Showing posts with label dana loesch tea party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dana loesch tea party. Show all posts

Friday, January 13, 2012

Hilarious! Breitbart Editor Whiffs on Politico Conspiracy Theory

Too funny. Breitbart editor Jim Nolte wrote up a conspiracy theory about Politico on Big Journalism. It said the following:
The playbook is simple. Leftist outlets like Politico look for (or in this case, receive a tip from a leftist blogger notoriously obsessed with silencing Dana) any little thing a conservative says that can be amplified into the news-cycle as unacceptable or outrageous. Then, this ginned up tempest in a teapot, is used as a wedge between the conservative and the outlet that dares allow that conservative’s voice to be heard.
Oooh, so scandalous. The "tip from a leftist blogger" link goes to this tweet:


Except for this slight problem: my tweet was sent *after* Politico had already posted the story. In fact, I was responding because the reporter had encouraged Loesch to contact her if she wanted to respond and I know she has a history of making things up. Nothing about Dylan Byer's post was changed after I tweeted him (other than his update from a CNN spokesperson).

What an amazing surprise that the defense from a Breitbart editor would turn into a hysterical, easily-debunked conspiracy theory.

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Loesch Contradicts Herself in Six Minutes

Of course, this is nothing compared to the average 4.7 contradictions per minute of her radio show, but it's still a pretty funny example. Loesch, as always, is angry at Media Matters for America Senior Fellow Eric Boehlert, presumably because he retweeted this post about Loesch's failure to do basic research. So first she accuses him of "using a mother for politics:"


It's not at all clear why Loesch claims Boehlert is using Kelley Williams-Bolar for politics: I don't think he's even written about the subject and certainly hasn't made any statements like, "it's Glenn Beck's politics that are responsible for her situation." But the really funny part is Loesch's very next tweet:


Yup, it's Eric Boehlert's political views (or rather, what Dana Loesch imagines are Boehlert's political views) that are entirely responsible for Kelley Williams-Bolar being convicted for allegedly lying to get her children into a better school district (I write "allegedly" because the case is complicated, and I agree with most others that her punishment was way too harsh for the suspected crime). Given that Boehlert's particular political views have absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of this case, and considering that solutions to education problems in general and the Williams-Bolar case in particular are complicated, there could not be a more textbook example of "using someone for politics" than Loesch's statement.

Monday, February 7, 2011

Ed Martin Joins Crazy Call To Defund Public Education in Missouri

Ed Martin tweeted the following today:
The link went to a page calling on the Missouri Legislature to send back tens of millions of dollars in federal money for education in Missouri that had already been allocated. Senator Lembke has said the following about the federal education money:
"The state of Missouri should take a stand," said Lembke, R-St. Louis. "If the federal government's not going to live within their means, then we've got to show them how to do that."
As pointed out by FiredUp, the idea of taking money from children to try to score cheap political points is nuts. But I guess nothing Ed Martin does surprises me anymore.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Tea Party Links to White Separatist Blog to Claim That Lewis Reed is "Using Race"

No, I'm not making this up. The St. Louis Tea Party today promoted a blog post claiming that Lewis Reed, President of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen, was "striking out" at the tea party to "hide his corruption."

The post, written by St. Louis tea partier Jim Durbin, was full of their usual discredited conspiracy theories about yachts and ballrooms that were debunked during the Carnahan/Ed Martin contest. However, a vindictive comment at the end took Durbin's post over the edge. Durbin wrote, addressing Reed:
One thing is for sure. The use of race to divide an electorate is in your bag of tricks. But this time, we're watching. And recording.

Curious to see what Durbin was talking about, I followed the link. It took me to a web page proudly proclaiming a "St. Louis CofCC Blog Exclusive."

What is the significance of the "St. Louis C of CC", you ask? I'll let the Anti-Defamation League explain:
The St. Louis-based Council of Conservative Citizens traces its roots directly to the racist, anti-integrationist White Citizens' Councils of the 1950s and 1960s. Its current leader, attorney Gordon Lee Baum, was an organizer for the WCC and built the Council of Conservative Citizens in part from the old group's mailing lists. Like its predecessor, the CCC inflames fears and resentments, particularly among Southern whites, with regard to black-on-white crime, nonwhite immigration, attacks on the Confederate flag and other issues related to "traditional" Southern culture. Although the group claims not to be racist, its leaders traffic with other white supremacist groups and its publications, Web sites and meetings all promote the purportedly innate superiority of whites.
The article continues:
Both on its national and chapter Web sites and in its primary publication, The Citizens Informer, CCC's belief in white superiority and its derision of nonwhites, particularly African Americans, are delineated without apology....

The ideology of The Citizens Informer's editors is echoed in the publication's pages, although in a somewhat muted form. Many articles consist of either tributes to the superiority of the white race or diatribes about black violence or Hispanic immigration. As Robert Patterson, the publication's past editor, has written in a column, "...any effort to destroy the race by a mixture of black blood is an effort to destroy Western civilization itself." Columnist H. Millard has offered a similar observation and a morek visceral anxiety about intermarriage when he argued that minorities are turning the United States population into a "slimy brown mass of glop." Other essays in the publication lament the victimization of whites at the hands of minorities and the liberal "elite."

Other contributing writers to The Citizens Informer have included Jared Taylor, publisher of American Renaissance, which argues that African Americans are genetically inferior; Indianapolis Baptist Temple Pastor Greg Dixon, who believes that churches are not bound by human laws or regulations; and psychology professor Glayde Whitney, who wrote the preface to David Duke's racist and anti-Semitic "autobiographical thesis" My Awakening ("Completely separately from David Duke," Whitney wrote, "my inquiries led to essentially the same places and some of the same conclusions that he spells out in this book.")
Or, if you prefer, you can read the history of the C of CC at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which echoes the ADL site:
The Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) is the modern reincarnation of the old White Citizens Councils, which were formed in the 1950s and 1960s to battle school desegregation in the South. Created in 1985 from the mailing lists of its predecessor organization, the CCC, which initially tried to project a "mainstream" image, has evolved into a crudely white supremacist group whose website has run pictures comparing pop singer Michael Jackson to an ape and referred to blacks as "a retrograde species of humanity." The group's newspaper, Citizens Informer, regularly publishes articles condemning "race mixing," decrying the evils of illegal immigration, and lamenting the decline of white, European civilization.
Both the ADL and SPLC sites have much more about the history full of disgusting details, so click through if you want to get the full flavor of the group.

Linking to a white supremacist web site to justify the claim that Lewis Reed "uses race to divide an electorate," is extremely bad, but maybe you could argue that Jim Durbin had his head in the sand for most of his adult life and didn't realize who the group was. In fact, there is a quite a bit of evidence that Durbin has his head in the sand most of the time. However, that would not explain how he could feel free to justify his statement about Reed with the absurd logic spouted in the Council of Conservative Citizens blog post.

Here's how the white separatist post sets up their "issue" with Lewis Reed
Mr. Reed has degrees in Mathematics and Computer Science, and no doubt his math education has taught him that if he expects to win this election, he is going to have to get enough white votes from south city. While south city is becoming more and more non-white (especially black), still the vast majority of voters in south city are white.

However, Mr. Reed has some competition for that white vote, and that being the white incumbent he is challenging.
The post then goes on to mention that Reed, in his election contest against Shrewsbury, sent out a mailer suggesting that Shrewsbury bore some responsibility for the high rates of crime in the city. I have no idea if that was true or not, but either way it sounds like a pretty standard attack mailer. But check out what the Council of Conservative Citizen's blogger takes issue with:
After seeing all that, a white voter in south city might be tempted to want to get rid of Shrewsbury now, and vote for that other guy.

What other guy?

There isn’t anything in this ad about the “other guy.”

Except if you look way at the bottom of the yellow, underneath the red stripe. If you can’t see it, then go to the full resolution version and scroll to the bottom.

In tiny white letters, very unreadable on the yellow background, and very easy to miss, are these words:

“Paid for by Committe [sic] to Elect Lewis Reed Thomas Shepard, Treasurer”

Okay. Is Lewis Reed Thomas Shepard running for City Treasurer? If you didn’t know that Mr. Reed was the opposition on March 6, you would think so. But if you know, you also know that, by accident or design, no punctuation mark exists between “Reed” and “Thomas” to indicate that Lewis Reed was running for Aldermanic President, and that Thomas Shepard was his campaign treasurer.

Okay, brass tacks time.

Lewis Reed needs white south city votes. But he can’t get those in the numbers he needs if the average white person knows he is black. So his strategy here is to whoop up hostility toward Shrewsbury among whites on a white concern, (black) crime, and get people not to vote for Shrewsbury or to vote for his opponent, and not indicate who is opponent is, and certainly not show a picture of his opponent. In other words, trick the dummies.
Got that? This blogger is complaining about the fact that Lewis Reed, a black man, sent out an attack ad focused on crime without indicating that he is black. In fact, the blogger claimed that Reed was "tricking" voters by not including a picture of himself! He is, in effect, claiming that whenever black politicians send out a mailer about crime, they are obligated to inform the recipients that they are black! Blatant racist garbage!

And Durbin links to this to claim that Reed "uses race to divide an electorate." The evidence? That Lewis Reed did not tell people he was black when he sent out a flier about crime. This is beyond despicable, and is a new low even for Durbin.

Back in 2007, Bill Hennessy apologized for linking to the Council of Conservative Citizens web site. Let's hope the tea party does so again. But this is more than just a bad link: Durbin was suggesting that Lewis Reed needs to include photos of himself in mailers about crime. Without some really good explanation that I currently can't imagine, I'm not sure how anyone could justify promoting Durbin's garbage after this.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Political Endorsements and the St. Louis Tea Party: Besties.

The St. Louis Tea Party, as Adam has mentioned, is endorsing Ed Martin in his campaign for Missouri's 3rd District Congressional Seat.

The RFT's feature article this week confirms that straight from Eddie's mouth.

Okay, whatever, right? But wait...what's that?

Dana Loesch herself, Queen Bee of the St. Louis Tea Party (though Gina Loudon would challenge me to a wrasslin' match for writing that) and self-described co-founder of the St. Louis Tea Party said:

"The St. Louis Tea Party doesn’t endorse candidates. We don’t even allow politicians/candidates to speak. Period. We’ve told Sarah Steeleman [sic], Todd Akin, Roy Blunt and many others “no.”

Huh. Well, that's interesting. Maybe it was just a one-time slip of the tongue.

Oh, oops, guess not.

Now, you'll notice from Adam's post that the St. Louis Tea Party announced its endorsement of Ed Martin on September 25, nearly a month ago. But have we heard from our media darling Loesch? Has she displayed any outrage over this endorsement, considering her adamant opposition to candidate endorsements?

I certainly haven't. I would expect the co-founder of the St. Louis Tea Party to take great umbrage at a decision which so radically flies in the face of her insistence to the contrary.

Perhaps her silence owes a little something to this.

Or maybe she's just so busy using the name of the St. Louis Tea Party to catapult her to fame that she doesn't really care what they're doing so long as she continues to garner TV appearances.

Tra-la-la.

You decide.