Saturday, October 16, 2010

Fact Check: Dana Loesch Was NOT Critical of George Bush's Spending

Dana Loesch has repeatedly claimed that she was "INCREDIBLY critical" of George Bush's presidency while she's trying to appear consistent during her nonstop attacks on government spending during the Obama administration. The most recent example was last night on Real Time With Bill Maher:

This is what Loesch said while speaking to Maher:
Loesch: With the Bush era, one of the first people who were out with their placards griping about the incessant spending from the government...these were people who were critical, including myself, of the spending that happened under the Bush administration's last four years that did, I might add, have a Democrat majority in congress.

Maher: During the Bush administration?

Loesch: Yeah, there were a lot of us who were incredibly critical!
However, a look at her blog posts from 2008 shows that this is not the case. In fact, she repeatedly defended George Bush's spending.

Here's Dana Loesch defending George Bush's spending in a post titled "Bush sacrificed conservatism to keep us safe:"
The media finally won.

People believe every bad thing written and said about the man.

“Spending! We’re concerned about spending! This administration spent!”
Well yeah. Maybe because WE’RE IN A WAR.
You tend to SPEND in WARTIME.
Unless you want your ass kicked.
And in a later post:
We’re spending more because WE’RE IN A WAR. DURR. Our spending during this wartime is still LESS than that of Vietnam and WWII.
While live-blogging a debate:
7:58 I like how Romney rises above the allure of a cheap shot at Bush. He gets the first loud applause of the night talking about how Bush “stood for strength” and stuck to his guns.
She gushed about a column that said George Bush was the "most underrated president...ever:" Here's what Loesch said about it:
Love! With the passion of a thousand hearts!
If you look at her posts during the time of the bank bailout in Fall of 2008, like this and this, she did not write any posts critical of George Bush. Instead, she spent all of her time arguing that Democrats were responsible for the problem.

Finally, when she wrote a retrospective of George Bush full of gushing praise, she did say that she was against the bank bailout, but she said the following about Bush:
He apologized, even though the blame is not his if you know economics, for all of us being in this mess and how he was going to do his best to make it easier. He wasn't flashy but he was frustrated, frustrated at the mess and over how many were ignoring the very thing that caused it.
She ended with the following:
Reagan was a hated man in his time. Only in death was he immortalized and were the success of his policies acknowledged. I hope Bush doesn't have to wait that long.
Loesch was not even close to cricial of George Bush. Her repeated claims that she was in order to try to sound consistent while screaming about spending now that Obama is in office are, unsurprisingly, complete nonsense.


  1. Funny, I remember her writing a blog post about a Bush appearance in town where she was doing her usual ranting insulting schtick about the "protesters" that were kept 3 blocks away from the rally. She certainly wasn't protesting Bush then. She seems to be really good at reinventing history when it makes her whack job point.

    And just another note.......Editor-in-Chief of BigJournalism???? You have to be kidding me. One would think that would require some knowledge of editing, writing and the intelligent use of the English language. Her "introduction piece" pretty much says what she knows about writing. At least some college degree should be a requirement.

  2. Dana has been a regular disapointment to bloggers in STl ever since she started making her schtick political a couple years back. I remember she was a fun writer to read when she still wrote for the Post-Dispatch