlett R MD 6 YES YES
Trent Franks R AZ 2 YES YES
Pete Hoekstra R MI 2 YES NO
John Shadegg R AZ 3 YES YES
Michele Bachmann R MN 6 YES NO
Wally Herger R CA 2 YES YES
Todd Akin R MO 2 YES YES
Tom McClintock R CA 4 NO YES
Blaine Luetkemeyer R MO 9 YES NO
Gary Miller R CA 42 YES YES
Gregg Harper R MS 3 NO NO
Ed Royce R CA 40 YES YES
Denny Rehberg R MT At-large NO NO
Mike Coffman R CO 6 YES YES
Howard Coble R NC 6 YES YES
Doug Lamborn R CO 5 YES YES
Sue Wilkins Myrick R NC 9 YES YES
Gus Bilirakis R FL 9 YES YES
Adrian Smith R NE 3 YES YES
Ander Crenshaw R FL 4 NO YES
Joe Wilson R S C 2 YES YES
Cliff Stearns R FL 6 YES YES
Phil Roe R TN 1 YES NO
Paul Broun R GA 10 YES YES
Zach Wamp R TN 3 YES YES
Phil Gingrey R GA 11 YES YES
Joe Barton R TX 6 YES NO
Tom Graves R GA 9 NO NO
Michael Burgess R TX 26 YES YES
Tom Price R GA 6 YES YES


===

This is further proof that she is deliberately race-baiting to provoke her fanbase.

= UPDATE: She labeled me as a "Liberal momma's basement stalker" and this blog as "mommasbasement.blogspot.com". the real url for this site is danabusted.blogspot.com.

LOESCH: "...They had it all, you guys, they had it all. They're gonna need therapy, and I don't get yous all too optimistic and not vote. I want to win and leave corpses in my wake. Let's see how that's spun on mommasbasement.blogspot.com. Imagine-- you know why I say that are like, wait a minute, 'I play that game.' I'm not talking about you guys, being that because that you are Conservative and all, obviously have lives, girlfriends, and get laid. So you have children, family, and all of that, so it's okay. I'm not talking about you. You guys know who I'm talking about: mommasbasement.blogspot.com. That's not even a real url. Someone's gonna create it. I'm positive.

DanaBusted.com EXCLUSIVE: Jimi971/WaxStax, Dana's BFF, has called me a stalker, etc...

Recently, Jimi971 is attacking me as an "Unstable Leftist" and other crap that is lie-based.


From STLMedia.net, where some of the posters are calling me a "Moonbat", a "Loon", and even as far as a "Mama's Basement-type stalker", simply for telling it like it is about their favorite Diva Dana Loesch (or any Republican/Conservative for that matter):

WaxStax: It's obvious "death threat boy" that your obsession clouds your senses. How can anyone who threatens, stalks, and makes a baffoon of himself daily in regards to Loesch, hold any credibility in any forum? People on this board that are or have been in the business, know exactly the obsessive type you are. You need help dude.

ThxWaxStax

Gibson? Do you realize that Shriver apparently has disowned you? As I've read anyway? Why don't you stop leaning on him to justify your obsessions with Dana? Even Shriver as left as he is thinks you're "batshit crazy" as you say right?

As for the 9/12 rally? What were you actually watching there? I was there... Shriver the boy, got reprimanded from a grown woman... Were you there Justin? Or were you in your mama's basement waiting on your chicken noodle soup from Mama?

ThxWaxStax

WaxStax (aka @Jimi971), you are lying about Shriver disowning me. He has NOT disowned me. Why don't YOU stop leaning on your BFF Dana for every last bit of political advice and to justifying YOUR stalkerish behavior towards Liberals like Me, Shriver, Jaco, etc?

Waxxy...can you dump this Gibson guy? He has a sick obsession with Dana that goes beyond mere disagreement with her politics. I have read some of his stuff elsewhere and quite frankly, he is nuts.



FanOfRams: By the way Gibson you Moonbat, the word "owned" is in the eye of the beholder. Your "evidence" is useless.

WaxStax: Oh no I'm not going to dump him, I'm dragging this clown out....

Anything else Justin?
http://stlmedia.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=emmis&thread=8293&page=1#82385

Twitter: Jimi971 STILL won't shut up about @STLActivistHub attempting to disown me.

1. Jimi971
   @jgibsondem I would again suggest that @stlactivisthub get rid of this clown Justin. He is a time bomb to ruin credibility for sure... 9 minutes ago via web in reply to JGibsonDem
   • Reply
   • Retweet
2. Jimi971
   @JGibsonDem Justin you idiot, do you think I care if my name is know on a fucking message board? Everyone there knows my name you child. 13 minutes ago via web in reply to JGibsonDem

@stlactivisthub Did you not see the Tweet of Gibsons' that I put out here of blatantly racist comments from him? Yet you FF'd him?

@stlactivisthub @LiberalStLouis I'm glad you agree Adam. Don't let Gibson tie you two together. BTW- JC is an ego-maniac, but talented.
@LiberalStLouis @stlactivisthub Sure. Yet Adam is linked by this guy daily.Leans on Adam to justify his own sorry blog,using Adam. He Hates

@LiberalStLouis @stlactivisthub @DLoesch No and I agree, that's why I wish that Shriver would pay attn to JGibson who is over the top...


Adam Shriver backs up the truth here, and Jimi/WaxStax is clearly fibbing:

@Jimi971 Happy to talk about that, but I'm noting that you have *not* been able to defend @gatewaypundit linking to white supremacist sites.

@Jimi971 I have never said Hoft is racist. I have said that his behavior of linking to white supremacist web sites is reprehensible.

@Jimi971 Hoft was told repeatedly that he was linking to white supremacist sites, yet he kept up the links.

@Jimi971 However, you and @dloesch posted a video of other people laughing at it, and falsely implied that it showed that *I* was laughing.

LiberalStLouis, who's following me on Twitter, said this:
@Jimi971 @stlactivisthub Like I said, we can denounce (which I do) but in the end it's on Gibson. 9:56 PM Oct 7th via web in reply to Jimi971

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/