LOESCH FOLLOW UP (See previous blog)

Loesch and Martin

Roland Martin has been suspended from CNN after tweeting that, “If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him! #superbowl.” He then insisted that, rather than making a joke about violence against men who are attracted to men, he really just hates soccer: “@DrMChatelain @notjustsexuality well that shows how ignorant you are. I rip on soccer all of the time. Learn to pay attention!”

It’s the second time in a month that CNN commentators have come under fire for controversial comments: Dana Loesch recently cheered reports of members of the United States Marine Corps urinating on the bodies of dead Afghans and suggested that had she been present, she would have joined in. But while Martin apologized and will experience an indefinite suspension, CNN and Loesch refused to apologize for her remarks, and she’s remained on the air.

The clear difference between the two cases? A sense that CNN’s audience was offended. GLAAD, which keeps a careful eye on defamation against gays and lesbians in the media, moved quickly to call for Martin’s dismissal and to track the network’s response to the incident. CNN got the message that its own constituents were upset, and that it would suffer consequences — or at least a lot of annoyance — if it failed to act.

Loesch’s comments on the other hand, offended human rights advocates and decent people everywhere. But that’s not the same as running afoul of an organization with a well-established plan to respond to these kinds of events and a well-worn path to media outlets who would cover and amplify their response. While Loesch’s comments were reprehensible, there was also no organized group who was likely or able to hold CNN accountable for her words, and for continuing to let her appear on-air without penalty.

Taken together, the way CNN handled Martin’s and Loesch’s comments makes it look like CNN has no consistent internal values, and no internal standard for how to respond when it commenters express sentiments that are an anathema to those values. I’m glad to know, per CNN’s statement, that “Language that demeans is inconsistent with the values and culture of our organization, and is not tolerated.” But why should it take several days of consideration for CNN to arrive at that conclusion? If the network’s truly committed to the proposition that violence against gay people is no joking matter, that’s something it should know in advance, and CNN should have a personnel policy in place to determine what the appropriate penalty is when someone violates their standards. Similarly, whether Loesch’s comments violate CNN’s internal values shouldn’t be something that’s determined by the level of outrage outside the network’s headquarters.

The above portion of blog brought to you by thinkprogress.

I found this on a teapublican blog:

"We commend GLAAD for their quick and intensive response to Martin’s attacks, and we commend CNN for taking this initial step."

"CNN now must ensure that all their employees receive the message that “Language that demeans is inconsistent with the values and culture of our organization, and is not tolerated.”

If indeed Martin's comments where and are construed as wrong, then Loesch's willingness to say she would drop trou and piss on dead Taliban certainly falls in line with this CNN Statement:

“Roland Martin’s tweets were regrettable and offensive,” CNN said in a statement published by The Washington Post. “Language that demeans is inconsistent with the values and culture of our organization, and is not tolerated. We have been giving careful consideration to this matter, and Roland will not be appearing on our air for the time being.”

I say, we start banning CNN, sign a petition protesting Loesch's comments - that is until they keep with "policy" - and dump the hack (AKA Dana Loesch) as well.


NFTOS
Staff Writer
Steve "Damn Nazi Liberal" Chevapravatdumrong

DANA LOESCH & ARI FLEISCHER

DANA LOESCH

Neither are just another pretty face, more like liars and deceivers.

Make no mistake, Dana Loesch is everything disgusting about a teabagger - just all one ball of crap rolled into one. Loesch a college drop out never earning a journalism degree, and this makes sense, as I just don't see "writer" in her. She self professes on a daily basis while standing on her hypocritical lectern on how much "fact" is provided in her writings, yet time and time again, we find this blockhead missing the truth by about this....................................................................................much!

ARI FLEISCHER

On Friday, ThinkProgress exclusively reported that Ari Fleischer was involved in Komen’s strategy regarding Planned Parenthood. They revealed that, in December, Fleischer was retained by Komen to advise how to fill their top communications position, and he drilled candidates on how they would handle the Planned Parenthood issue.

Yesterday, Ad Age further reveals that, throughout the controversy, Fleischer has personally advised Komen CEO Nancy Brinker on how to handle the Planned Parenthood issue.

Friday, Fleischer told ThinkProgress he had no involvement in the crisis communications effort. In an email sent to ThinkProgress after the publication of our story, Fleischer claimed our entire report was “inaccurate,” “unfair,” and “simply false” because it created the implication that he was involved with Komen’s strategy in recent days.Yesterday, ThinkProgress asked Fleischer to explain his email now that he’s acknowledged he personally advised Komen’s CEO on Planned Parenthood strategy in January and February. Fleischer now claims that he was not involved in strategy because he did not participate “in any meetings or on any conference calls.”  As for why he objected to ThinkProgress’ initial report — which now appears to have understated the true scope of his involvement — Fleischer said it failed to get the “emphasis right.”


Now enter Dana Loesch, whom never misses an opportunity to be the asshat of the century. Fleischer and Loesch have often worked frequently on CNN during GOP primaries - so in her infinite wisdom to blast others before having facts Loesch once again opens mouth and inserts foot.

I captured screenshots last night as I thought Loesch and Breitbart would edit the content:

Dana's blog:

More Blog:

Dana's troglodyte fan base chimes in:

More non-whimsical  nosnense for the reich-wing nuts:

This screenshot shows a post asking Loesch to retract. This points to the error of the "Diva's" ways, and the story falls apart:

Loesch getting facts wrong and having to fix error all the while insulting in her non-apology.

Big Journalism’s Loesch, CBS’s Attkisson Receive 2012 ReedIrvine Accuracy in Media Award.

AIM Is A Cesspool Of Hate And Conspiracy Theories.

Lets be clear readers, receiving an award from the right wing fringe group "AIM" (Accuracy In media) is like getting a humanitarian award from the Adolph Hitler Society. Speaking of oxymoron's, Loesch and facts, they go together like:

Facebook and Privacy, Middle East and Peace, Susan Boyle and sexy, Bill Gates and poverty, and porn & subtle.

So it would make great sense why Loesch wins the AIM award, two peas in a pod so to speak. Despicable and vile go together well, hence AIM awarding Loesch the "accuracy" award. This is like awarding you kid high school honours for failing high school, or acknowledging David Koresh for mass murdering!

Dana the Diva is a certified lunatic and a modern-day version of Phyllis Schlafly.

Here is an entire blog that solely concentrates on the BS that comes from this radical teabagger.

Dana Loesch wouldn't know the truth if she fell over it. A popular theme from this darling (sarcastic) - Loesch's favourite spew, "The Media Narrative Gets it Wrong."! The one thing that Loesch is good at - and that is insulting anyone whom doesn't align with her f**ked up mentality!

Fleischer is the creature who spent years supporting the insidious lies emanating from the Offal office of G.W. Bush .

Satan: "Ari, your work is not done yet".
Ari: "Yes, master".

The very fact that Ari Fleischer even commented on this problem shows he is much more involved than he admits. If Nancy Brinker as CEO makes $500,000 salary, god knows how much Ari and Ms. Handel make for their input. Those people never do anything unless it pays big money.

"Fleischer, who retains a host of influential political and sports clients, makes his money as head of a private consulting company which markets itself as being able to “successfully deal with the media.” If this is his idea of successfully dealing with the media, I'd hate to see what he thought a disaster was. Considering that George W. Bush left office being universally regarded as the worst President this country had ever had except possibly for Ronnie Reagan, why would anybody think seriously about hiring this criminal? (Valerie Plame outing)

So, Ari and Handel, in one fell swoop, destroyed the credibility of one of the most revered and respected brands in the country by trying to politicize one of the most serious heath concerns of all women. Idiots in the name of what? forcing their archaic beliefs on people?

Here's a PR Tip Fleischer should have given Komen: don't ask a former presidential press secretary who's still politically active for media management advice when you're in trouble for turning an apolitical issue into a political one.

Ari Fleischer and Dana Loesch are in essence liars working for liars.

The truth about Loesch:

She is Andy Breitbarts editor. And yes, it’s a perfect fit because Big Journalism exists as an open forum for right-wing misinformation about the press (as opposed to a site that produces actual journalism), and Loesch has made a name for herself within the RW blogosphere by making shit up. (She does the same on the AM dial.)

Dana Loesch claims to be a champion of "conservative feminism," took all of ten minutes to undermine any inkling of moral authority she might have on the subject during a Twitter argument with actual feminists not long ago.

So, first of all, Loesch's claim that "liberal feminists" have an issue with "being pretty" is laughable. The vast majority of feminists I've met don't think there's something wrong with "being pretty:" rather, they simply think that women shouldn't be defined by their looks. It's a critique of the all-too-obvious fact that society often overemphasizes the standards for attractiveness in women, and often underemphasizes other abilities.

Got that? While bragging about how much more enlightened "conservative feminsts" are compared to "liberal feminists," Loesch claims that the people arguing with her have IBTs (which, according to some societal standards, is less cool than GBTs?). So even as she is arguing that liberal feminists place restrictions on women based on their looks, Loesch attacks the women trying to have a discussion with her based on their looks! Or at least, what she imagines about their looks. Could she be more ridiculous?

Loesch often berates the "Liberal media". There is no such thing as the "Liberal Media." It's just a Right-Wing diversion trick to give Faux News more ratings, and for the corporatist media to pander to their interests.

Loesch's transformation from mom blogger to political provocateur has been equal parts of bullshit and mind numbing lunacy! Believe it or not Loesch was once a Democrat.

Loesch likes to be polarizing, Ann Coulter type of polarization, sharp tongue in hand if you will. Loesch like most teabaggers make themselves out to be a victim, "woe-is-me".

Steven Truesdell a progressive, photographer, and pal of Loesch says:

"I do like her, and a couple times a year we'll be at a social event and have a nice conversation. I do think there's a good heart there; I just disagree with everything above the neck."

Loesch's ideology strikes a chord with most Americans, conservative or Liberal, that's just her nature. Loesch turned coat when she met her husband, a man with less testicles than his wife. It's he whom wanted the voice for his ideology, it's he - the one who didn't have the backbone himself to stand and rant on courthouse lawns, what better patsy then to throw the diva under the bus an make her your voice. I just respect a man so much whom literally hides behind his wife!

If Loesch wants to be respected as a "journalist", then maybe she should start with just the facts, not half cocked and half- baked thoughts. This fiasco alone shows that facts are not important to Loesch, raging against the machine at any costs is the "narrative" for this teabagger.

To date, Loesch has still failed to practice what she preaches, that is retract the lies and bullshit in her blog yesterday, and knowing what we know about this douche bag, something tells us hell will freeze over before she does!


UPDATE: 16:39 2/8/2012

Loesch issues her version of retraction:

"*UPDATE: After publishing the initial article and blaming Fleischer for Daly’s decisions (they spelled it “Dailey” on Twitter), Think Progress spoke with Komen CEO Nancy Brinker who discussed the scope of Fleischer’s advice to the organization. After the proverbial trash hit the fan Brinker had asked Fleischer of his opinion on the matter. Think Progress, eager to avoid a retraction, pounced on this to justify their earlier smear, done before speaking to anyone at the foundation. They probably feel as though they just escaped the guillotine. Unfortunately for them, my point still stands, and yes, they still blamed Fleischer for decisions made by a former Pelosi aide. Komen asking Fleischer’s opinion after the fact has no effect on the validity of my accusation made against Think Progress. It does however, place greater significance on how hard they’re working to deflect any and all blame towards a former Pelosi aide."

This is your a-typical "I f**cked up" apology from Loesch, admitting that she is wrong would be totally out of character for this dimwit, for God Knows she thrives on her ability to never be wrong and err. Loesch' s point is often that she has no point - useful idiot comes to mind. Thanks for the retraction Diva Dana, even if it wasn't one, we know what you meant, if anyone is "deflecting" its Loesch!

"A slick move, to blame the other team for your side’s transgressions in order to deflect. Sources close to the Komen Foundation tell me Fleischer wasn’t involved in any way with Komen’s Planned Parenthood strategy"....... yet Ari admits his wrong deeds.....facts still seem to elude this queen of hate. Get over yourself Diva, you aren't that important!

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West

Southern Strategy

GOP - "I can 't be a racist, my best friend is black"

We have learned of late how truly racist teapublicans are, but that's ok. Why you ask? Because "One of their Best Friends is Black".

Some of you may recognize this from the 1960s. It was the standard moderate-to-liberal White excuse that they couldn’t possibly be racist, because … “one of my best friends is Black,” or, more in keeping with the decade, “one of my best friends is a Negro.”

It’s sort of like the 2000 RNC Convention in Philadelphia, whose stage looked like a road show revival of ‘Porgy and Bess’ but when the cameras panned to the obligatory crowd reaction scenes, it was a sea of White. Or the Sarah Palin rallies in 2008, which were seas of White, excepting the poor undercover Secret Service Detail, who were the only Black men (or Black Persons) in the arena, and must have felt pretty strange. After all, Secret Service are, by nature, undercover, and being the only Black person in a suit in an entire arena of Righty-Whities - coming to listen to racially coded language has got to be a surreal experience that few have ever experienced.

Remember back when - with former CEO Herman Cain on the stage, the once “Who Wants To Be President?” Game Show, or, perhaps, “Future American Idol” - the stage is Lily-White with the exception of Herman Cain, the non-politician candidate who gets in, while the former Governor of Louisiana, Buddy Roehmer, is consistently excluded, etc.

Why? Because “some of our Best Friends are Black.”

As if that were an excuse. But even Juan Williams, the fired NPR pundit who found that serving his new master at Faux News uses the excuse. In his book tour and to this day, he maintains that his comments that Muslims make him nervous - his defense is that he was active in the Civil Rights movement and wrote a book about how Blacks have been discriminated against.

Or, absurdly, “I can’t be a racist, because some of my best friends are Black.”

I offer this as preface, because this absurdist formulation has reared its head on many occasions this teapublcian campaign season.

But there is no doubt that the GOP is not a party for “Blacks.” Sorry. Teapublicans claim, as does Herman Cain, that if Blacks merely understand their policies, then they’d overcome their “brainwashing,” and vote teapublican.

One cannot forget that the "contemporary Republican Party" was born with the Southern Strategy, winning over the former Jim Crow South to its side of the political aisle, and as a backlash against the civil rights movement. This is a formula for a politics of white grievance mongering and white victimology; a dream world where white conservatives are oppressed, their rights infringed upon by a tyrannical federal government and elite liberal media that are beholden to the interests of the “undeserving poor,” racial minorities, gays, and immigrants.

In keeping with this script in order to win over Red State America, the 2012 teapublican presidential candidates have certainly not disappointed. Both overt racism and dog whistles are delectable temptations that the teapublican presidential nominees cannot resist. With the election of the country’s first African-American president, and a United States that is less white and more diverse, the GOP is in peril. In uncertain times, you go with what you know. For the teapublican Party, this means “dirty boxing,” digging deep into the old bucket of white racism, and using the politics of fear, hostility and anxiety to win over white voters by demagogue Obama.

Racism is an assault on the common good. Racism also does the work of dividing and conquering people with common interests. While the 2012 teapublican candidates are stirring the pot of white racial anxiety, this is a means to a larger end—the destruction of the country’s social safety net, in support of vicious economic austerity policies, and protecting the kleptocrats and financiers at the expense of the working and middle classes.

The point is as clear as a crystal ball. The issue is exclusion, and when you’re as ham-handedly race-obsessed as to put up Herman Cain in as the "token Black" for all teapublicans to an almost entirely White audience, or Ali Akbar as the token Black for all (virtually all-White) Tea Partiers, you DO have a racial problem.

If you watch Faux News, you will note the astonishing profusion of Black “political strategists,” which would seem odd, given their actual proportion of the GOP political strategist class. Couldn’t be intentional “image” manipulation could it?

But you turn the outrageous tokenism inside out and it gives you the true color of the ( Southern-based) GOP’s racial obsessions. The invisible hand always leaves a footprint, and, if it seems too good to be true, it probably is.

It’s a denial of facts and a denial of reality, but then, perhaps it’s like Ayn Rand trying to convince greedy millionaires that their rapaciousness is actually moral, that they are the “Atlases” of civilization who hold the world on their mighty shoulders every time they throw a widow or an orphan into the street to get their hands on another piece of real estate.

In this case, since some of their "Best Friends are Black", they can’t possibly be racists.

Alas, accusing a teapublican in this benighted age of denial of facts is, alas, increasingly redundant.

But be careful, before you accuse me of being unfair to teapublicans, I want you to know that this is perceptibly impossible. Why you ask? Because some of my best friends are teapublicans.



NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West

BREAKING NEWS

Karen Handle radical teapublican out at Komen

Komen for the Cure Vice President for Public Policy Karen Handel is out! As of 10:34 est today she has submitted her resignation.




February 7, 2012

The Honorable Nancy Brinker

CEO, Susan G. Komen for the Cure VIA EMAIL

5005 LBJ Freeway, Suite 250

Dallas, Texas 75244

Dear Ambassador Brinker:

Susan G. Komen for the Cure has been the recognized leader for more 30 years in the fight against breast cancer here in the US – and increasingly around the world.

As you know, I have always kept Komen’s mission and the women we serve as my highest priority – as they have been for the entire organization, the Komen Affiliates, our many supporters and donors, and the entire community of breast cancer survivors. I have carried out my responsibilities faithfully and in line with the Board’s objectives and the direction provided by you and Liz.

We can all agree that this is a challenging and deeply unsettling situation for all involved in the fight against breast cancer. However, Komen’s decision to change its granting strategy and exit the controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood and its grants was fully vetted by every appropriate level within the organization. At the November Board meeting, the Board received a detailed review of the new model and related criteria. As you will recall, the Board specifically discussed various issues, including the need to protect our mission by ensuring we were not distracted or negatively affected by any other organization’s real or perceived challenges. No objections were made to moving forward.

I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it. I openly acknowledge my role in the matter and continue to believe our decision was the best one for Komen’s future and the women we serve. However, the decision to update our granting model was made before I joined Komen, and the controversy related to Planned Parenthood has long been a concern to the organization. Neither the decision nor the changes themselves were based on anyone’s political beliefs or ideology. Rather, both were based on Komen’s mission and how to better serve women, as well as a realization of the need to distance Komen from controversy. I believe that Komen, like any other nonprofit organization, has the right and the responsibility to set criteria and highest standards for how and to whom it grants.

What was a thoughtful and thoroughly reviewed decision – one that would have indeed enabled Komen to deliver even greater community impact – has unfortunately been turned into something about politics. This is entirely untrue. This development should sadden us all greatly.

Just as Komen’s best interests and the fight against breast cancer have always been foremost in every aspect of my work, so too are these my priorities in coming to the decision to resign effective immediately. While I appreciate your raising a possible severance package, I respectfully decline. It is my most sincere hope that Komen is allowed to now refocus its attention and energies on its mission.

Sincerely,

Karen Handle

Good riddence teabagger!

Why, it seems like only last week, founder and CEO Karen Brinker was insisting that Handel did not have anything to do with this decision. Oh, right. That's because it was last week:

Someone from Susan G. Komen for the Cure is lying, and her name is Nancy Brinker, and now Handel confirmes it with her resignation letter. Its time for Brinker to exit stage left as well!

UPDATE: 15:42 2/7/2012

Karen Handel Denounces Planned Parenthood’s ‘Vicious Attacks And Coercion’ Against Komen Foundation:


NFTOS
Staff

FOUNDING FATHERS

The truth about the founding fathers.

NFTOS

Staff