Thursday, July 29, 2010

Loesch Doesn't Bother Doing The Most Basic Research Before Calling Sherrod's Story 'False"

Dana Loesch tweeted the following yesterday:

The article she links to is offensive and idiotic. Sherrod had said that one of her relatives was lynched in the past. The author of the article, former Reaganite Jeffery Lord, called Sherrod's story "false," and attempted to support this assertion by quibbling about the meaning of the word "lynched." He agrees that her relative was beaten to death by an angry group of racists, but somehow thinks that it's only lynching if it involves a noose. First of all, this is an absolutely obnoxious, ridiculous point to quibble about. Her relative was beaten to death by a group of racists! I think that was the relevant part of what Sherrod was trying to convey. Second, Lord, and by the sacred laws of retweeting, Loesch, are also idiotic because in making this completely obnoxious point they also happen to be flat out wrong. As was pointed out by Lord's colleague in the Weekly Standard John Tabin, lynching is defined as, " extrajudicial killing by a mob (which can be as few as two people)." As Tabin writes, and as should be obvious to all, "the fatal beating of Bobby Hall most certainly qualifies."

Furthermore, Tabin's post was up on Monday and has been much discussed online, so if Loesch even had the dimmest awareness of this conversation or the ability to use google, she could have found out that she was about to link to a humiliating article.


  1. I just don't think she gets it. I don't think she wants to get it. For whatever reason, admitting to being wrong or incorrect about something just isn't doable for Loesch.

    I am so confused on this issue alone. So, when Kenneth Gladney got into a scuffle at the Russ Carnahan forum it was a "brutal beating" by a "union mob". Would she say IT qualified as a lynching? I mean, she certainly thought it should be charged and prosecuted as a hate crime, and that the STLCO PA's office wasn't doing enough. I don't need to review just how many times Loesch and her lemmings have beat the dead horse that is the Kenneth Gladney story.

    However, Loesch jumps to Breibart's defense when his irresponsible "journalism" results in Sherrod being asked to resign, she continues to support Breibart, she says Sherrod wants to use race to start social warfare, and now is calling Sherrod a liar.

    So, is it only wrong for black people to be mistreated if they are conservatives? If a non-conservative black person speaks out about racism, does that automatically mean they are lying and trying to incite social warfare?

    I mean seriously, Dana. I need you to explain it to me because I have no comprehension of how your thought patterns work. Oh, and p.s. - I found it really entertaining when you were being all condescending on Larry King telling the other guest how he doesn't understand how economics work. When exactly did you get a degree in economics? Oh, that's right. You didn't even finish your undergrad journalism degree. In that case, if you don't mind, I think I'll get my advise from someone a little bit more qualified than you.

  2. Me again. Same anon as above.

    I wonder if Loesch read much of anything on that article. I just read the article myself, and it is so bad. And by bad I mean just does little to support it's main point.

    I also read quite a few of the comments. It'd probably take me two days to read them all, but what I found interesting was that the majority of people posting (probably 85%) agreed that Lord's article, opinion, and point, were wrong. The definition of lynch is posted several times and the overwhelming majority agrees that Sherrod was not "false" instating her ancestor was lynched.

  3. Everything Anonymous said. Exactly what I was thinking. Did she even read this article before retweeting the link? What is wrong with her??