Mark Reardon Says Pointing Out Inequalities Is "Class Envy" and "Jealousy"

The Post-Dispatch included an excellent editorial today pointing out the fact that sales of luxury items, such as $2,500 boots and $1,500 face cream, have been increasing even while 17% of Americans are living in poverty during a brutal economic period. The whole editorial is excellent, so I hope your read it, but here's a small sampling:

So for the sake of the economy and, especially, for the men and women working the selling floors of luxury retailers and the showrooms and service departments of expensive automobile brands, we all should hope that the latest spasms of the stock market don't scare upscale Americans into tucking away their Amex black cards.

At the same time, we can't help noticing how far removed a Mercedes S-class sedan is — for gas savings, consider the S400 Hybrid, starting at $91,000 — from Americans who don't know if they'll have a job next week.

We think about families who have no option but to keep squeezing miles out of aging cars that are just a paycheck away from being unfixable — AAA (the auto association) reported this week that a quarter of all Americans couldn't afford a $2,000 car repair bill if they were faced with it.

We imagine couples now living on one income instead of two, worried about meeting the payments of adjustable-rate mortgages. We know middle-aged, middle-class parents who've lived modestly and saved responsibly and wonder from semester to semester if there will still be federal Pell grants and subsidized loans to allow their kids to stay in college.

But of course pointing out the fact that there are economic inequalities rankled KMOX's Mark Reardon, who claimed that it was nothing but "class envy:"


Great to know that such caring and thoughtful people are given their own radio shows. I'm sure it's because Mark Reardon is just so much more intelligent and works so much harder than all of the people who live in poverty, right?

Reardon Accuses Sarah Steelman of "Lying" About Paul Ryan's Plan

I'm not even sure Sarah Steelman has a coherent position on Paul Ryan's disastrous budget plan, but apparently is it's coherent enough for KMOX radio host Mark Reardon to accuse her of "lying" about it:

That's the modern Republican Party; if you dare even hesitate about the plan to destroy Medicare as we know it, you will be attacked.

More From Humane Society President Wayne Pacelle

Humane Society of the United States President Wayne Pacelle holds his own against Mark Reardon:

KMOX's Mark Reardon: Only Non-Whites Have Pattern of Mistakenly Blaming Police

Two days ago, tragedy struck in St. Louis as U.S, Marshall John Marshall was shot and killed while trying to serve an arrest warrant to a man in South St. Louis. Apparently, some neighbors were critical of the police after the incident, which seems remarkably insensitive and wrongheaded after a law enforcement official was killed. However, that is no justification for KMOX radio host Mark Reardon bringing race into the discussion:


I'm just not sure how completely clueless Reardon would have to be to actually believe this. Perhaps Reardon is not aware that not all white people are latte drinking radio show hosts who get paid to fly to Los Angeles to hang out with B-list celebrities. There actually are quite a few communities of white people who are extremely distrustful of law enforcement officials, to the point where they might wrongly blame them for doing their job. Reardon's suggestion that this is "not a white pattern," implying that this is a pattern that has something to do with race, is absurd and offensive.

Reardon got called out for his comments by fellow KMOX host Mike Kelley:



And here was Reardon's response:


It's quite amazing that Reardon tries to cover up his despicable statement by playing the "aww, shucks, I'm a working person" card. Meanwhile, he spends most of his time on Twitter attacking people who do work that's much more difficult than what he does (teachers, firefighters, etc.). No wonder the tea party likes this guy so much.

Even With Sympathetic Host, Puppy Mill Supporters Look Ridiculous

Mark Reardon, usually an advocate of less government regulation and someone who has no love for the Humane Society of the U.S., had on guests from both sides to discuss Propsotion B, a ballot initiative to prevent Puppy Mill Cruelty. First up was Barb Schmitz, who spoke about the facts about puppy mills in Missouri (the "puppy mill capital of the U.S.") and explained why compassionate people should vote yes on Prop B:

While Schmitz spoke about the current horrible conditions of puppy mills, the oppositions is basically spending all their time focusing on conspiracy theories about the Humane Society of the United States (which Reardon, unfortunately, is susceptible to). It's pretty amazing to hear how Mindy Patterson, the leader of the Prop B opposition, does not even seem to have basic facts or statistics about puppy mills in Missouri. One can only imagine how badly she would have performed if Reardon had pushed her a little harder:

Reardon did point out an interesting contradiction in Patterson's testimony. On the one hand, she's claiming there are already strong welfare laws on the books. But on the other hand, she's claiming that the extremely minimal regulations suggested by Prop B will put all of the breeders out of business. But if the breeders are already treating the dogs well, why would such minimal restrictions cause them such distress? Just a reminder, here are the conditions proposed in Proposition B. If the law passes, breeders will be required to provide dogs with:

Sufficient food and clean water;
Necessary veterinary care;
Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements;
Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs;
Regular exercise; and
Adequate rest between breeding cycles

If providing these basic necessities puts some breeders out of business, then they shouldn't have been in business in the first place. The breeders who take good care of their animals will have no trouble complying with the new law.

Vote YES on Prop B.

THIS is Why the Tea Party is Dangerous

No, not because they're about to march down the street with torches and pitchforks.

No, not because they represent a large portion of the voting public.

No, not because they're all racists or they're all this or all that.

The St. Louis Tea Party is dangerous because their leadership is willing to lie, smear, attack, distort, persecute, and destroy people in order to get their way. And not only that, but our ridiculously under-informed St. Louis media is happy to help them do it.

The St. Louis Tea Party has been freaking out lately alleging that a teacher at Francis Howell High School was "indoctrinating" her students by asking them to watch Michael Moore's movie "Sicko" as part of their literature class and had previously called a conservative student a "teabagger." The story originated on Bob McCarty's blog, who highlighted the fact that the incident could "lead to termination" of the teacher and then spread to Dana Loesch's radio show, Andrew Breitbart's Big Government, KMOX's Mark Reardon, and finally was mindlessly passed along by KSDK.

Some background on Bob McCarty, which will be relevant. McCarty was the originator of the video back in November that claimed that "union thugs" had attacked a "patriot" at the weekly K & N rally in St. Charles County. The story spread across the St. Louis Tea Party blogosphere. But in fact it turned out that this "patriot" had actually grabbed a female union member by the throat and thrown her to the ground and was arrested on the site. In other words, McCarty's video was a clear distortion of the truth that attempted to cover up violence from a tea partier and then blame it on unions. Furthermore, McCarty appears to openly entertain the absurd conspiracy theory that the Oklahoma City bombings were actually orchestrated by an Iraqi. Here's the quote McCary highlighted for his story:

there is absolutely no question that those tapes existed and, if those tapes ever came forward, they would show conclusively that there was an Iraqi connection to the bombing."

So yeah, that's the guy who started this whole story and was given a platform to share it on Big Government and in the local media. And it will come as no surprise whatsoever that the story is ultimately a complete fabrication.

First of all, none of the tea party reports mentioned that this particular assignment was specifically for the purpose of evaluating how Michael Moore was trying to persuade the audience. The assignment was to evaluate the ethos, logos, and pathos in the movie. In other words, the assignment was designed to get the students to think critically about how movies can attempt to persuade them, which is the exact opposite of trying to push a particular point of view. If you are analyzing how someone is using techniques to try to make you believe something, you're less likely to be susceptible to those techniques. But the tea party instead only said that the movie was being shown as part of a "great literature class," implying that the teacher was conveying the message that this was a work equivalent to "a great piece of literature."

Second, the video McCarty used of his interview was intensely edited. He cut scenes multiple times just to get the basic premise out, and in fact used four different edited cuts of the student talking in order to create his narrative. This is very similar to the video McCarty used to claim that "union thugs" had attacked back in October, where he used frequent cuts and clips to create a completely false story. I would not be surprised at all if the student actually told a much more nuanced story to McCarty and he edited it to suit his agenda.

Finally, and most importantly, the claim the the student was called "a teabagger" appears to be completely false. As was reported by students from the class on the Team Blessman facebook site set up to defend the teacher:

But a classroom full of students were able to tell the principle that [the student] wasn't called a teabagger and simply twisted the situation. So to the school board, I'm pretty positive that about 20 kids saying what happened is going to overpower [the student's] little fairytale.

This was confirmed by multiple students from the class.

In other words, this whole controversy, which the tea party used to suggest that a beloved teacher should be FIRED, was completely manufactured. The teacher did not call the student a "teabagger." She showed the movie Sicko in order to get students to think critically about how the movie tried to use rhetoric to persuade them, not to convince them that there's something wrong with the American health care system. The tea party was willing to go out of their way to DESTROY a person's life in order to further perpetuate their conservative victimhood complex and to intimidate other people from being able to even discuss liberal ideas or works of art in classrooms.

None of the tea party people knew the teacher Mrs. Blessman. But they assumed she was a liberal and so they were happy to try to destroy her. In fact, they ultimately probably didn't even care that much if she was really a liberal because they are willing to do anything to perpetuate the story that conservatives are being discriminated against. They do this to make people sympathetic to their cause. They do this to provide cover for their own nasty behavior. And in many cases they do this to promote their own careers.

And ultimately, not only do they not care at all about destroying the teacher's life, they really don't even care about the student. Don't believe me? Check out these updates from McCarty's blog:

*EDITOR’S NOTE: Those who have accused [the student] of trying to milk this issue for media attention could not be more wrong. When it came to the story I published May 17, I contacted her; she didn’t contact me. Furthermore, I know for a fact she has turned down numerous media requests, including an appearance tomorrow night on Fox News Channel’s Hannity, an interview over the weekend with CNN and an interview with Mark Reardon on St Louis’ KMOX radio this afternoon. How do I know? Because many of those requests were made through me by representatives of the media outlets who had read my article about [the student].

And later:

At the [family's] request, this is the last post I’ll be publishing about the issues at Howell High School related to the “Sicko” assignment, etc.

In other words, McCarty and the tea party were the ones pushing this story, even when the student wasn't interested in pushing it.

One final thought: it's not surprising at all that McCarty and Loesch would spread this misinformation; after all, that's what their careers are based on. However, it's absolutely pathetic that KSDK would pass on this story with no fact-checking or critical thinking or knowing anything about McCarty. KSDK participated in an attempt to destroy a local high school teacher's reputation. There is no excuse for that.

So in the end the reason the tea party is dangerous is that even as a relatively small part of the population they're able to terrorize teachers and whoever else stands in their way if they perceive those people as not sufficiently conservative. And they know how to use their connections in the local lazy media to perpetuate stories no matter how absurd or how disgraceful. Imagine what it would be like if the tea partiers actually were in control of some part of the government. What kind of witch hunts would they go on? How would they react to people who don't share their extreme ideology? They already justify everything they do now by pretending "well, that's what the liberals do." So given that they think that evil liberals are constantly victimizing them, is there any doubt that they would be willing to use their power to persecute those they disagree with?

Despite Media Hype, The St. Louis Tea Party Has No Clue How to Organize

Proposition A, the ballot initiative to restore and expand public transportation in the St. Louis region via a 1/2 of 1% sales tax, won a landslide victory yesterday. Many, many people in the media were predicting throughout the week that the initiative would fail. Despite the fact that the opposition to the initiative showed absolutely no signs of organization, and despite the fact that polls showed that a majority of people in St. Louis County supported the initiative, the St. Louis media apparatus created their own narrative based on their "gut feelings" of what St. Louis County is like, and then started to believe the narrative that they in fact created.

For example, yesterday, Jake Wagman wrote that critics of Prop A had offered "a spirited opposition." Here's what I replied in the comments:

Spirited opposition? Really? The Stop the Prop group tried to raise $10,000 and only raised $750. The largest rally they’ve had was 25 people. The only sense in which they’ve been “spirited” is that they’re good at getting media attention, but that’s just because of the local media’s willingness to give equal time to right wing opposition, no matter how coherent that opposition actually is.

I think the election vindicated my comment. The St. Louis Tea Party never had to produce any people or any money in opposition to Prop A in order for the local media apparatus to treat them like a large movement making good faith arguments. In fact, yesterday, Charlie Brennan and the Beacon were willing to push a hoax by John Burns and Gina Loudon where they claimed that Chesterfield Mayor John Nations was oppressing them. The only thing the tea party did well during this whole campaign was get published in media venue after media venue, and get more airtime on local radio than the people who support Proposition A, largely because KMOX hosts Brennan and Reardon were wholly opposed to the initiative.

On some level, I can understand the media going out of their way to give the anti-Prop A group a chance to express their opposition. But in large part the media completely failed to fact-check the ridiculous and often blatantly false claims made by the tea party opposition. Furthermore, it's not cool for the media to then believe their own echo chamber so much that they start announcing that Prop A will lose before the election based on nothing more than their own gut feelings. I think the excellent ground game is what ultimately won the election for Proposition A, but if we didn't have a really strong pro Prop A presence on social media like Twitter and Facebook, my guess is that the "it's going to lose" media narrative would have spun out of control and probably determined the election by causing transit advocates to give up hope.

So much for the media, but how badly did the Tea Party lose this campaign? Pretty amazingly badly. They put their full weight against it. The official St. Louis Tea Party site railed against it. Dana Loesch came out against it on her blog and on her radio show. Gateway Pundit, one of the most read political blogs in the country, wrote against it and regularly gave a platform to John Burns. Furthermore, as I tweeted yesterday, and as Clark at Show Me Progress wrote about in more detail, the St. Louis Tea Party loudly announced on multiple occasions that their opposition to Prop A was going to be a demonstration of their organizing ability. And they were right. Proposition demonstrated clearly that the St. Louis Tea Party doesn't have a clue how to organize.

First of all, consider this: Proposition A won with 63 % of the vote and 37% opposed. Can anyone honestly imagine a bill for a new tax getting less than 37% in St. Louis County in the current economic climate? I certainly can't. And this strongly suggests that the Tea Party, despite all of their bluster and media attention, did not affect the vote in any significant way. Unless, of course, the absurdity of their opposition actually increased the the winning percentage.

Only yesterday, the Tea Party was claiming that they were going to win. Now, they're whining about how they were outspent. Unfortunately for them, they undermined their own whining a few days ago when they said, "nearly every transit tax in the region has been defeated despite similar funding imbalances." According to their own view then, this means that they must have been an especially bad opposition. Furthermore, the tea party attempted to raise $10,000, but their position was so extreme they could only raise $750, probably from all of the usual suspects! So the fact that they didn't have any money wasn't the cause of them losing; it was a symptom of the real reason they lost: they took a position that was so extreme that no one (other than the media) could take them seriously.

Clark cleverly referred to the Tea Party opposition as the Underpants Gnome plan. For those who aren't familiar, the underpants gnomes' plan to make money in a South Park episode was the following: "1. Steal underpants. 2. ?? 3. Profit!" The Tea Party plan was just about as inane. They seemed to literally believe that just blogging, tweeting, and milking their right wing radio connections was sufficient to convince the public to vote for a crazy position. They spent last Saturday driving around St. Charles County (which didn't vote on Prop A) in trucks with anti Prop A messages scribbled on them. Twice. Their election day plan was to stand on street corners with signs. They literally are completely clueless about how to win elections. And just to clarify, unlike Dana "literally stomping on the constitution," Loesch, I do in fact understand the meaning of "literally."

One last thought: Clark also reference that this is the group former Matt Blunt Chief of Staff Ed Martin is counting on to win in November. In fact, Ed Martin signed up for the Drive Around St. Charles with Anti-Prop A Signs facebook event along with only 19 other people:

As far as I know, Ed Martin did not actually make it out to the event. But can anyone doubt that Martin, the ultimate political opportunist, would have been trumpeting up and down how everyone hates taxes if Proposition A had failed? Martin is trying to run as a St. Louis Tea Party candidate. But Proposition A has shown just how far away from normal people's views of good government the Tea Party really is.

Mark Reardon Lobs Softballs, but Gateway Pundit Whiffs Anyway

It was obvious that KMOX radio host Mark Reardon, a self-professed fan of Rush Limbaugh and of Gateway Pundit himself, was not going to ask Gateway Pundit (Jim Hoft) any tough questions as he interviewed Hoft purportedly to "get the facts" about the recent "coffingate" controversy. Reardon was happy to play along with the tea party story that the whole thing was the result of a massive conspiracy between the Left and the mainstream media. And he naturally failed to provide any relevant context for the incident, such as the fact that, according to Gateway Pundit's own blog, the tea party had just the day before set pictures of Congressman Carnahan on fire while chanting "death to the dictator!"

But Reardon made that crucial mistake of actually thinking during the interview for a brief moment, which is the practical equivalent of dumping a gallon of hydrochloric acid on the foundations of any of the tea party's conspiracy theories. Reardon asked Hoft,

Do you think that...there are some people who are going to say you guys, OK, maybe you get away with it going to the office, but you crossed the line when you went to his home. Do you feel like that's a possibility at all?

And check out Hoft's pathetic response:

Oh certainly, I understand that there are people who feel that way. Um....we were...um...I was one who, maybe that wouldn't have been my idea, but I did go along with the consensus of the people I was with...and we made sure we weren't on his lawn...we weren't on the grass...we didn't leave anything there...we were there for 10-15 minutes and left. And there was no one home. And we didn't got up to his door.

Reardon did not follow up and instead shifted the conversation back to the original "Carnahan conspiracy" plot line, but Hoft's answer was revealing for a couple of reasons. First, he provided no explanation whatsoever for why they brought the coffin to Carnahan's house. They had already "said a prayer" at the office, so what was the intention of going to his home? The obvious explanation, from my and others perspective, is that it was meant to send the message, "we know where you live.'

Furthermore, Hoft tries to pass the buck on going to Carnahan's house, and says that, "it wouldn't have been my idea." But this is at odds with the facts. As it happens, the Tea Party, and Jim Hoft in particular, initially announced that the rally was going to be at Carnahan's house, and only later changed it to his office (probably because the media said they wouldn't cover it if it was at Carnahan's house). First, check out the html address for Hoft's original post, which clearly indicates that his first edit was announcing that the rally would be at Carnahan's home:

Second, though Hoft deleted his original tweet, you can see from people's retweets that he initially announced that the rally was going to be at Carnahan's home.


Hoft's attempt to pretend that this was just a last minute decision and that he was just "going along with the consensus" is a complete farce. He, and the rest of the St. Louis Tea Party, are just lucky that interviewers like Reardon aren't willing to ask them any tough questions.