Over a year ago today, CNN (or TeaNN) hired the disgraced far-right Teahadist cretin Big Journalism Editor-In-Chief by the name of Dana Loesch.
Here are some of the CNN-related highlights (or not-so-highlights) by Loesch:
February 17th, 2011: Loesch misleadingly declared Michelle Obama's initiative to promote breastfeeding is "nanny state behavior."
On tonight's John King, USA, Dana Loesch was complaining about the breastfeeding promotion as a "nanny state tactic." She was on her anti-Obama high horse. Her counterpart Leigh Ann O'Connor, defended the use of breastfeeding supplies for women.
DANA LOESCH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I kind of have to answer yes and no with this. And I don't think it's necessarily Michelle Obama that's trying to do this. I don't necessarily think it's the first lady, but rather some of the actions that the administration has taken. Look, I am all for breast feeding. I myself breast my children until they were well passed a year. And I think it's fantastic and advocacy for that. I'm a very vocal support it.
But at the same time, from a conservative perspective, I have to question what the White House is doing, because breast pumps actually fall under medical devices, which as you know, under the health care law, those devices are going to be hit with a massive excise tax. So, don't make something tax deductible that you're taxing, just don't tax it. That's sort of the first criticism I think I have over it.
But the second thing and this I don't think necessarily pertains to the first lady, but the way that the White House is kind of positioning itself towards this -- as far as breast feeding is concerned, I realize that the White House is trying to exert some influence over businesses to offer, to be more breast-feeding friendly -- again, fantastic. But I don't think it is the government's role to direct business in that. Leave that choice up to the individual businesses, to the parents, to the individual, period.
March 8th, 2011: She compares Sebelius and Democrats to "terrorists."
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–
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.
April 8th, 2011: Loesch rudely talked over Democratic Congresswoman Jackie Speier on the now-cancelled In The Arena.
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.
May 19th, 2011: She falsely accused "Obama of siding with the terrorists over Israel."
June 29th, 2011: She wanted the country to default so Obama and the Democratic Party can lose in 2012.
On last night's Anderson Cooper 360, Dana Loesch was back on and guess what she did? Went back to her bread and butter-- which was lying, misinforming, and being childish to other guests. Her idea to cut the deficit: more tax cuts for the rich and gut Medicare. And of course, she blamed the Democrats for the debt problems, with no facts to back it up. Loesch also supports this country defaulting for the sake of defeating Obama and the Democratic Party.
At least Begala and Gergen have enough sense to tell the truth--especially on the Republicans rooting for the economy to fail so that they can attempt to win the Presidency come 2012, unlike a certain moron who hosts a radio show on KFTK.
July 18th, 2011: Loesch suggested that "mosques should have to disclose ties to any anti-American organizations."
On today's CNN Newsroom, St. Louis's leading hate jock Dana Loesch went on the air and made this statement: "Mosques should disclose if they have "ties to any organizations that present a conflict of interest to US security."
LOESCH: Well, really quickly, 55 percent of American oppose tax hikes in the debt ceiling talks. But according to -- going along with Herman Cain's discussion here, I'm against mob rule. But I believe that any sort of mosque that's built in a community needs to disclose whether or not it has ties to any organizations that present a conflict of interest to American security. I think that two-way street is fair, so hopefully we can have more of that in the future. PHILLIPS: Maria. CARDONA: It is as far from presidential you can get. It's downright shameful. Would he ask the same of Christians, of Buddhists, of Hindus, of Jewish people wanting to build those kinds of institutions and places of worship in their communities? He is in essence equating American Muslims, Americans in their community with al Qaeda and with Osama Bin Laden, downright shameful. PHILLIPS: Pete. DOMINICK: This is so stupid and insulting. Herman Cain and anybody who shares this kind of idea that says you can't build a house of worship is a joke. It's insulting. I'm no fan of religion myself, but this is too sad. He actually has a lot of executive experience. He should focus on that. Muslims have helped disrupt every plot in America. We need to be their friend, not their enemies and that's exactly what he's doing.
August 15th, 2011: Loesch defended Bachmann's question-dodging on AC360.
Why does CNN allow Dana Loesch on? Simple. Makes them more money and gets the right-leaning audience from Fixed Noise.
October 18th, 2011: On Anderson Cooper 360, she baselessly declared the "Nazis support the OWS Movement.
CNN "Contributor" and St. Louis's Leading Hatemonger Dana Loesch took to CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 last night to make outrageous statements about the Occupy Wall Street Movement, baselessly implying that the "Nazis love the movement." Patently false.
And how many times does CNN's hosts get away with allowing Dana Loesch to spew out lies with little or no pushback?
Today, we found out that even some of CNN's own colleagues (and Rush Limbaugh) think fellow tasteless paid "contributor" Dana Loesch's classless rant regarding the US Marines Urination Scandal on yesterday's The Dana Showwas over the line.
Media Matters' Joe Strupp:
Several CNN on-air journalists are criticizing Dana Loesch's recent comments supporting the U.S. Marines who allegedly urinated on the dead bodies of Taliban forces. Loesch, a CNN contributor, made the comments during her radio show Thursday. Among other things, Loesch said of the incident: "I'd drop trou and do it too."
Such views brought sharp criticism from some CNN on-air reporters. "I can't imagine someone really thinking that, it is so outrageous," said one CNN reporter who requested anonymity. "I think she is trying to garner attention to herself, and that is sad. If that is what she truly believes, she has issues. If you look at that video, I don't care who you are, your stomach should turn.
"The problem with these contributors is they aren't under the same guidelines journalists are, and CNN journalists are. We have very clear ways of doing business. When you have these people we bring in to spice up our airwaves, it is going to happen. It is concerning, obviously." Another regular CNN journalist added: "I am of the school of thought, 'Why aren't we putting people who are knowledgeable on the air?' I'll just say 'Ewww.' I think it's in poor taste."
A third CNN journalist who has been reporting on the story said Loesch is misguided in thinking that defending the Marines' alleged actions amount to being supportive of the military.
"If she is thinking that she is somehow supporting the military, any source in the military will tell you she is not," the journalist said. "It is so distasteful for the military. It is a black eye. Clearly, everyone I've talked to said that is not acceptable." At least one regular CNN political contributor took issue with the comments and with CNN's handling of Loesch and other right-wing contributors: "What's interesting is how the kid gloves are applied to outlandish comments made by the likes of Erick Erickson or Dana Loesch and how it has a negative impact on the CNN brand," said the contributor, who also requested anonymity. "There really is no pushback or no real conversation that says, 'Look, you make these kinds of comments or you write these kinds of wild, crazy stuff, that's just not what we're about.' It simply doesn't happen. I think there is fear of saying anything to them because they are Tea Party folks, and there has been a clear effort on the part of our political team to court that whole Tea Party thought process, if you will."
This afternoon on her radio show, she responded back to her critics, in her usual snide and harshly inappropriate way:
CNN's Dana Loesch responded to the growing controversy surrounding her comments dismissing outrage over video apparently showing U.S. Marines urinating on dead bodies by saying that her critics "felt as though these Marines should be bowing to the Taliban ... just like this administration does."
Loesch tried to explain her comments: The reaction to what these Marines did is disproportionate to the actual offense: beyond disproportionate. They'll be dealt with it. Get over it. And that was my entire point. That was far from Loesch's "entire point." In fact, she went on to say that the individuals shown in the video should be awarded "a million cool points" and went on question whether "there's supposed to be a scandal that someone pees on the corpse of a Taliban fighter" and bragged, "I'd drop trou and do it, too."
Loesch's comments were widely condemned throughout the day Friday, leading her to lash out at her critics with the suggestion that they sided with the Taliban: I think the progressives felt as though that these Marines should be bowing to the Taliban, and every other combatant, and every other foreign entity just like this administration does. So my whole point was to say that your whole reaction was ridiculous.
From the 01.13.2012 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:
CNN contributor and conservative radio host Dana Loesch said on her radio show that she not only thinks the Marines who urinated on dead Taliban soldiers are cool, but she’d be willing to join them.
After playing a news clip describing the video, Loesch said, “I’d drop trou and do it too. That’s me, though. I want a million cool points for these guys.” She wondered why there was any kind of scandal surrounding the incident.
The woefully incompetent Dana Loesch was on CNN yet again spewing out gross falsehoods to the viewers, with very little pushback. Roland Martin, who recently has been under scrutiny for havinghomophobic tendencies, and Pete Dominic were the other panelists hosted by Kyra Phillips on CNN Newsroom. Of course, Loesch fawned over Rick Perry (who's ruining Texas worse than Dumbya during his reign as Governor), proving time and time again that she is a GOP shill, and NOT a Conservative Independent.
From the 06.15.2011 edition of CNN's CNN Newsroom:
She has defended the loonytunes Congresswoman from Minnesota known as Michele Bachmann, while slamming Anthony Weiner.
Newt Gingrich went on The Dana Show yesterday, and guess what she did? Let Gingrich spin his head like a top unchallenged.
From the 06.15.2011 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:
Dana Loesch, as usual, was lying her ass off on Anderson Cooper 360. She was playing the "victim" card, while making excuses for her empty rhetoric.
From the 9PM EST/8PM CST Special Hour of AC360:
COOPER: We should keep in mind there's been nothing to clearly link the shooter to any of this rhetoric. In fact, he's registered as an independent. You heard Drew Griffin saying that a teacher actually described him as a liberal pot-smoker.
We're joined by Dana Loesch, Tea Party organizer and St. Louis radio host, and David Gergen, CNN senior political analyst and a former presidential advisor.
Dana, in the past, a lot of conservatives have blamed violent acts -- whether it's, you know, shooting up a school, on something like video games or music or certain teachings. If one can blame those things, why shouldn't one be willing to blame heated or violent political rhetoric?
DANA LOESCH, ORGANIZER, NATIONWIDE TEA PARTY COALITION: Well, and Anderson, I don't think that it was correct for anyone to blame any of the past violence in schools on music or on anything that they see in film because it -- it immediately passes responsibility of the parents to assume responsibility of their children and for the people who carry these acts out to assume responsibility.
And I apply the exact same thing to this instance. There's a lot of stuff that's said on both sides, but I don't -- both sides aren't speaking in literal terms. Both sides are free to make metaphorical analogies. And I think that they're also free to not be blamed when someone of their own will decides to commit a heinous act such as what we saw in Arizona.
COOPER: David, what about that? You served in White House when passed presidents, you know, have faced this kind of tragedies. Is examining political discourse in the wake of an incident like appropriate or without any evidence he was a follower of anyone in particular? Is it premature?
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I think we have to exercise great care here, Anderson. As you remember, there were many times during the election campaign, even going all the way back to the town halls, when we lamented on this program the incitements that were there.
People showing up with guns. Someone yelling out at a Palin rally, you know, kill him, kill him. And to his great credit, John McCain put a stop to that. But we worried about would this eventually lead to some sort of violence. And I think there's a continuing concern about that.
But having said that, which is very important, we need to deal with it. There is no connection, clear or vague, between that rhetoric and what this deranged fellow did. And in that sense, I think it's inappropriate to point fingers and make accusations, trying to link the rhetoric to this rampage.
If anything, the accusations and all of this name-calling is only further poisoning the discourse in this country and further polarizing us as a people. President Obama had it right today. We need to pull together as a people.
COOPER: We're going to have Bill Maher on in a moment for a couple of blocks. And he frankly does point the finger at the rhetoric and at the vitriol and at Republicans in particular.
Dana -- and we're going to have Dana and David on afterward to get to respond to what he said. But it does seem like some on the right now may be trying to score political points by accusing people on the left of trying to score political points.
I mean this whole thing, it's interesting in the last couple of days how quickly it became politicized.
LOESCH: Oh, it's very -- it's kind of shocking to sort of see it. And it's interesting to think that simply a conservative defending themselves against the charge of being called a murderer, as I've seen done with Sarah Palin, I've seen done with more people than I can count, including myself.
I myself have received threats in e-mail and been called a murderer from people who are trying to condemn this vitriolic rhetoric while also engaging in it at the same time. It makes no sense to me.
But the bottom line is that all of this is completely obscuring two massive points. Those two points are the fact that five people are dead including a child. And the second point is that this is in a long line of -- this is a trend. We see these lone wolf sort of antagonists over and over again. And nothing preemptive is done.
We find out after the fact that all these warning signs are there. Confessions all over the Internet, people from like -- with Jared Lee Loughner, the community college, his parents, friends were saying that he's been this -- been this way for incredibly long time. Nothing was done.
And so I think we need to just kind of start focusing on what can be done preemptively to identify this kind of stuff. He's been stalking her for three years and he's made a death threat before. Why was this allowed to happen?
COOPER: David, it does seem like in the wake of these things --
GERGEN: Yes.
COOPER: -- that a lot of questions are always raised about whether it's on gun control or the mental health system. And yet it doesn't seem like much changes.
GERGEN: It doesn't. And I just wanted to ask, and you say something needs to be done. How is it possible that someone who is this unhinged, when so many people understood that he was in mental deterioration, that he could still walk into a gun store and buy, you know, .9 mm semiautomatic Glock handgun? And also then carry it concealed?
I mean that's -- if there's some cultural insanity here, it is the fact that we haven't put a stop to the capacity of these deranged young people to buy guns and then spray at people. It's just unbelievable.
LOESCH: It's not the -- I have to --
COOPER: Dana?
LOESCH: I have to disagree with you, Mr. Gergen, on that. It's not the gun law. It's the fact that he was refused from the military. He made a death threat before. And he had problems and was removed from community college. None of this was reported.
GERGEN: Do you think --
LOESCH: That has nothing to do with the gun laws on the book.
GERGEN: Do you think it's appropriate that he was able to buy a gun?
LOESCH: I think it's inappropriate the fact that you had his parents that knew about his behavior, the community college and the military --
GERGEN: Well, just answer the question. (CROSSTALK)
LOESCH: Well, do you think that those people are able to orchestrate the -- do you think those people should be able to decide who can and cannot get guns? These -- why wasn't this reported? If these had been reported, he wouldn't have been able to get one in the first place.
So the argument that there's some -- a problem with the law is irrelevant. The fact that if his behavior had been reported, he would not have been able to purchase a firearm. End of story.
COOPER: We're going to have more with David and Dana coming up. We'll talk more to both of you shortly.
COOPER: Welcome back to this special 9:00 edition of 360, the Terror in Tucson. We're joined again by Dana Loesch, Tea Party organizer and St. Louis radio host, and David Gergen, CNN senior political analyst, and a former presidential adviser.
Dana, you heard Bill Maher there. Obviously very pointed opinions. What did you think?
LOESCH: Well, I wasn't -- didn't Bill Maher -- wasn't he the one who was saying that said Obama wasn't gangster enough? I'm curious as to where that speech went.
Just a couple of quick thoughts that I got from listening tot his. First of all, if we're going to talk about Arizona gun laws, let's actually talk about it. In Arizona, you can't just give a mentally ill person a gun. It's called the prohibited possessor. It's part of the law.
If there's a person who presents a danger to themselves or someone else, pursuant to a court order, they can't get a firearm. So, no, the laws haven't been loosened.
Then let's talk about the gun culture as being respective to just Republicans. Harry Reid almost won an NRA endorsement over Sharron Angle in Nevada. In fact, the NRA took so much heat for it, it split conservatives in two. And it actually drove a lot of people to leave the NRA for the Gun Owners of America. He did photo ops at a huge gun range in Nevada and --
COOPER: You feel nothing needs to change in gun laws in the United States?
LOESCH: I think that there needs to be something different in terms of reporting people like this instance with Jared Lee Loughner. If he had been reported, if they had had a court order, he would not have been able to go in there. You don't change the laws. You be more alert and aware.
COOPER: David Gergen, for you, what did you think?
GERGEN: Well, Anderson, I'm not here to carry water for conservatives or Republicans. But that was so one sided, a few points have to be made on the other side. I'm very much for toughening the gun laws. And in fact, the Arizona law was loosened with regard to concealment. And Governor Brewer signed that into law.
But I also think for Bill Maher to call it the Assassin's Lobby is pretty deeply offensive to a whole lot of people. The idea that this guy was out on the streets because we cut back to a small government, that's not true. A lot of people today -- we changed our whole approach to institutionalization of people who are mentally unbalanced because we thought it was oppressive to have so many people locked up.
And there are going to be people walking around our streets -- they shouldn't have guns, but there are people walking around our streets. As long as they're not dangerous, we have come to accept that as a society.
But I also thought to paint the Republicans with a broad brush and say they're all conservative loonies, in effect, and where are the moderates? Where are the adults? Give me a break. Come on. I just think that's unfair. Back in the '60s, people used to argue that about the Democratic party when there was all the unrest in the streets. There were a lot of good people who were trying to tone things down. There are a lot of good people in the Republican party who want to tone things down here as well.
COOPER: Dana, it seems like after Virginia Tech, schools made a better effort and a more concerted effort to look at the mental health of their students. It seems like the community college in this case did see this guy -- see the problem and rectify it. They got him off campus. They got him out of the classroom.
But it seems like after that -- and his parents were notified of that. They were in the meeting where they were told he has mental health issues. We don't know their response. We don't know if they sought help. We haven't heard from them. But it seems like after the school got out of the picture, he kind of dropped off the radar.
LOESCH: Right. I have to say how much I appreciate Mr. Gergen's comments there. It was spot on and I agree with everything he said. I agree. This is -- the community college really should have -- they honestly -- when you have students that are so terrified of this guy, and they write about his disruptiveness and how they are absolutely fearful of him, and the teacher even had some fear of the guy -- that should have been reported, especially when you were all they would have had to do is --
Look, all they would have had to do was look at him. They could have looked -- do a simple Google search. Look how many bloggers found that stuff easily.
COOPER: We're out of time.
LOESCH: This would have been found out.
COOPER: We're going to have more with Dana, more with David Gergen in the 10:00 hour. Guys, thanks very much.
From the 10PM-12AM EST/9-11PM CST edition of AC360:
COOPER: Well, the tone of political rhetoric in general is something that Congresswoman Giffords herself has been concerned with. The night before she was shot, she sent an e-mail to Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, a Republican, congratulating him for being named director of Harvard University's Institute of Politics. This line was in the e-mail. Quote, "We need to figure out how to tone our rhetoric and partisanship down."
Earlier, I spoke with Dana -- excuse me, Dana Loesch, Republican -- radio host and Tea Party organizer, and senior political analyst David Gergen, as well as political analyst Roland Martin.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Roland, the local sheriff in Arizona pointed a finger at political rhetoric. A lot of Democrats have been echoing that since the shooting. A lot of Republicans pushing back.
Given there's no evidence this kid was particularly political but plenty of evidence he was mentally unstable, is it appropriate to be using this shooting to blame politicians?
ROLAND MARTIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I think it is appropriate for us to examine the kind of rhetoric we have in this country right now. Here's what I found to be interesting. Americans always want for something to happen before we react. I think, even though there's nothing directly related to the political rhetoric in this particular case, we should be saying, "Wait a minute. How hot is it right now when people are getting death threats? You get people are going after folks' families? When you see the kind of letters and e-mails?"
So I think the opportunity to examine ourselves is appropriate, even though there's no direct correlation.
COOPER: Dana, is this an opportunity to examine ourselves? Is that what's been happening?
DANA LOESCH, RADIO HOST/TEA PARTY ORGANIZER: Well, I think that the rhetoric -- the rhetoric has been the same as it has always been. Nothing has changed from now from the '60s until now. Everything has always been the same.
What we have to realize is that people can say what they want to on both sides, but we cannot excuse the fact that someone chooses to willfully interpret or perceive things how they want to. And again, there's no evidence at all whatsoever that this guy listened to talk radio or watched news programs on the right or the left.
COOPER: David, what about that? I mean, Dana raises the point that it's always been the same kind of rhetoric. I mean, if you look back to history going back to, you know, Revolutionary War days, politics has always been a rough-and-tumble business in the United States.
DAVID GERGEN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: It has been rough-and- tumble, Anderson, but I think it's time to call (ph) the finger- pointing and the accusations about this particular incident.
But there might be a silver lining here. And that is I do think it's an opportunity, to go to Roland's point, an opportunity for President Obama and the Republican leadership to come together and jointly try to sort of see if there are ways they can get everybody to calm down, to tone down the rhetoric in our political discourse.
We ought to be doing that, regardless of whether Tucson happened or not. It would be healthy for the -- for the governess of this country and for a sense of pride again, once again, and a sense of unity.
And I do think that John Boehner, just like President Obama, they both handled this well so far. And I do think they could come together from both sides of the aisle. This will be a moment for real bipartisanship, to try to get us pulled together.
COOPER: Dana, a lot of people have raised the issue, again, about gun control in this. Should this guy have been able to get a gun? A guy with a -- you know, people in his school -- he gets kicked out of school, mental instability. He's able to pass an instant background check. LOESCH: I go -- I go to my original point, what I said earlier, Anderson. And that is, again, if his behavior had been reported, there's no way he was going to walk into a firearms store and purchase the firearm. It's not going to happen.
But there -- the ball has been dropped, and it doesn't have to do with the law. Because the laws are incredibly strong enough already. The problem here is the fact that there's no awareness. There's no alertness. People should -- there was ample opportunity for people to say something about this kid's behavior or this young man's behavior, rather. But nothing was done. Nothing...
MARTIN: There was a process. The university had a process, but the question then becomes what do they then do? Who do they call? According to our system, unless a judge declares this individual mentally ill...
COOPER: Yes, seems like...
MARTIN: ... it's easy to say, Well, report it. He can't get a permit.
LOESCH: Then pursue it.
MARTIN: Not true.
LOESCH: If it's important enough to change the law about it, it's definitely important enough to pursue it.
COOPER: David, where do you come down on the gun issue?
GERGEN: I think it's insane that people like this are able to get guns. How many incidents does it take like this for us to realize that people who should not have guns are able to get them too easily?
I'm sorry. The law has been loosened in Arizona, unfortunately. And he could carry a concealed. What are we doing allowing a 22 year old to carry a concealed weapon around like this? He would be able to walk into a bar. I'm sorry. The laws are too loose. They are not too tight.
LOESCH: No. No, no, no, no, no.
GERGEN: We have lowered the standards. The NRA has been behind this.
LOESCH: No.
GERGEN: And I understand the need for hunters, and I'm all for that.
LOESCH: I reject that.
GERGEN: But I'm sorry, Dana, there are people who disagree with you. If it takes licensing to... LOESCH: No, statistics show that when you enact concealed carry, the crime rate plummets. Show me a county, prove to me, show me a county where concealed carry has been implemented where the crime rates haven't dropped. I put the burden of proof on you.
(CROSSTALK)
GERGEN: ... Tucson, Arizona.
COOPER: David, I want you to give the final thought. But then we've got to go.
GERGEN: Tucson, Arizona, if that doesn't make the case, I don't know what does.
COOPER: David Gergen, Dana Loesch, Roland Martin, appreciate it. Thank you.
MARTIN: Thank you. From the 01.10.2011 edition of Anderson Cooper 360:
The St. Louis Tea Party queen bee, Dana Loesch, was on yet again on CNN, and go ahead and add HLN's The Joy Behar Show to that list of shows that she's spewing lies on.
Dana on the 11.18.2010 edition of AC360:
ROBERTS: Ouch. The American people are the losers.
Joining me now, political analysts David Gergen and Roland Martin along with Tea Party organizer, Dana Loesch, she's also editor of BigJournalism.com and a radio host at KT -- KFTK, 97.1 FM.
Folks thanks so much for being with us.
David, let's start off with you, is it really such a big deal, this idea of cutting the earmarks, particularly when you look at how small a percentage of the total budget they really represent and the fact that this money's probably not going to get saved, that it'll just get spent elsewhere.
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, John this is a small amount of money, $15 billion is less than one percent of the budget but it's a big deal, because the -- the money has been used essentially as a piggy bank by a lot of members. They go off and do their favorite project back in their home district or their home states and then they seek voter credit for doing that. And you know and -- and they get into the habit of loose spending; undisciplined spending.
I think it's very wise in time, particularly in these -- when -- when we're so tight on the budget, to cut this stuff out. Yes, there are going to be some good things lost in the process but we've got to get back to essentials. And listen, if they don't need the $15 billion, cut it out of the budget. We've got to start somewhere.
ROBERTS: Dana, how much of this do you think is about members who truly believe that earmarks are a bad idea and how much is about members who simply want to get on a bandwagon?
DANA LOESCH, EDITOR, BIGJOURNALISM.COM: I think that any -- this whole -- this whole debate has really fascinated me simply because I think that those who are arguing in favor of earmarks I think it's sort of a smoke and mirrors situation. Because what they're essentially arguing for, John is -- is the opaque process that has been going on in Washington, D.C., for so unbelievably long. Earmarks as they're being argued for right now, they're talking about tacking on spending requests, un-vetted spending requests on to appropriations bill that bypass the -- the traditional typical two- committee approval process that earmarks are supposed to go through.
And so I think that these people who are -- who -- these Congressmen who are advocating for this, they're -- they're trying to shore up their political capital. This is how they trade powers, through this process.
ROBERTS: Roland Martin, Mitch McConnell in -- in supporting the ban on earmarks said, look, I don't really believe in this, because, three weeks ago he was against it, but gave to Tea Party pressure. But he said I'm worried about just giving more budgetary discretion to the White House and putting it in the hands of the president. Is -- is he right to be concerned about that?
ROLAND MARTIN, CNN ANALYST: No, that's utter nonsense. I mean, look and first of all, I disagree when we categorize this as, well, it's just less than one percent, because if you ask anybody when it comes to their own personal budget, when you need to make cuts, every little bit helps.
But it is clear that senator -- Senator McConnell and Republicans want to, to the American people, to try to make it all about Obama, he's going to somehow spend the money when you have Republicans and Democrats who want to spend, spend, spend. But in your opening, John, you're absolutely right. Where are they going to cut? Are they willing to touch defense?
You see right now Senator John McCain in a constant battle with fellow Republican, Senator Tom Coburn, when it comes to defense spending, when it comes to Rand Paul. That's going to be the real test of the political will. Will they touch Medicare, Social Security, and defense? That's where most of our budget comes from.
ROBERTS: Did --
(CROSSTALK)
LOESCH: Well -- can I -- can I add something to Roland's point too?
ROBERTS: Go ahead Dana.
LOESCH: The argument that -- that came from Mitch McConnell who -- until very recently was against earmarks, the idea that somehow they are ceding power to the president, that they are letting go of the purse strings is a lie. Because when you write appropriations bills, unless they write it specifically to say that it is up to discretion of President Obama to decide how this money is spent, he doesn't get to decide. That is Congress's responsibility.
MARTIN: Right.
LOESCH: They're playing upon the ignorance of the American people and that's not going to fly anymore.
ROBERTS: David, there's a -- there's another point that some people make, and -- and that perhaps in supporting the ban on earmarks it will obscure that really tough choices that lawmakers will have to make if they want to really take a whack at the -- at the deficit and the overall debt. They can say, hey, look, we took action on earmarks. How much more do you want us to do?
GERGEN: I -- I think it'll go the other way, John. And I think this will help create momentum for more spending cuts. And one of the reasons if you couldn't do a deal with earmarks how in the world are you going to deal with -- as Roland says and I think he's right -- the really tough issues like Medicare and Medicare -- Medicaid and defense.
Listen, this money is basically incumbent protection money. It's -- it's -- it's you know, it's to help them back home. And sometimes it goes for good causes but it's often to increase the popularity of -- of the incumbent. We all know that. And they've got to start somewhere. And I -- you know, I think the argument is a phony one about it's going to give all this stuff to Obama. If they get this one percent, ok, let's go for the three percent --
(CROSSTALK)
MARTIN: Right.
GERGEN: -- let's go for the next five percent and --
MARTIN: John --
GERGEN: -- they've got to go -- I think Roland's right they've to go after Medicare, Social Security, and defense and put those on the table and let's thresh it out in a serious national debate.
MARTIN: Here -- real quick John --
ROBERTS: Yes.
MARTIN: -- here's the next battle and you're going to see it. When it comes to Medicare, Social Security and defense, you're going to hear members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans say, oh, this will cause us to lose jobs. Losing jobs is always Congress's way of preventing any kinds of cuts from being made. Watch that language. You will hear it from both sides.
(CROSSTALK)
LOESCH: Well --
ROBERTS: And there's one other point I'd -- I'd like to get Dana to ring in on here and that is Michele Bachmann is hedging her bets a little bit, she's saying well, maybe what we need to do is we need to redefine what an earmark is. For example, transportation projects, perhaps they shouldn't be considered to be earmarks. Which I guess if you looked at it in the purest sense would mean that because it was a transportation project, that bridge to nowhere was an earmark. Does she have a fair point?
LOESCH: Yes and no. I -- I think that there's a million things that we need to do. First of all, let's -- let's have things go through the authorization and appropriation committees as they're supposed to do in order to be vetted. Let's bring a competitive grant process in, and let's vet these earmarks before we just tack them on.
The point that I think that she is making is that the way that the earmark process stands right now is that we have a lot of pork going towards things like bike paths, yay, bicycles are fantastic but we have bridges across the country that are falling into disrepair. And so a lot of the super important stuff that needs attention is getting overlooked.
And a quick thing about defense, if we want to spend defense money wisely, we can start by reflecting upon the appropriations bill from 2009 that was loaded with earmarks that our president did approve.
ROBERTS: All right we want to take a pause here because we've got a lot more to talk about tonight, so Roland Martin, Dana Loesch and David Gergen, please stay with us.
And we want to know what you think as well. Join the live chat going underway right now at AC360.com.
Coming up next, more from our panel, we're going to get their take on Congressman Charlie Rangel's possible punishment for breaking House ethics rules. Does the punishment fit? And see how it compares to other members of Congress who've gotten in trouble in the past.
Plus our special series, "Amazing Animals, Smarter than you Think," inside the science of how dogs think.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We don't want to look at cute pet tricks. What we want to know is what does the dog understand about its world?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROBERTS: On to "Raw Politics" tonight: a House ethics panel is recommending censure, what amounts to a public scolding, for New York Democratic Congressman, Charlie Rangel. That's after the committee found Rangel guilty on 11 counts, including failing to pay taxes for 17 years on a rental home in the Dominican Republic, misuse of a rent- controlled apartment in the Bronx for political purposes and improper use of government letterhead and government mail.
The 20-year Congressman pleaded for mercy today before learning his potential punishment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. CHARLIE RANGEL (D), NEW YORK: There's no excuse for my behavior, and there was no intent for me ever to go beyond what has been given to me as a salary. I never attempted to enrich myself, and that I walk away no matter what your decision, I'm grateful that I had this opportunity to serve.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: 20-term Congressman we should say. 40 years in Congress. You might recall on Monday Rangel walked out of his ethics trial when the committee rejected his request to delay the case so he could hire a new defense team. His original team member left him in September. This whole case has been full of drama.
Tonight a lot of people are questioning whether the suggested punishment fits. We want to show you how it stacks up against other politicians who are found guilty of House violations.
Only 22 House members have ever been censured, the last two were in July of 1983. Republican Congressman, Daniel Crane of Illinois who broke down crying, he was found guilty of sexual misconduct with a female House page years earlier. Congressman Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was found guilty of sexual misconduct with a male page years earlier.
Another type of punishment is a reprimand only eight House members have faced that, most recently Georgia Republican, Newt Gingrich in 1997 when he was Speaker of the House. He was slapped with an unprecedented $300,000 fine for allowing a member affiliate tax exempt organization to be used for political purposes. He also gave false information to the committee investigating the charges.
Now, the harshest punishment is expulsion, just five House members have been forced out of office. The most recent you may recall is Ohio Democrat James Traficant. He was kicked out of the House in 2002 after he was found guilty in a federal corruption trial of conspiracy to commit bribery and of racketeering among other things. Traficant had quite a message for the ethics committee back then.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES TRAFICANT (D), OHIO: And I want to say to this committee, I love America but I hate the government. I love the elected members. I've met many of you and love you all and I mean that. That's not patronizing to get your vote. I don't expect your vote.
But we have an aristocracy in the judiciary that is afraid of the FBI and the IRS. They're scared to death of them. And they trampled all over my rights and I'll be damned if they're going to do it to me.
So I will take an upward departure and I will die in jail, because I did not commit these crimes.
(END VIDEO CLIP) ROBERTS: Of course he didn't die in jail. He's out.
Now for more perspective, you might be wondering what happened to Congressman Joe Wilson. He made headlines for this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: The reforms -- the reforms I am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.
REP. JOE WILSON (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: You lie!
OBAMA: It's not true.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: That was Wilson in September 2009 when President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress on health care reform. The South Carolina Republican dodged serious punishment. House members issued a resolution expressing disapproval of Wilson's actions.
So did Rangel get the right punishment?
Back now to our political panel: David Gergen, Roland Martin and Dana Loesch.
So David, start us off here, was 9-1 in favor of censure in the committee, first time as we said since 1983. Is it the right punishment?
GERGEN: I thought it was, John, because censure is usually for people who've done unethical things. Expulsion, the highest punishment is -- is actually for people who have been found to do unlawful things. And there's been no finding so far that Congressman Rangel has done unlawful things.
And a censure is a pretty powerful tool. It -- we've reviewed the House history, you remember one of the most famous incidences in the Senate was the censure of Senator Joe McCarthy, and it broke him. It broke his power. And -- and I dare say in this case that Charlie Rangel has basically seen his best days.
ROBERTS: Dana, you -- you disagree with David, you just think that he should be expelled from the House. You're in favor of expulsion.
LOESCH: Yes.
ROBERTS: What did he do to rise to that level?
LOESCH: I think that the level of hypocrisy with Charlie Rangel is one of legendary proportions. And I -- I don't think that it -- I -- I don't think that comparing it to Joe Wilson, the censure and that -- and that situation, it's -- it's -- it's unbelievably different. I mean, this is a guy who is -- who was on the committee that helped write our tax code that that didn't go by the law himself but yet he would write it for other people.
This is a guy who, I mean, if they -- if they decide to investigate further and they think that there is -- it warrants criminal penalties or -- or what have you, then I just think that censure seems to be a super light way to go, considering all of the charges that were against him.
ROBERTS: Roland --
MARTIN: You know John -- I -- I think first of all that analysis is absolutely nonsense. Ok? It is nonsense. He -- he -- first of all, the lead attorney on this committee stated there was a corruption. The lead attorney on this committee said he did not believe there was personal benefit. I do believe that first of all he should have followed the rules.
LOESCH: Yes.
MARTIN: I do believe there should be some penalty. But to sit here and suggest remove him from Congress when you just read a list of individuals who committed sexual acts with a House page and received censure and then you saw what Newt Gingrich did as Speaker of the House, utilizing a committee for political purposes and he doesn't get --
(CROSSTALK)
LOESCH: What, Charlie Rangel?
MARTIN: No, no, no, excuse me.
LOESCH: No, no, no.
MARTIN: Excuse me, excuse me. I didn't interrupt you.
LOESCH: No.
MARTIN: You did not have censure in that case.
And so when you judge it based upon the history of the House, I believe it is ridiculous to say expulsion. I do not believe it has risen to the level of censure. I think the same level of rebuke that Gingrich got Rangel should get as well.
ROBERTS: Charlie Rangel stood before the committee and he basically begged for mercy. He said I'm 80 years old, I don't know how much longer I'm going to live. And -- and then he said this, let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RANGEL: And I recognized that you cannot deal with issues that's not before this committee. Or what the press has done to me and my community and my family is just totally unfair. Counsel knows it. All of you know it. And it's not your responsibility to correct them. But they will continue to call me a crook and charge me being corrupt. (END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: David, blaming the press, it's a tried and true tradition. But is it -- is it applicable in this case?
GERGEN: Well, I -- the -- the press actually did uncover some of this. Now, let's be -- let's be clear about this. We didn't know about this housing business and 17 years of unpaid taxes, had the press not gotten into it. That's the role of the press, is to play the watchdog. I don't think he was done in by the press.
Charlie -- he can make that argument and it's fine, but I don't think that's the real issue. The real issue is he had these violations and there's no -- there's no evidence to controvert it.
MARTIN: Right.
GERGEN: I mean, and it is -- it's a clear-cut case. It's a series of violations. I think they did the right thing.
ROBERTS: And we'll see where it all goes from here.
David Gergen, Roland Martin, Dana Loesch, thanks very much for being with us. I really appreciate it.
MARTIN: Thanks a lot.
LOESCH: Thank you.
ROBERTS: Still ahead, could there finally be a break in the case of Natalee Holloway? The Alabama teenager disappeared in Aruba five years ago. Forensic tests now being conducted could provide some much-needed answers. We'll explain just ahead.
Plus, why Tiger Woods says he is infinitely happier now than before the sex scandal that destroyed his marriage and tarnished his image one year ago.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Dana on the 11.17.2010 edition of The Joy Behar Show:
Dana The Diva's back up to her old racist tricks again: this time by claiming that the Dems are Racists Card, and her incessant mentions of "Gladney beaten by 'Union Thugs'":
Former OFA Worker in Village Voice: “Decay of White Brain”
Because your business is worried that it might not get enough traffic on its own, hire a PR/social media firm to send out emails like the one below baiting bloggers into giving an otherwise undeserving piece written for shock’s sake (you remember what I said about shock as art) some attention.
The article is a frosh attempt to characterize the entire conservative movement as being solely Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and a few other white people. Thrasher insists that it’s an all-white movement.
While Thrasher projects, he ignores:
- The Kenneth Gladney beating
- The NAACP presser wherein Gladney was ridiculed and called slurs in public
- White liberal/progressive/socialists mocking and name-calling black Republicans, on tape, at the 8/28 event in DC
- Bill Clinton’s remark on Obama: “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”
- Harry Reid: Obama — a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”
Don't shop at union grocery stores. Don't give money to those who exploit workers to put money in union thugs' pockets. -@dloesch
Dana, NOT all Unions are "thugs," but a few bad apples in the unions don't make the rest of them "thugs." This is crap I'd expect from the Fixed Noise's Saturday "Business" Shows, which are nothing more than the I Hate Unions and Liberals Hour. Shopping at Union-friendly stores makes more an American.
@DLoesch: "We may have a weak president now, but we're getting ready to change that." - Liz Cheney to Iran #sgs10
Note to Loesch and Liz Cheney: Obama's NOT a weak president on national security.
John Burns of American Majority and the St. Louis tea party was implicated in a story about disgraced conservative hitman James O'Keefe's ploy to "embarrass a CNN correspondent by recording a meeting on hidden cameras aboard a floating palace of pleasure' and making sexually suggestive comments, e-mails and a planning document show," according to CNN. Burns is best known in St. Louis for leading the tea party's failed efforts to block funding for public transportation, for ridiculously accusing Washington University of "fraud" in the aftermath of a hoax conducted by him and O'Keefe, and, worst of all, for writing "free abortions" on the back of a sign in an attempt to sabotage pro-gay marriage rally.
As expected, Loesch blamed it on the "Liberal Media."
Last night on Anderson Cooper 360, Roland Martin owned Liaresch's butt.
Fittingly, Dana "Comments Off" Loesch has been named Riverfront Times's Best Of St. Louis' Lightning Rod:
Mom-blogger. Tea-Partier. Host of radio's The Dana Show. Oh, and don't forget, a former liberal. Dana Loesch's metamorphosis has proven quite the spectacle. The self-described smart aleck from south county is now a frequent commentator for Tea Party causes on nightly cable news channels, from MSNBC to CNN to FOX News, and the conservative media baron Andrew Breitbart counts her as one of his most popular contributors on biggovernment.com. All of which makes St. Louis lefties' blood boil:
She does make my (like other Liberals and even some Conservatives) blood boil. The Ultimate Satan Of St. Louis will be on Most Hated St. Louisans list for decades to come.
