Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Dana Loesch Misses the Point

Dana Loesch just published a seething, rambling, name-calling, 1000-word essay on what she calls the "non-issue" that points out the $2,500 dollars her husband's business received from Ed Martin prior to her attacks on Martin's primary opponent. Loesch presents a collection of random facts about the incident but of course basically ignores the central point: that she failed to disclose a potential conflict of interest while she was blacklisting and attacking one of Ed Martin's opponents in the Republican primary. None of the things she said addressed the fact that she failed to disclose that she and her husband financially benefitted from Ed Martin's campaign while she was busy publicly ranting about Martin's primary opponent John Wayne Tucker. As a host of a radio show, she has a duty to disclose any potential conflicts of interest, and she failed in that duty.

A couple other things worth noting about Loesch's rant. First, Loesch posted the advertisement paid for by Ed Martin on her Dana Show blog without any acknowledgement that it came from her husband's studio and was paid for by Martin:

She also tweeted about it without acknowleging the conflict of interest:

Second, she claims that all of this was because she had Ed Martin on her show one time:
Since I once had Martin on my show months ago, before I went full time and my show went to a daypart to talk about an initiative for the troops in which he took part, the candidate trumpeted that I was “in Martin’s pocket.”
In fact, Loesch has had Ed Martin on her show many times, and generally not, as she claims, for the troops.
  • She had Martin on March 2nd to talk about a health care forum he was organizing for his campaign.
  • She also had Ed Martin on her show on March 30 to discuss health care.
  • And she had Martin on her show to promote his announcement that he was running for Congress back in September of last year.

  • So it's not entirely clear why Loesch wants to claim that she only had Martin on her show once, but that claims clearly false.

    Third, Loesch, trying to act cool, tried to pretend that she only heard about the post after she got "three hits" from the RFT site:
    It was then perpetuated by a lazy blogger for the Riverfront Times who mistook defamation and libel for content. I knew they wrote about it when I saw that I had a whole three hits from their blog.
    But, the RFT post didn't even link to Loesch's site, and her husband Chris was ranting about this online on Monday, so her attempt to be aloof didn't quite work out.

    Anyway, I'll have to keep my eye out for her next 1,000 word rant on a "non-issue."


    1. My favorite part is where is takes you out of context and calls you out for not fact checking. Really Loesch, are you ready to go down that path with anyone. You had better be sure that everything you have posted is fact checked if so.

      Great blog. Good to hear someone is fighting the good fight.

    2. Love this. I wish that woman would just go away.

    3. At work today, someone mentioned that no one has developed a drug to cure stupid (I work in the med. field). Someone else responded, "yet" to which I responded, "But if we cured stupid, I'd be bored." If Dana went away, I'd lose one of my favorite forms of entertainment (unless she didn't go out quietly, in which case, I could revel in one of my other favorite pastimes, Schadenfreude.)

    4. There is a very good chance that you-know-who (libel protection) suffers from a medically recognized mental illness. We should encourage this person to seek help...

    5. The woman's ignorance is surpassed only by her ego. Pretty sad, actually.

    6. "If you’re not skilled enough at your profession to write well and fact check, you need to find a new one." Dana Loesch on her blog, July 13, 2010

      Let's see how well she is at fact checking, okay?

      "Limbaugh is a pill swilling blowhard" May 11th, 2006. Well, I can't argue with her on that one. No fact checking required here.

      "The Democrats were the ones who passed the two largest tax hikes in our nation's history, not the GOP. As a result, our economy teetered towards a recession. Supply-side economics is working." May 11th, 2006

      Many economists agree that any recession
      in the U.S. at the end of 2000 was
      not as predicted and object to it being
      called a "recession" because there were
      not two consecutive periods of negative

      "The Bush tax cuts are evidence of successful supply-side economics. April 20th, 2006

      The Federal Reserve, under Bush, made
      interest rate increases that was credited
      for plunging us into a recession. The Dow
      Jones was unscathed by a NASDAQ
      crash in March 2000 until the 9/11 attacks.

      "Valerie Plame, a secretary in the WMD department - let's get her title straight now..." Oct. 27th, 2005

      General Hayden in his Congressional
      testimony verified that Valerie Plame was
      indeed a "covert agent" in the CIA. Her
      job title was "Energy Analyst for
      Brewster, Jennings & Associates, an
      acknowledged CIA front company.

      "There was no surplus when Bush took office." July 21st, 2005. This statement was made just after she said "Thank goodness for common sense and"

      The Congressional Budget Office reported a
      surplus in 2000.
      /historical.pdf. Also verified by
      statements from conservative Republicans
      like J.C. Watts, John Boehner, Joe
      Scarborough and others.

      "Unemployment was several points higher under Bill Clinton at the end of his term." July, 21st, 2005

      When Clinton was inaugurated in January
      1993, the UE rate was 7.3%. It
      declined to 3.90% in December 2000. In
      January, 2000, after Bush assumed
      office, it rose to 4.20% to 5.70% after
      Bush's first full year in office. In
      January, 2009 when Obama assumed office, the
      UE rate at the end of January was 7.70%.
      If going from 7.3% to 3.5% is going "several
      points higher under Bill Clinton at
      the end of his term", well, I'd love to be
      her money manager.

      "Where was the outrage when the mayor of New Orleans sat and enjoyed a beer at a
      Patriots game the day before Katrina?" Oct. 27th, 2005

      Mayor Nagin may have attended a Patriots
      game before Katrina hit, but that game was
      played on Aug. 26th, 3 days before landfall
      in La., not the "day before" as alleged.

      On 8/26/2005, Katrina was downgraded to a
      tropical storm near Florida and was
      50 miles NNE of Key West. Katrina became a
      Category 3 on the 27th. At 5:00 pm
      that day, Mayor Nagin declared a state of
      emergency. on 8/27, Mayor Nagin was
      in New Orleans issing an evacuation request,
      later amended to a mandatory
      evacuation. Monday morning, 8/29, 2005,
      Katrina made landfall

      As you can see, Thursday, July 21st, 2005 was a banner day for Dana.

    7. Actually, there was a typo.

      I meant to type "In January, 2001, after Bush assumed office, it rose to 4.20% to 5.70% after
      Bush's first full year in office" not "January,

      Mea culpa.

    8. Anonymous#3- you got it right, "The woman's ignorance is surpassed only by her ego".

    9. Sean Bryant, I totally agree. Had the same thought when I read the first three sentences or so of that ranty post. My head exploded, and I realized she's not living in reality.

    10. it is somewhat entertaining to watch Loesch get called out on all of her lies and see her struggle to fight it off on a daily basis. The sheer amount of bs and her denial and name-calling of those calling her out is amazing. she's pretty thin skinned, no comments allowed on her site, she blocks anybody on twitter who disagrees with her, and projects so much. she calls bloggers working on their own hacks, grassroots organization astroturf, and the naacp bigots. she and the st louis tea party project those things on to their enemies. it's hilarious because they are what they are calling everybody else - hacks, astroturf, ect.