Guess who was back on CNN yesterday morning? If you've guessed the Antichrist of St. Louis, Dana Loesch, you're right. She was her doing her usual interrupt the others and spew out blatant falsehoods unchecked routine.
COSTELLO: It is time for "Political Buzz." A lightning-fast conversation hitting the hot political topics of the day. Each of our brilliant political observers get 20 seconds to answer three probing questions. Dana Loesch is a Tea Party supporter and conservative. Cornell Belcher leans left, and comedian Pete Dominick is back to lend his own unique perspective.
Welcome! ok. On to the first question. The United States has handed over the reins to NATO in Libya. Senator McCain says it's time the U.S. retakes control. Does America need to flex its muscle in Tripoli? Dana?
DANA LOESCH, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, NATO is the United States. So, essentially what we have done here, Carol, is just transfer control from one hand to the other. And I don't really think -- I've never thought that she would have been involved in Libya because Libya and what is happening there is a civil interest and that has no immediate threat to the sovereignty or safety of the United States.
COSTELLO: Cornell?
CORNELL BELCHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I'm going to -- I'm going to agree here. I think it's interesting. We already have two wars that we haven't paid for, and the interesting thing is Afghanistan has become as unpopular as Iraq. So, now we want to double down on that and get involved in Libya? I don't think so. I don't think the American public has the stomach for it.
COSTELLO: Pete?
PETE DOMINICK, COMEDIAN: Well I think Cornell and Dana are both pretty right on. What is our record of success in our recent military intervention? I'm talking about the last 50 years. With all due respect to Senator McCain and his service to our country and in the Senate, how many times does he have to be wrong on foreign policy before we go to other people? Going to Senator McCain on foreign policy is like going to Alan Greenspan on economics. You've been wrong a lot -
(BUZZER SOUNDS)
DOMINICK: We could listen to others.
COSTELLO: Thanks to all. Second question. Another Wikileaks dump. This time on Guantanamo. Do they strengthen the administration's decision to keep it open? Cornell?
BELCHER: Well, it's a real gray area here. I mean, the truth of the matter is when you look at what's happening, there's some dangerous people there. I think what bothers a lot of Americans, and not just, you know, those progressive Americans, but a lot of red- blooded Americans, is this idea that there's no due process. Can we keep this open and still ensure due process?
The other big thing about this is Wikileaks are endangering Americans with this continual leaking. This sort of stuff should not be out in the open, what they're leaking.
(BUZZER SOUNDS)
COSTELLO: Dana?
LOESCH: Well, this is so weird this morning. I agree but kind of disagree with Cornell in that I think it does become a gray area. But at the same time, there's terrorists, they're suspected of terrorist activity if not outright caught in the act. So, there is no due process because they're not American citizens.
That being said, if you look at the number of detainees who, when they were released, like we had one, Ali Al Sayed, who was released to -
(BUZZER SOUNDS)
LOESCH: -- Saudi Arabia and re-education camp, he joined al Qaeda.
COSTELLO: Right. Went on to do some bad stuff. Pete?
DOMINICK: I couldn't disagree more with both these guys, my friends here. The level of criminality at this camp, we now know, is even worse than even its harshest critics were predicting. This is terrible. What Wikileaks is really exposing what the government is doing. These are government documents. I would beg all of our viewers to go read "The New York Times" or "The Guardian's" article so you can find what your taxpayer money is supporting in Guantanamo Bay -
(BUZZER SOUNDS)
DOMINICK: -- which all the --
COSTELLO: OK, third question. A group of Christian leaders lobbying Congress by asking lawmakers what would Jesus cut? You know, as far as the budget goes, what would Jesus cut? Effective or crass? Dana?
LOESCH: Oh, I think it's incredibly crass. And I have to question these religious leaders. I've always said that big government is the moral failing of man. Because when you have good government that takes away the desire for voluntary charity, you are changing something about humanity. You're changing their desire to do it themselves. And as Christian leaders, they should be encouraging people to get involved and volunteer in charity instead of adhere to the government reappropriation of it. COSTELLO: Cornell?
BELCHER: I don't even know who Dana is anymore.
(LAUGHTER)
BELCHER: I agree. Although -- I'll go the middle role. I know it's not effective because the bottom line is these leaders are going to do what they think is right. And obviously, oftentimes, the politician who is wearing his religiosity on the sleeve is often the one who is enforcing the draconian cuts -
(BUZZER SOUNDS)
COSTELLO: Oh, out of time. I'm sorry! Pete?
DOMINICK: Well, listen, nearly every member of Congress claims to be a Christian. If you think a budget for your home or for the government is considered a moral document, I don't think Jesus would have made the cuts that Congress is making. And it's a check on your conscience.
I think it's sad when an agnostic comedian is ten times more Christian than so many people in Congress act like they are. That's me, by the way.
COSTELLO: "Political Buzz." Fun as always. Dana, Cornell, Pete, thank you so much. We'll see you again on Friday.
Last Friday at the Indianapolis Tea Party, which had Dana Loesch as the keynote speaker, had only between 250-330 people at the event, down from 2,000+ over a year ago. Why? Because even the Tea Partiers over there knew that Loesch was an RNC hack pretending to be a Teahadist. She was repeating the same old bogus lying crap, spouting out about those "trust fund Socialists." Dana was indeed born with a silver spoon in her mouth, and she likes to claim that she grew up poor (when in fact people in this country grew up even poorer than her). She IS indeed a prostitute for the Republican Party, when she claims that she hates political parties.
Image: FuzzyConservative.com
For Christ's sake, she is an embarrassment to ANY intelligent person.
Donald Trump appeared on The Dana Show today. Trump, of course, was on his bash Obama at all costs mode. Trump said that "I would NOT take votes from Obama, but from the GOP nominee." He is also a known birther. He also made a surprise visit to the2011 CPAC meeting.
From the 04.13.2011 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:
Last night on Anderson Cooper 360, Dana Loesch went back on the show, along with her counterparts (who are much more informed) David Gergen and Cornell Belcher. Why the hell does CNN (and Anderson Cooper) allow her on to spew numerous falsehoods that usually go unchecked. She went to her usual: acting rude and childish when others are speaking, tell numerous lies, and whatnot.
CNN is already trying to look like Fox-lite on a regular basis and their hire of Dana Loesch just looks like one more step in that direction. I thought their hire of Erick Erickson was bad until they decided that we somehow need to hear on a regular basis the political insights of that know-nothing, astroturf “tea party” leader, Andrew Breitbart buddy and embarrassment to the city of St. Louis, Dana Loesch.
Anderson Cooper had her on as a member of a panel to discuss what sort of fights we might be in for with raising the debt ceiling and the recent agreement made to finally get a budget voted on for last year, and par for the course, she had nothing to add to the discussion other than far-right-wing talking points and apparently a complete lack of understanding about the services Planned Parenthood provides to low-income women who have nowhere else to turn in their areas for health care, and just how dangerous it is playing chicken with defaulting on our debt.
From the 04.11.2011 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:
Transcript:
COOPER: Well, we're talking in depth tonight about the next big showdown between the White House and Republicans in Congress. President Obama expected to lay out his budget-cutting approach on Wednesday this week.
There's a Republican outline already on the table with major spending cuts and changes eliminating Medicare, replacing it with government vouchers to buy private health insurance. But before any of that is decided there is the debt ceiling vote.
Back now with David Gergen, and joining us CNN contributor and Democratic pollster who worked for the Obama campaign and will again in 2012 Cornell Belcher. Also Dana Loesch, CNN contributor, Tea Party organizer, and editor of BigJournalism.com.
So, Cornell, President Obama had hoped for what they call a clean bill on this debt ceiling, a bill without riders that the Republicans would put in. He's not going to get that.
CORNELL BELCHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: No, I don't think he's going to get it. And it's going to be another battle. But again, I think the more sort of the way the Tea Partiers are really dominating the conversation on the Republican side, and sort of their extreme agenda where we see, you know, everything from wanting to do away with the EPA to wanting to do away with health care for women under Planned Parenthood, I mean, all these riders and all these sort of extreme sort of social issues, you know, mingling with the fiscal issues hasn't been a winner. I think the president in this battle actually came out looking like even more like the adult in the room willing to compromise. And I think he will again on the issues of the debt ceiling.
COOPER: But, Dana, you obviously see it very differently. Why have these riders? Why not have a clean up and down vote?
DANA LOESCH, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I wish we, I wish we could just all get on the same page and not have and not increase the debt ceiling. But I think when we have to -- when we have to discuss about reducing spending, we have to start cutting somewhere, and I don't know why Planned Parenthood is always used as an excuse because that's not the only outlet that women have, low-income women, to go and get health services.
There's the women's health program that's already in Medicare that's subsidized by the government. So we already have that kind of taken care of. But I do think that it's going to be a huge battle and I don't think that it comes to social issues. I think, bottom line, and this is what the grassroots movement has only ever wanted, is to see some fiscal restraint. I hope that we can get both parties agreeing on this.
COOPER: Do you oppose raising the debt ceiling?
LOESCH: Completely. Absolutely, I do. I look at precedent.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: Even though economists say, look -- economists would say look, it would be catastrophic, apocalyptic, you say what, that's fear mongering?
LOESCH: Actually, I do. Some economists have said that that -- that it would be apocalyptic. But others have not so much. I look at precedents. We have raised the debt ceiling 74 times since 1962. And in 10 of those incidents occurred in just the last decade.
Now, every single one of those times that we have raised the debt ceiling, we have never taken the initiative to actually reduce our spending. It just is an excuse to keep spending more and more and to continue to add to our deficit. And I don't see how doing it again would be any different.
I'm all -- I'm completely opposed to it, because I think there's a number of ways that we can -- a number of methods that we can employ in order to bail ourselves out and take financial accountability besides that.
COOPER: David? BELCHER: Really quickly -- but really quickly, here's the problem. And I'm sorry, David. Really quickly, here's the problem. OK. You've got to deal with $100 billion in either cuts or tax increases if you -- if you don't raise the debt ceiling. This is something -- I mean, this is real here.
So OK, so you're going to cut -- you're going to make $100 billion in cuts in you don't raise the debt ceiling? That's nonsensical.
COOPER: David?
LOESCH: Well no, I...
COOPER: Well, let David...
GERGEN: If I could just say a word. I just want to come out on the debt ceiling itself. The debt ceiling is what -- under the debt ceiling you borrow money. They have to raise the debt ceiling in order to borrow money. If we run deficits, the government will have to borrow more money. And therefore, you have to raise the debt ceiling.
Under Paul Ryan's plan, this bold proposal -- I disagree with it, but I concede that it's very bold -- under the Paul Ryan plan, the government does not balance its books. It continues to have to borrow money until 2040. Of course we have to raise the debt ceiling.
The question is what Republicans can extract as a deal to raise the debt ceiling. Everybody agrees you've got to raise it. The question is sort of under what conditions? What are the conditions under which we go forward?
LOESCH: Right.
GERGEN: Do we, in fact, try to really have dramatic cuts in spending or increases in taxes? Or do we just go on willy-nilly and let the debt pile up. which would be extremely dangerous for the country?
BELCHER: But David, the Tea Party...
LOESCH: I want to make a quick point about Paul Ryan's plan as well.
BELCHER: The Tea Party argue that...
COOPER: I'm sorry. Cornell, then Dana...
BELCHER: Real quick and I'll give you-- I'll give you...
LOESCH: I want to make a quick point about that. I want to point out, please. I want to...
COOPER: You're both talking. No one's going to listen. Dana go and then Cornell. LOESCH: I want to make a quick point about Paul Ryan's plan. I'm actually not in 100 percent agreement of it for some of the reasons that David mentioned. Plus, I think it's a huge gamble, because in order to have a balanced budget in 26 years, all of the variables have to stay exactly the same. The economic variables, everything. And I think it's really, really risky.
But I look at it like this. I think Tim Pawlenty had a really good idea when he was talking about using April and June revenues to pay off America's creditors and then, in the meantime, slash spending.
The only way that we're going to be able to not raise the debt ceiling is to make massive, massive cuts in spending. I completely agree with that. And we're not going to be able to raise revenue by having public sector capital grabs. It has to come from the private sector. That has to come from making permanent tax cuts.
COOPER: Cornell?
LOESCH: That's how we have to do it.
COOPER: Cornell?
BELCHER: Well, I just don't think it's practical. If you're talking about sort of the level of cuts that you have to make in order for us not to raise the debt ceiling, you're talking about destroying our economic future. You're talking about taking the economy and putting it into a nose dive again. You cannot cut over $100 billion away from the federal deficit all at one time and not have economic catastrophe. You just can't.
COOPER: David, Cornell was saying he feels that President Obama kind of came out a victor from last week by being above the fray. Do you agree with that?
GERGEN: No. I don't think anybody won that, Anderson. The public CNN poll does approve of what was done. They give a little more credit to the Democrats and to President Obama than they give to president -- than they give to Republicans.
But if you look at President Obama's approval rating, it actually went down slightly in this poll. So I think this came out sort of to be a wash. I think everybody -- I think everybody was -- I didn't meet anybody -- everybody I met was relieved that they reached an agreement. I didn't meet anybody who was really applauding wildly.
COOPER: Dana, who do you think came out ahead, if anybody, from last week?
LOESCH: Oh, man. I know the right is really, really split on the deals that have been made by Boehner, and I'm a little disappointed. I understand that, all in all, there was only -- you could only cut from 260-some-odd billion on the table, and they ended up with give or take like 40-something billion.
But I think, ultimately, the Tea Party came out to be a little victorious because now we have the president and his administration talking about make cuts to entitlement. And that's really, really huge, especially considering where we were in this discussion just a couple of years ago.
COOPER: David, I sort of see you shaking your head.
GERGEN: Well, I'll let Cornell go. I just disagree with some of that. Look, I think Boehner came out as well as the Tea Party, he brought discipline to his party. There was never $240 billion on the table. The most Republicans were asking for. Back during the elections was $100 billion cuts. Then they lowered it to 60, and they got 38 on the 60.
It seems like a pretty good deal for -- you know, if you're a minority party in Washington. But even so, I don't -- I think we ought to move forward, not backward about -- on these deficit questions.
LOESCH: Right. And...
BELCHER: I will...
LOESCH: I'd like to correct one...
BELCHER: I also...
LOESCH: Sorry, go ahead.
COOPER: I was just going to say I'm talking about after you pass three CRs ands then after you took the 850 billion in defense off of the table, in all, in order to -- the piece of the pie, there was 260 something that could have been cut that they chose to cut from. And they ended up with the figure that they did. That was the point.
COOPER: Cornell, I'm going to give you the final thought.
BELCHER: Really quick here, I think I do have to take my hat off to Speaker Boehner because I think he did sort of -- he did have the tiger by the tail here and it was interesting that Michele Bachmann who I think of as sort of the Tea Party leader in Congress walked out on the Republican conference when this deal was cut.
However, I will say that I think the president does come out looking better on this. I mean, the margin between Dems' approval on this deal and the Republicans' approval on this deal is ten points. I think the president and Democrats come out a little bit better in this.
COOPER: Cornell Belcher, Dana Loesch, appreciate it. David Gergen, as well.
Coming up, the breaking news. The late and frankly chilling word we've been expecting from Japanese nuclear officials. Details on that next.
If CNN MUST have a Teahadist on, it should have someone more qualified and professionally behaved than Dana Loesch. If you think Dana Loesch has ruined the show, contact the AC360 show and ask them to start doing a little more research about their guests' backgrounds, and particularly Loesch's disturbing background. And no, getting a "career highlights" sheet from their publicist doesn't count. Please answer respectfully.
Loesch was also scheduled to be on Anderson Cooper 360 last night, but thankfully CNN canned her at the last moment and replaced by another Conservative, Susan Molinari, who was a GOP Congresscritter from New York. She is supposed to appear on CBS's The Early Show later today (check local listings, airs on KMOV at 7-9AM CDT) and on CNN later this afternoon.
Of course, she did the usual routine of talking over the others when they're speaking. Eliot Spitzer put her in her place when she claimed that the "Government should shut down due to Planned Parenthood holding up everything." No, the GOP would've been blamed if there was a shutdown, which was temporarily averted just before 10:00PM CDT last night. Better yet, Planned Parenthood was NOT cut.
From Mediaite, which is usually not liberal at all:
Speier, you may recall, delivered a wrenching account of her own abortion on the floor of the House in February, and is a passionate defender of abortion rights, and women’s health. Loesch is the Editor in Chief of Andrew Breitbart’s Big Journalism, and no stranger to fighting the Tea Party fight. The combination of two passionate advocates produced sparks, with Loesch in a particularly strident mood, but just as the debate over funding Planned Parenthood reached a fever pitch, Spitzer stepped in with a devastating point.
From the 04.08.2011 edition of CNN's In The Arena:
The above vignette is the only reason I can infer why neither outlet said much, if anything about the protesters killing the victims.
Is anyone else tired of the OUTRAGE! that zealous communities like these exhibit anytime anything remotely controversial occurs involving their religion? So someone burned your holy book. Someone put Christ in a jar of urine and called it “art.” Did you see any headlines like “Remedial Hipster Art Students Beheaded?” No, no you didn’t. Of course, these communities have OUTRAGE! if someone so much as draws their god.
So, pray tell, who burned the Koran that resulted in 9/11? Who burned the Koran that caused the USS Cole bombing? Pan Am Flight 103? Embassy bombings? Fort Hood? The snipers in Washington, D.C?
Are people too scared to say that a group of violent people, looking to perpetuate violence on anyone and will use any incident as a crutch to do so, are responsible for their own actions, thus these deaths? Are people too afraid of looking like bigots (that and “racist” are the new terms to describe anyone who disagrees with left-leaning ideology, replacing “dissenter”) or are they afraid that said group of people will enact the same crime upon them as was done to the victims in this story?
In the past few days, Dana Loesch has been busted telling numerous lies, including, but not limited to: Planned Parenthood,Eric Boehlert, and Liberals in general.
Just recently, on her fraud blog at Big Hackulism, she played up the "Liberals hate Sarah Palin" Card here:
Jim Geraghty started a brouhaha yesterday by criticizing how the makers of “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” received $1.2 million in tax credits by filming in the state — and that Palin signed the 2008 law which made it possible. Because she’s now apparently omnipotent, able to see into the future and plan for it by signing into law a complex program with numerous in-house checks and balances. Geraghty questioned Palin’s conservative credentials.
As I said, the argument here should be about lower taxes across the board, as opposed to the actions some states must take in order to remain competitive. It’s also illogical to try and discredit Alaska’s program by comparing it with that of other states because variables differ in each state.
I love debate and disagreement when it occurs on the right because a competition of ideas ultimately makes the right stronger and frankly, more invincible. However, if you’re going to take a stand on an issue and place a target on a fellow conservative who takes more than enough heat from the left, it’s wise to make sure that you fully understand the issue and articulate it correctly.
Thankfully, Sarah Palin's Alaska has since been cancelled.
Yesterday, I detailed how Loesch's attempt to smear Planned Parenthood failed miserably. Today, she's still defending the post while demonstrating absolutely no comprehension of the word "access." In fact, her defense is so sad that she has had to threaten to block conservatives who have a basic understanding of reality and are calmly refuting her points.
This claim is false, as was noted yesterday: Cecile Richards clearly said that Planned Parenthood offers access to mammograms, not that they provide mammograms, on the clip that Loesch is referring to. So even conservative @SarahWW had to ask Loesch why the folks at Big Journalism can't make honest arguments for their positions rather than relying on dishonesty:
Note to Big Journalism: Fact-checking is much easier if you have basic linguistic competence. So her quote was that the provide access to mammograms, and they do provide access to mammograms, and Big Journalism's idiotic response is "but access to mammograms isn't the same a giving mammograms so she's lying." Truly astounding.
She also made a fool of herself on CNN.
@JGibsonDem I wonder how much Military Experience Dana Loesch has, since she seems to think she knows better, then the President. none I bet.
Yesterday AOL/Huffington Post spokesman said Andrew Breitbart’s characterization of admitted Marxist and 9-11 truther Van Jones as a “commie punk” was too egregious a statement for them to continue an association with Breitbart.
Last anyone’s checked, Barr still remains as a contributor to the AOL/Huffington Post. I’m certain that after we point this out to them they will just as swiftly issue a statement detailing their disassociation with Barr as commitment to their consistency of not featuring writers who engage in “ad hominem attacks.”
Their false accusations have been thoroughly debunked, thus it seems individuals like Van Jones and Color of Change simply have a vendetta against Breitbart — and now shame due to their failed, prejudice-fueled maneuver to silence him. Huffington Post refused to acquiesce. *UPDATE: The Huffington Post caved to Marxist bullying.
So Breitbart is no longer allowed to publish on the front page of HuffPo because he made an ad hominem attack? By this logic, the same standard will be applied to all AOL/HuffPo writers going forward. If Breitbart is being thrown under the bus for making ad hominem remarks off the site, then that means… no other AOL/HuffPo bloggers can make them either.
We’ve never seen the Huffington Post make an effort like this to suppress the speech of any of their other (mostly left-wing) personalities. The hypocrisy is laughably obvious, and it was left-of-center bloggers Mickey Kaus of the Daily Caller, Alex Pareene of Salon, and Dave Weigel of Slate who were quickest to point it out. Pareene sums it up this way:
UPDATE: Dana Loesch just posted that "Dissent is Unpatriotic" in regards to Obama. Dissent IS patriotic, no matter who's in office. I bet you she would think that ANY dissent against Bush or Palin would be unpatriotic, when any dissent of a Democrat was patriotic. Hypocrite?!
Will dissent become patriotic again if Obama loses reelection in 2012?
Dana Loesch, you are today's recipient of Today in Stupidity and the Woorsstt Person in the Woorlld. Further yet, you'd make a good candidate for Tool of the Week.
Looks like Teahadist Dana Loesch has casted her lot with Glenn Beck in order to get even more prominence nationally, maybe as a fill-in for Glenn Beck.
He was right -- it was amazing. In the course of the video, Beck and CNN's Dana Loesch expressed a baffling sympathy for anarchism. Loesch said, "I'm two steps above anarchy conservatism, just as it was intended by the Founding Fathers. I mean, really, that's really what we're supposed to be." In response, Beck said, "[W]hen you say we're two steps -- you're two steps above an anarchist -- and I think I am, too. I mean, I'm really closer to Washington than any president, even Reagan. They really were organized, controlled anarchists."
Beck's selection of guests primed the conversation to include fringe views:
Dana Loesch The mistake CNN made in hiring Loesch as a contributor did nothing to repair her fundamental credibility problem -- she remains the editor-in-chief of Big Journalism, one of the websites created by notorious smear merchant Andrew Breitbart. It regularly promotes outlandish theories.
Damon Vickers Vickers has popped up on Beck's show from time to time to talk about the same things he talks about when he appears on the radio show of fringe conspiracist Alex Jones -- one-world government and economic collapse.
Steve Emerson Though often cited as a terrorism expert by the right-wing media, Emerson frequently makes baseless, sensational claims about Islam and terrorism. For instance, on the Insider Extreme anniversary special, Emerson claimed that Palestinian militants are in Mexico learning "how to dig tunnels that will evade detection in Gaza."
Brad Thor Thor makes his money as a novelist and moonlights writing for Breitbart's discredited websites. Almost a year ago, Thor's "exclusive" on Big Government about Pakistan having captured Taliban leader Mullah Omar crumbled. On Beck's CNN Headline News show in 2007, Thor said of Iraq, "We need a dictator back in that country. That's all those people respond to. The Arab world is so messed up, they can't -- you can't give people democracy."
Photo: Glennbeck.com
From the March 16 Insider Extreme anniversary webcast on GlennBeck.com:
Transcript/video of Beck and Loesch's conversation:
LOESCH: I think that the Tea Party movement has sort of broken the spell that Republicans can do no wrong. Which was a huge goal of mine when I was first started out, because I'm two steps above anarchy conservatism, just as it was intended by the Founding Fathers. I mean, really, that's really what we're supposed to be.
And I -- from what I've seen and from what I've heard from people, they no longer believe that simply because you have an "R" by your name, that guarantees you're a conservative, it guarantees that you're pro-life, it guarantees that, you know, you stand for the principles upon which this country was founded. And I think that's really -- and that's one of the reasons we've seen a lot of Republicans push back against the movement.
BECK: So, where do we go -- where have we gone wrong? Because when you say we're two steps -- you're two steps above an anarchist -- and I think I am, too. I mean, I'm really closer to Washington than any president, even Reagan. They really were organized, controlled anarchists.
LOESCH: Mm-hmm.
BECK: I mean, they thought -- really, it is the closest to anarchy. Just -- the Articles of Confederation were too weak, and they -- and so they just pushed it out just a little bit farther. And they were like, "No, no, no, 'cause it'll cause a big government." But they pushed it out just a little farther to give it that stability.
But how is it that, in a generation that understands anarchy and revolution -- I mean, look at what YouTube is going to do to television. Look what YouTube has done to the music industry. You don't have to have a big record promoter.
LOESCH: Nope. Not anymore.
BECK: You make one, it gets hits -- you're a hit.
LOESCH: Right.
BECK: So, how is it that this young generation understands structured anarchy that is directly -- you are the source of power. But yet we can't seem to knit it together with that guy: George Washington. Because that's what he believed in.
From the March 16 Insider Extreme anniversary webcast on GlennBeck.com
My response to Loesches comments of "the Constitution does not say public employee unions could have collective bargaining" (I'm starting to feel I am repeating myself w/ all this constitution obeying crap): if you're (Loesch) all about following the constitution word for word, then you obviously wouldn't mind quiting your job, finding a husband, getting pregnant, never voting in local, state, or national elections again, letting go of your personal ambitions & devoting yourself fully to the raising & educating of your, & your neighbors, childrens. THAT IS, if you want to follow the Constitution word for word.
Ya'll know how devoted I AM to following the Constitution.
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has been pushing a “revelation” that she discovered $105 billion in mandatory spending included in the health reform law. However, the spending she is referring to was openly discussed in congressional hearings and by the congressional budget office on multiple occasions. On Dana Loesch’s Tuesday broadcast of her radio show, Bachmann gave an interview discussing the issue. Responding to Bachmann’s manufactured controversy, Loesch compared negotiating with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and other health reform advocates to negotiating with “terrorists.” Bachmann didn’t skip a beat, and continued on with the conversation:
BACHMANN: Kathleen Sebelius has a sixteen billion-dollar slush fund to do with as she will. [...] It’s another reason we have to repeal Obamacare, and another reason we have to defund it. But they decided they were smarter than all of us, and they surreptitiously or deceitfully hid that $105 billion dollars and I say give the money back.
DANA LOESCH: Absolutely. Well I hope that you are successful in negotiating. I feel like we’re negotiating, and I’m just going to say this, I feel like we’re negotiating, sort of, with, it seems like terrorists to do this to our economy, especially right now. Quite honestly it does. That you would be able to–
BACHMANN: And also we’re having a meeting today about an hour and a half from now at 5:30 eastern time with members of Congress because a lot of members didn’t even realize this or didn’t even know about this. And so we’re talking to members and we’re also talking about this concept of demanding that they give the money back before we go any further in these budget negotiations. We’ve acted in good faith, and Obama hasn’t. [...] You’re awesome Dana, thank you.
Of course, her guest, Teahadist looncase Michele Bachmann (R-MN06) supports Loesch's vile rant. And typical of Dana The Devil, her loonytunes antics will get worse as time goes on.
From the 03.08.2011 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:
Still, let's all keeping pretending that Kinder hasn't actually decided on a campaign, even though he's stated openly in Missouri and in Washington, DC that he's running. Because if we stop writing about whether or not he's running, we might have to write about all the things he's actually doing and saying. And that's not going to be very pleasant for Peter, now is it?
-----------------------
It's also nice that Kinder made himself available to the dishonest and pathetic Loesch exactly one business day after she railed against Speaker Steve Tilley's associations with the New Black Panther Party.
Also, one year ago yesterday, The Dana Show moved into its current timeslot, 2-4PM CST Monday-Friday, moving The Sean Hannity Show to 7-9PM. Since her move to that slot, she has ampedup the crazy--big-time.
