Justin's Political Corner
ST. LOUIS • Liberal CNN host Piers Morgan says he has banned conservative St. Louis radio host Dana Loesch from his show, alleging she was “glib” in a Twitter comment about the beheading of a British soldier.
The soldier was killed in London by a machete-wielding assailant, officials said today.
Loesch, in an apparent comment on criticism of gun owners by gun-control advocates, responded by posting on her Twitter feed: “Was the guy with the machete a member of the NRA? Asking for a friend.”
Morgan, who is British, responded via Twitter: “You think the beheading of a soldier is something to be glib about???”
A heated Twitter exchange ensued between the two, who have appeared on each others’ shows debating their opposing ideologies.
During the Twitter exchange, Loesch slammed Morgan for “calling me Nancy Lanza because I stood up for 2A rights,” referring to the mother of Newtown massacre shooter Adam Lanza. Morgan wrote that Loesch should “shut up with stupid political wisecracks” and “show some bloody respect.”
The exchange culminated with a Tweet from Morgan: “Can’t stomach @DLoesch goading Brits with her outrageous tweeting re beheaded soldier story. Unfollowed, and banned from my show.”
“Unfollowed” means you don’t subscribe to someone’s Twitter feed.
Loesch’s own Twitter profile later displayed the line: “Proudly banned from Piers Morgan’s TV show.”
Piers Morgan »> Dana Loesch.
Jennifer Rubin demands CNN ‘mute’ David Shuster for ‘Media Matters talking points’ (via Raw Story )
Neoconservative Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin on Sunday demanded that CNN “mute” Take Action News host David Shuster for using what she insisted were “Media Matters talking points” to slam ABC News White House correspondent Jonathan Karl for inaccurately reporting details about the…
Conservative media, led by Fox News, are alleging that their “liberal” mainstream counterparts have purposefully ignored the horrific case of Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia doctor charged with eight counts of murder for grisly procedures committed under the guise of women’s reproductive health. But when news of Gosnell’s arrest and the enormity of his alleged crimes first broke in January 2011, Fox News covered the story the least of the three cable networks.
In recent days, Fox has been working to ascribe nefarious motives to the allegation that mainstream outlets have supposedly ignored Gosnell. “The fact that it is not covered I think is easily explained,” said Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer on the April 11 edition of Special Report. “It puts the pro-abortion forces in a very bad light.”
Gosnell was arrested on January 19, 2011, and the details of the allegations against him were made public that same day. A search* of Media Matters’ transcript and video archive (along with Nexis transcripts) from January 19 to January 31, 2011, revealed that among the three major cable news networks, Gosnell’s arrest was covered the most by CNN (33 minutes, 24 seconds of coverage), followed by MSNBC (9 minutes, 16 seconds), followed by Fox News (6 minutes, 31 seconds).
Fox News’ coverage of Gosnell’s arrest was confined to a brief report on the January 20 edition of Special Report, a longer report on the January 21 Special Report, and a January 27 segment on The O’Reilly Factor. MSNBC featured three separate reports on the January 20 edition of Jansing & Co., the January 21 edition of First Look, and the January 23 edition of MSNBC News Live. CNN’s coverage was spread across seven segments airing on CNN Newsroom between January 19 and January 25. Re-airings of programs that featured Gosnell coverage were not included in the final tally.
In addition to devoting more time overall to the story, CNN also featured interviews with Philadelphia district attorney Seth Williams, one of Gosnell’s former patients, and the relatives of one of Gosnell’s alleged victims.
(via Crooks and Liars: ESPN Reporter Slams Hannity and Fox For Defending Abusive Coach)
On this Sunday’s Reliable Sources on CNN, ESPN senior writer Andy Katz was asked by host Howard Kurtz about Fox hosts Eric Bolling and Sean Hannity and their defense of the abusive Rutgers basketball coach last week and Katz was more than happy to give Kurtz an earful with what he thought of them.
Editor’s note: Chris Kluwe is a punter for the Minnesota Vikings of the National Football League. He is an ambassador for Athlete Ally, an organization working to end homophobia in sports, as are Brendon Ayanbadejo of the Baltimore Ravens and Scott Fujita of the New Orleans Saints.
(CNN) — “Don’t be a distraction.”
These words are pounded into every single NFL player’s head from the day he enters the league until the day he leaves (and I would imagine it holds true for just about every professional sport).
The same message, over and over and over — “The team comes first,” “Sacrifice your personal goals to win,” “Only be judged by what goes on between the lines” — which is why I find it unsurprising that there are no openly gay athletes in any of the big four professional sports leagues in the U.S.: the NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB.
The message is pushed on us so hard, in fact, that players run the very real risk of losing their jobs if the team deems them too much of a distraction, and unfortunately it seems gay players feel that being comfortable with who they are has to take second place to keeping their jobs.
This isn’t right.
It’s not right that professional sports, and especially the professional sports media, have created an environment where gay players are willing to hide essential components of themselves as human beings in order to pursue their dreams, in order to not be a distraction. It’s not right that our insatiable lust for sports coverage creates an atmosphere where someone would willingly subordinate his life to a backward and bigoted worldview in order to stay employed.
It’s not right that we can’t just accept someone for who he is.
Why?
Why do people care so much about someone else’s sexuality? Why do people give two s***s how someone else lives his life? Why do people have this absolutely idiotic notion that being gay has any sort of effect on how well a player can play football, or basketball, or baseball? Why the f*** do I even have to write this column for a major news organization to talk about something that shouldn’t even remotely be a factor in sports?
Well, the reason is simple. I’m writing this because no gay player is currently out, and the first gay player who eventually does come out needs to know that — despite all the indoctrination from the league about not being a distraction — if he’s the one to take the first step, he will have allies. He will have support. He will have those of us who realize that people’s sexuality doesn’t define who they are, just as their jobs don’t define who they are, and that guys who bring our wives and children to games and team events are no different than those who would bring their husbands and children.
Most importantly, I’m writing this so that coaches, managers, players, owners and fans realize that the first gay player who comes out won’t spontaneously cause rainbows to erupt out of everyone’s rear.
In professional sports, the players on a team are a team. We eat together. We practice together. We watch film together, and we succeed or fail together. We see each other more than our own families during the season. To think that a gay player is suddenly going to destroy all that because he’s out is asinine.
The idea that a gay player will be a distraction needs to change.
Coaches, administrative personnel — will an openly gay player bring extra attention? Maybe, but guess what — there’s a whole bunch of other crap that happens during the season every year, anything from sexting to arrests to profane letters, and somehow we’ve managed to find a way through it each time without the entire edifice of football collapsing into ruin.
Players — Those of you worried about a gay teammate checking out your ass in the shower, or hitting on you in the steam room, or bringing too much attention to the team — I have four simple words for you. Grow the f*** up. This is our job, we are adults, so would you kindly act like one?
There are millions of people across America who work with gay co-workers every day, and they handle their business without riotous orgies consuming the work environment. In the extremely unlikely event that a gay player harasses you? We have an HR department. File a complaint, just the way a female employee would if you harassed her. If the media want to ask you about a gay teammate? He’s a teammate, and you’re focused on winning — together. As a team.
And finally, to the gay player who does eventually come out, whoever that brave individual happens to be — will you have to deal with media attention, with heightened scrutiny? Yes. Despite everything Brendon, Scott, myself, and all your other allies do, despite all the articles we write and interviews we give, despite the growing acceptance across this entire country, there are going to be people who insist on looking at you through the lens of your sexuality, and not at your skills as a football player. But you know what? All of us understand the truth.
h/t: Chris Kluwe at CNN
Piers Morgan Tonight host Piers Morgan clearly has not had enough, nor can he get enough of, conservative commentator Dana Loesch. Maybe that will change after the latest episode of the Piers and Dana Show™, in which Loesch triumphantly declared that Morgan “admitted” the “truth” that he is in favor of completely disarming American citizens. In the umpteenth pointless cable news segment devoted to absurd gun nut talking points, though, Loesch appears to have “admitted” that she, in turn, is in favor of unlimited numbers of children being killed with guns.
The “sizzle” in this clip is the steady stream of absurdities that come out of Dana Loesch’s mouth, but the steak is Van Jones‘ absolute nailing of the point I’ve been trying to make about these cable news gun-nut “debates,” a point that Piers Morgan would do well to heed.
Dana Loesch would probably object to being called a “gun nut,” and point to the term as evidence that liberals are dismissive of those who disagree with them, but she earned the label in a previousPMT segment when she argued that Americans have the right to bear arms equivalent to those of our global enemies. That’s what makes you a gun nut, not a valid concern for the right of self-protection.
Loesch burnished that credential repeatedly in this segment, blithely arguing, for example, that “Anything can be qualified as an assault weapon. If you stab someone with a spoon, it can be qualified as an assault weapon.”
This is a reference to the popular gun-nut talking point that assault weapons classifications are mysterious, arbitrary distinctions based solely on the weapons’ appearance, when, in fact, there arespecific functional criteria involved. The “confusing” variations arise only out of legislators’ attempts to make assault weapons bans less restrictive, a generosity that has obviously outlived its usefulness.
Loesch also casually dismisses the utility of high-capacity magazines by asking “Do you realize how easy it is to reload? Piers, you can take a speed loader and reload a revolver, 150 rounds. That means he had to reload four times.”
Then, there’s the exchange that Dana Loesch is so proud of, in which she gets the answer she wanted. “What’s the difference between 30 rounds and what’s the difference between seven rounds?” she asks.
“The difference between 30 and seven is 23,” Morgan replies. “So it could save 23 lives if there was a federal ban on these magazines.”
From this, Loesch concludes “Seven lives lost are OK with you, then? Seven lives lost are OK?”
“You know what, Dana, seven is better than 30, yes,” Morgan replies.
“I’m just trying to establish where you draw the line,” Loesch smartly retorts. “Where do you draw the line at preventing the deaths of children, Piers?”
“I would love to draw the line, Dana, at zero gun deaths in America,” Morgan says.
“So you do believe in disarmament, then,” Dana concludes.
Like a pro wrestling announcer who isn’t in on the con, Morgan is hurt and miffed by this screwdriver to the neck, but he completely misses the implications of Loesch’s “logic trap.” Under her construction, that “seven lives lost are OK,” Loesch’s opposition to any limit on magazine size amounts to an endorsement of unlimited lives lost.
The reason it never occurs to Morgan to turn the tables on Loesch is that his mission is not the same as hers. As Van Jones pointed out, it is the job of gun nuts like Dana Loesch to say anything, anything at all, to prevent a meaningful conversation about gun violence, in hopes that public urgency toward the issue will wane, and the status quo will prevail. I don’t presume to know what Dana Loesch thinks, but I’m fairly certain she doesn’t really believe that Americans should have the right to possess chemical warheads. She’s not stupid or insane, she can’t possibly believe that the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School would have turned out the same if the shooter had been forced to reload 30 times. These are just things that she says to derail the debate.
Most liberals would watch this clip and conclude that Dana Loesch is the villain. The unkindest way to interpret her actions is that she’s cynically trying to exploit this issue to gain fame and exposure for herself, and the kindest is that she sees herself as a bulwark against tyranny, willing to protect the rights she thinks she has, by any means necessary. Evil or misguided, though, Dana Loesch isn’t the problem, Piers Morgan is. He’s the one who keeps booking her on his show, knowing that the result will be pointless arguments like this one.
That doesn’t mean Dana Loesch has no responsibility in this, it just means viewers should have a clear understanding of what that responsibility is. Dana Loesch is a human being, and her responsibility is to act like one. Humanity requires a certain level of empathy, which is not to be confused with sympathy. Loesch views the gun debate through the lens of her own experiences, which do not include having her own child killed by a mass-murdering lunatic. If Dana Loesch’s child had been killed by the 13th shot from a 33-round magazine, during a killing spree that ended when the shooter had to reload, it’s entirely possible that she would still oppose limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds, or seven rounds. I hope that question is never answered, but I suspect that if she were somehow able to take the full measure of these tragedies, she might not snicker contemptuously through a discussion like this.
Dana Loesch is a dangerous fucktard who should be in a mental institution somewhere.
Dana Loesch shouts at Piers Morgan: A spoon ‘can be qualified as an assault weapon!’ (via Raw Story )
Conservative radio host Dana Loesch on Thursday argued that classifying certain guns as assault rifles was silly because “if you stab someone with a spoon it can be qualified as an assault weapon.” Following Thursday’s revelations that Newtown shooter Adam Lanza had fired over 150 rounds with an AR-15 in less than five minutes, Loesch appeared on CNN to argue that it was a “false premise” that Lanza had used an assault weapon.
CNN really got it wrong when they tried to characterize stimulus spending on high speed rail as a “boondoggle.” Their “investigative” report failed to identify the real obstacles to progress towards interstate high speed rail: Republican obstructionism and decades of neglect in favor of highway spending.
Newly minted RedState.com blogger, ex-CNN “contributor, and gun fetishist nutbag Dana Loesch was on national television yet again saying even more stupid shit about guns. The most insane thing of all that she said on tonight’s edition of CNN’s Piers Morgan Live was that a “spoon can be classified an ‘assault weapon.’” A spoon is NOT anywhere close to an “assault weapon” in the sane world, but in NRA/#TCOT-land, it is.
Mediaite:
Piers Morgan‘s show got heated on Thursday night when he invited Dana Loesch, Grover Norquist, and Van Jones to debate gun control. At one point in the segment, Loesch and Morgan grew especially frustrated as Loesch pressed the CNN host on where he draws the line on the number of gun deaths that are okay.
Morgan went off the “outrageous” and “insensitive” NRA leadership, going on to cite statistics about gun-related deaths in the country, compared to those in other countries with stronger gun laws. Often making this comparison on the show in the past, Morgan stressed that those countries have “negligible” gun-related deaths. How, he asked, can that be explained in “any rational way”?
“There is a deliberate effort to conflate the types of firearms,” Loesch insisted, noting that just because a gun “looks scary” doesn’t mean it can be categorized that way. She and Morgan later clashed over what qualifies as an assault weapon, with Loesch quipping that even a spoon could be labeled one.
She further dismissed the argument about magazine capacity and criticized those who she felt are simply seeking to disarm people. Jones jumped in again to fire back at logic that doesn’t “make any sense” — like spoons. We’re talking about “funeral after funeral after funeral.”
“How many deaths are okay to you?” Loesch asked Morgan. “Answer that question.”
As he sought to argue how a seven-round magazine is different from a 30-round magazine, she interjected, “So seven is okay with you then.”
“Seven is better than 30, isn’t it?” he retorted.
The other two guests were NRA board member and Americans for Tax Reform Founder Grover Norquist (who has been on KFTK’s The Dana Show before) and senior fellow at Center For American Progress Van Jones (whom Loeschhas smeared previously).
From the 03.28.2013 edition of CNN’s Piers Morgan Live:
After the show, she took to her blog at RedState to further smear gun safety advocates and repeated the baseless smear that the DHS is buying ammo, as even the deranged as hell NRA thinks it is too far out there..
RedState:
Let’s not cede further ground on this issue due to fear on language: any attempt to curtail the civil liberty outlined in the Second Amendment is an abridgment of that liberty. There is no splitting of the baby here. You take all of it or none of it. Restricting magazine capacity is silly, for the reasons I noted in my response to Morgan. First, they’re interchangeable, easily modified, and can be made with remedial shop skills in your garage. It is completely unenforceable. So what’s the next step then? Regulating the amount of ammunition one can purchase? The DHS is well on their way to drying up the supply by buying over a billon rounds of ammo. Ammunition is becoming projectile gold, for the lack of a better phrase. Restrictions on magazine capacity are easier to stomach than full on ammunition rationing, so that’s where Democrats will begin, through the proverbial Overton Window.
Restricting magazine capacity is NOT “anti-2nd Amendment,” as you allege.
Transcript:
PIERS MORGAN, HOST OF PIERS MORGAN LIVE: Let’s now bring in my all-star panel. Van Jones, CNN contributor and president of Rebuild the Dream, conservative radio talk show host Dana Loesch and Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform and an NRA board member.
Welcome to you all.
Van Jones, I just spoke again to Richard Feldman who is pretty close to the NRA leadership for quite awhile and the message is loud and clear from the NRA, as it always is. More guns and you’ll deal with gun violence. What do you say to that?
VAN JONES, PRESIDENT AND CO-FOUNDER OF REBUILD THE DREAM: Well, I just think people are just flabbergasted to hear this. I mean, the idea that the kind of gun, the size of gun, the kind of magazine, none of these matters. Well, then, fine, just pass out bazookas. Start selling neutron bombs on the open market and then when people start using the bazookas and doing — say well, it’s not the bazooka or owner, you see, it’s just — I mean, it’s not the bazooka, it’s just the bazooka’s owner.
Obviously the size of the cartridge matters. Obviously the kind of weapon matters. That’s why you can’t buy bazookas, you can’t buy neutron bombs, you can’t buy weaponized drones because these things matter.
It’s very, very frustrating — the shame that I see right now is that on the one hand we’re not doing enough about mental health, but then we have people who are hiding behind the fact that we’re not doing one thing to stop us from doing anything else. And that’s wrong, too.
MORGAN: I mean, Marco Rubio said today, he’s warned that he will filibuster any new gun legislation.
Dana Loesch, how can that be an appropriate response to what happened at Sandy Hook?
DANA LOESCH, CONSERVATIVE RADIO TALK SHOW HOST, “THE DANA SHOW”: Well, simply, Piers, because we have gun laws already on the books. Most of the proposals are simply redundancy. That’s why, why are we paying individuals to go and essentially waste taxpayer dollars to argue laws that we already have on the books?
Laws which either aren’t enforced or criminals don’t obey them simply because that’s what criminals don’t do. Criminals are called criminals because they don’t follow law.
MORGAN: Right. So Adam Lanza had two rifles, a BB gun, a starter pistol, four more weapons he took to school including the AR- 15, 1600 rounds of ammunition in his house, 12 knives, three Samurai swords, a bayonet, eye protection, ear mufflers at gun range, (INAUDIBLE) binoculars, paper targets, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And he went and did what he did.
At what point, Dana, do you say, you know what, we’re just going to make it tougher for people to be able to have this kind of arsenal?
LOESCH: Well, Piers, you realize that Adam Lanza, according to the “L.A. Times,” the “Portland Observer,” numerous local media report in Connecticut, he did try to purchase a firearm. And Connecticut’s gun laws prohibited him from doing that. Those gun laws worked in the sense that they prohibited him from purchasing a firearm.
Now as to whether or not his mother should have had her firearms perhaps stored a little bit better and kept away from her son, that’s another topic of discussion. But, you know, again, he stole firearms, he committed a crime to obtain a firearm which he then used illegally.
MORGAN: Grover Norquist, you’re on the board of the NRA. And the NRA it seems to me has a lot of very reasonable members, many of whom tweet me. And if you’re watching now, you want to tweet me, @Piersmorgan, and let me know if you’re an NRA member. And they can be quite rational and they say look, you know, we have no real problem with background checks. We don’t have any problem with more investment in mental health and so on. Not even much of a problem with the high capacity magazines.
They’re not too sure about assault weapons. But they’re quite rational in what they say but the leadership always seem to me to be — particularly Wayne LaPierre, completely outrageous. Utterly insensitive, totally uncompromising. Why is that?
GROVER NORQUIST, BOARD MEMBER, NRA: Well, I think if you look at the history of gun laws, make a list of which cities and states have the most oppressive gun laws. You’ll find they also have more crime and more shootings. There’s actually, if you look at the science, you know, liberals are always saying, we should look at the science, and yet they don’t want to look at the existing science on whether gun laws make us safer or less safe.
John Locke did the first study of all the counties in United States and where you had concealed carry permits, more gun ownership by citizens, you actually had significantly less crime, hundreds and thousands of fewer murders, fewer rapes.
MORGAN: OK, Grover, Grover —
NORQUIST: What you don’t have reported in the news is the fact that those states that put in concealed carry laws decades ago and have more people carrying guns are safer to live in than ones that ban it. So when you ask why don’t we do something stupid, the answer is because we have looked at the statistics, because we have looked at the science, and flat earthers should not be passing new laws.
MORGAN: Well, let me — let me throw some science at you. How do you explain that, as I said to Mr. Feldman earlier, America has between 11,000 and 12,000 gun murders a year, 18,000 gun suicides a year, 100,000 Americans are hit by gunfire a year. And you look at somewhere like Britain or you look at somewhere like Australia or Japan or I could name dozens of other countries that have pretty strict gun control laws, and just have negligible gun deaths.
I mean, literally, like 40 or 50 people a year get killed. How do you explain that, Grover, in any rational way that convinces me that countries that don’t have guns in mass circulation have almost no gun crime?
NORQUIST: Well, if you compare apples and apples and look at the United States, and obviously Brazil and South Africa and other countries have a great number of gun crimes and they have very serious gun laws, so gun laws haven’t solved the problem in other countries, and where you put in more gun laws in Australia and Britain you’ve had more crime in general. More robberies, more crime. That they become less safe.
Now in the United States, compare the states, 50 or 57, however you want to count them, they’ve all got different gun laws and different —
MORGAN: OK, Van.
NORQUIST: — rules and —
MORGAN: Let me get Van in here. Let me get Van in here because he’s shaking his head vigorously.
NORQUIST: Yes.
MORGAN: Van?
JONES: Well, first of all, that’s just actually not true but I want to say a couple of things. This is not about concealed —
NORQUIST: No, wait a minute. It is true.
LOESCH: It is true. It is true.
JONES: Hold on a second. It’s not true.
NORQUIST: You can’t deny the science.
JONES: First of all this is not about —
NORQUIST: You’re a science denier, Van.
JONES: Are you going to let me talk? You guys are wonderful —
(CROSSTALK)
LOESCH: About gun laws, guys and statistics.
JONES: Hey, listen, I’m with you. I’m for statistics. Here’s what’s actually true. This is not a debate about concealed carry. You want to move the argument over to something that nobody’s arguing about. Nobody’s arguing about concealed carry. People are arguing about military-style weapons on the streets of America and whether or not that is a good thing or a bad thing.
LOESCH: That’s a false premise.
JONES: The —
LOESCH: That’s a false premise.
JONES: No. That’s not — it’s a false premise?
LOESCH: No. Van, do you actually know what the difference —
JONES: That’s the entire debate in Washington, D.C. right now.
LOESCH: I’m going to correct you because I’m tired of this talking point being put out there. First and foremost, let’s get something straight. Military-style assault weapons are not out on the street. We are talking about semiautomatic weapons, weapons that are capable of select fire or weapons that are fully automatic.
MORGAN: OK. But Dana, Dana, Dana.
LOESCH: Then you can — no, I’m not going to let this go anymore, Piers.
(CROSSTALK)
JONES: You guys say the same thing every time.
MORGAN: No, Dana, you said this repeatedly on my show.
LOESCH: Then you can use the military term. Let’s stop conflating.
JONES: You do the same thing every time.
LOESCH: Let’s stop playing ignorance and —
(CROSSTALK)
MORGAN: General Stanley McChrystal —
LOESCH: Now you can go ahead and continue.
MORGAN: General Stanley McChrystal used the phrase — so forget us, forget Van, forget me. One of the great military commanders of the last 20 years in America —
LOESCH: The man who bans conservatives (INAUDIBLE) — yes.
MORGAN: — said these were military-style weapons. So is he wrong? Do you know more about these weapons than General McChrystal does?
NORQUIST: Evidently because —
LOESCH: General McChrystal is also of your same ideology so I want to put that out there first and foremost. There is a deliberate effort to conflate the types of firearms. I do not own a military- style assault weapon just because of what — a firearm looks scary? Then you call it military assault? Do you realize that one of my children has a BB gun that looks like an AR-15? Is that going to be considered a military style assault weapon? It sounds silly and uneducated.
(CROSSTALK)
MORGAN: Adam Lanza killed — Adam Lanza killed — wait a minute. Wait a minute. Adam Lanza killed —
LOESCH: And it’s dangerous.
MORGAN: Adam Lanza, as we now know, in the space of 300 seconds, using an AR-15, killed 26 people, Dana.
JONES: Thank you.
LOESCH: And he reloaded four times.
(CROSSTALK)
MORGAN: He had magazine — he had a magazine for 30 bullets.
LOESCH: So, Piers, I want to ask you a question. Yes.
MORGAN: Are you telling me — are you telling me that doesn’t —
LOESCH: And he reloaded four times. Anyone can reload.
MORGAN: Are you tell me that doesn’t —
LOESCH: Anyone can reload.
MORGAN: Dana, let me finish. Are you telling me that doesn’t qualify as an assault weapon?
LOESCH: By the technical definition, no, Piers. Anything can be qualified as an assault weapon. If you stab someone with a spoon, it can be qualified as an assault weapon.
MORGAN: So you’re equating stabbing somebody with a spoon —
LOESCH: Let me ask you a question, Piers.
(CROSSTALK)
JONES: Oh my god.
MORGAN: — to the shooting dead 26 people in five minutes?
JONES: Hold on, hold on.
LOESCH: If this is conversation about a ban on magazine capacity —
MORGAN: Really, Dana? Really? Talk about stabbing somebody with a spoon?
LOESCH: Do you realize how easy it is to reload? Piers, you can take a speed loader and reload a revolver, 150 rounds. That means he had to reload four times.
JONES: This is the strategy — it’s the conscious strategy.
LOESCH: And the only reason that he stopped was because he heard authorities.
JONES: What you’re seeing right now, Piers —
LOESCH: No, Van, this is the strategy of the people who actually deliberately want to disarm individuals.
JONES: Piers, what you’re seeing is the conscious strategy to distract and —
LOESCH: You guys talk about magazine —
JONES: Hold on a second. Hold on a second.
LOESCH: You talk about magazine restriction —
MORGAN: OK. Let Van — let Van have his say.
JONES: See, this is the conscious strategy on the part of the pro-gun folks to constantly bring things back around to things that don’t make any sense. You’re talking about people stabbing people with spoons. If that was a problem we had in America, people stabbing people with spoons, we wouldn’t be talking about this right now.
What we’re talking about is funeral after funeral after funeral. What we’re talking about is — are our children being gunned down and what we’re talking about is common sense measures. Not confiscating guns. We’re not talking about that. We’re talking about commonsense measures that 90 percent of Americans agree with and the majority of gun owners agree with.
LOESCH: No.
JONES: But when you guys get on television, you don’t talk like the people who actually are the gun owners in America. What you talk like are people who want to take the conversation in a direction —
LOESCH: I’m a gun owner in America, Van Jones.
JONES: — that has nothing to do — I’m sorry, you said?
LOESCH: By the way, the latest CBS poll shows that support for these gun control measures is tanking. This is —
(CROSS TALK)
LOESCH: let me finish my thought.
JONES: No.
LOESCH: Then I am going to let you answer. I’m tired of this conflation and this uneducation when it comes to using terms about firearms. Let’s use —
JONES: You want to make it about terms and words. Fine. Hey, listen, what we’re talking about is funeral after funeral after funeral.
(CROSS TALK)
MORGAN: one at a time.
LOESCH: What’s the difference between 30 rounds and what’s the difference between seven rounds? Piers Morgan, let me ask you a question. (CROSS TALK)
MORGAN: Let me explain to you the difference. Let me explain the difference.
(CROSS TALK)
MORGAN: Let me ask you a question. The difference between 30 and seven is 23. So it could save 23 lives if there was a federal ban on these magazines.
LOESCH: Seven lives lost are OK with you, then? Seven lives lost are OK?
MORGAN: You know what, Dana, seven is better than 30, yes.
(CROSS TALK)
MORGAN: Better than losing 30, yes, it is.
LOESCH: I’m just trying to establish where you draw the line. Where do you draw the line at preventing the deaths of children, Piers?
(CROSS TALK)
MORGAN: I would love to draw the line — I would love to draw the line — I would love to draw the line, Dana, at zero gun deaths in America.
LOESCH: So you do believe in disarmament, then.
MORGAN: I said zero gun deaths.
LOESCH: That’s the answer that I wanted.
MORGAN: When did I say disarmament? Wait a minute. You talk about conflating the argument. Dana, when did I say disarmament?
LOESCH: I’m taking it down — I’m using your logic and going down that road. If you’re talking about limiting magazines — first and foremost, magazines are universal. I can make one in my garage.
MORGAN: I said I wanted zero gun deaths.
(CROSS TALK)
MORGAN: Let me finish. We have to go to break. But you said — I said I wanted zero gun deaths. You announce that meant I wanted disarmament. That’s the problem with the pro-gun debate.
(CROSS TALK)
MORGAN: Let’s take a break. Let’s all calm down, come back and talk about gay marriage. That will be even more lively, probably. Let’s try that. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MORGAN: Back now with Van Jones and Dana Loesch and Grover Norquist. Before we move on from guns, I just want to read a quick Tweet. This is from Steven Smith, who says to me “where can you buy these deadly assault spoons?” Maybe Dana can help him with that later. Let’s move on.
LOESCH: Really, it goes over people’s heads. Anything, Piers. Stabbing deaths every day.
MORGAN: Let’s move on. It was just a little joke, Dana. Let’s turn to gay marriage. Grover, I want to play you an astonishing piece of tape, really. Yesterday we had Bill O’Reilly almost converting to gay marriage. Today, Rush Limbaugh joined in. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: This issue is lost. I don’t care what the Supreme Court does, this is now inevitable. And it’s inevitable because we lost the language on this. We lost the issue when we started allowing the word marriage to be bastardized and redefined by simply adding words to it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MORGAN: Grover, is he right? Is the gay marriage debate lost to those that oppose it?
NORQUIST: Well, it’s an interesting question. Obviously, once you get the government into defining something, they’re going to mess it up. Marriage for a lot of people is a religious sacrament in any of the Abrahamic faiths. Yet the government should be enforcing contracts, if people want a contract with who they live with and how they want to pass on their estates. For years we worked with gay groups trying to get rid of the death tax, because that was one of the discriminatory factors there.
So I think there are a number of laws that the government’s got itself into that we need to extricate it. If the government was less involved in marriage and defining it and regulating it, we might be better off, everybody.
MORGAN: Dana Loesch, what do you think?
LOESCH: I’m not quite sure whether or not it’s lost. I do agree that the language has been muddled. And just the two cases that are before the Supreme Court right now, I don’t think that both of them will be tossed down. But the Defense of Marriage Act, especially where it concerns insurance benefits and engaging in contracts, I think people should be able to enter into contractual agreements with each other. There shouldn’t be any sort of stipulation on that.
That’s where, at the same time, while I’ve told individuals who have been out there advocating for same sex marriage and wanting to bring the government in, as someone who is a Christian conservative, I don’t want to bring the government in to defend my faith or to defend or define marriage. I think that’s something that should be left to the people. We don’t have the government involved in baptisms or taking of the sacrament.
So I don’t think that government should be involved in marriage, either. I think bringing the government in period is a bad idea.
MORGAN: OK. Van Jones, this sort of reminds me of conversations in America in the ’50s and ’60s, which would go along the lines of, I don’t mind, having thought about this quite carefully, black people using the same bus as me. But I’m not really ready for them to come to the same school. Is it that kind of repositioning?
JONES: It’s sad. First of all, we are on the verge of one of the great breakthroughs and achievements in human freedom, human equality. I can’t tell you how proud I am to be in a country where people — where the freedom to marry is going to be available to everybody very soon. Rush Limbaugh is right.
But the idea that suddenly now government is getting involved in marriage, government has been involved in marriage from the very beginning and nobody complained about it as long as it was for heterosexuals. Now — and I’ll say something else as well. You know, my marriage would have been illegal in a lot of parts of this country very recently, because I’m in a mixed race marriage.
So what I know is that — and the government was involved in regulating that. So what I think we’ve got to recognize now is that there’s — no matter what happens — this is a great thing about America — there is an expiration date on some of this bigotry that is in our laws, because the next generation doesn’t want to hear any of this stuff; 70, 80 percent of young people in America think that if you love somebody, marry them.
And the people who are messing up marriage in America are the heterosexuals. Heterosexuals are the ones being divorced. Heterosexuals are the — the people who are bringing marriage back and making marriage mean something is the gay community that’s fighting for that right. Now marriage means something. The Kardashians are doing more to destroy traditional marriage than gay people ever did.
LOESCH: A couple points, Piers, really quick. I can’t compare gay marriage to what black Americans have gone through, because in the Bible — and I want to point this out because this is how Christians look at this. Nowhere in the Bible —
JONES: I’m a Christian.
LOESCH: It’s not mentioned in the Bible.
JONES: That’s not true. That’s not true. I’m a Christian. I’m a Christian. I’m a Christian. I’m going to tell you right now —
(CROSS TALK)
JONES: The Curse of Hamm was used to say we were the victims — LOESCH: If you are trying to get Old Testament, remember, Van, the New Covenant with Christ, the New Covenant with God, that’s why we have the New Testament.
MORGAN: Dana, Dana, Dana, Dana —
(CROSS TALK)
LOESCH: — between a man, a woman and God, before God, on God’s terms. That’s how Christians define it.
MORGAN: Dana, Dana, Dana, what do you say to Van’s point that it wasn’t so long ago he wouldn’t have been able to get married without the help of the government interfering? Isn’t that an incredibly salient point?
LOESCH: You know what, Republicans all throughout, Piers — I agree with that because Republicans — that’s why you have the Republican party because they split from Democrats and they split from — you know, the KKK was the militant faction of that. They didn’t believe. They were the original abolitionists, the Frederick Douglass Republicans.
Yes, absolutely, they thought that was horrible. That’s why you had individuals fight for the Civil Rights Act.
JONES: Can I respond to that?
MORGAN: Unfortunately, Van, we’ve got to move on. I think you made some very good points, actually, which I think are pretty inarguable. The fact you couldn’t have got married 50 years ago pretty well says it all.
Let’s talk very quickly about a sad day, I think. Barbara Walters is going to retire apparently in May of next year, 80 odd years old, incredible energy, one of the most remarkable television journalists really ever. What do you make of that, Grover Norquist?
NORQUIST: Well, she’s had a tremendous career. She’s been great fun to watch and listen to and learn from. And I’m sure this is the sequester’s fault.
(LAUGHTER)
MORGAN: Dana Loesch, can we reach any point of agreement on Barbara Walters?
LOESCH: I grew up watching Barbara Walters. And it’s nice to see a strong woman with such a great — such an accomplished career in the industry and it’s sort of sad to see her go because of that.
MORGAN: Van?
JONES: I have had the honor to be on “The View” with her, watching her. She’s one of the best ever. She’s able to keep the empathy high, but she asks the tough questions. And I just think it’s a moment in history.
MORGAN: Yeah. Very sad day. It will be a great valedictory fly-by tour, though, lasting a year, which I’m looking forward to. So Barbara, if you’re watching, we wish you all the very best. You have been one of the truly great interviewers in television history. I for one will be glad you’re gone because you get so many great bookings which I may now have a sniff at. But that’s just a personal .
Thank you to my all-star panel, Dana, Van and Grover. I really enjoyed this. Let’s get you back soon.
She again bashed marriage equality, while guest Van Jones defended it. Grover Norquist spoke out against government regulation of marriage.
The best description I can think of for CNN’s coverage of the verdict in the Steubenville rape trial: freakishly distorted and reprehensible.
The thing is, I don’t believe these reporters actually are sympathizing with the rapists over their victim; I think it’s more cynical and base than that. Dramatic displays of emotion are what CNN is after, because they’re good for CNN’s bottom line. In their marketing calculations, emotional outbursts draw viewers and sell advertisements. They seek out these kinds of scenes — and in this case, since the victim’s identity is kept secret, the only emotional outbursts they could show were the rapists’. So they exploited those moments to the best of their ability.
And in the process, caused great harm to their reputation. CNN continued with this bullshit even after a storm erupted on social media, condemning their coverage. The sheer contempt they showed for their audience, and for the victim of this terrible crime, was breathtaking.
And one more point: the sentences these two kids got were absurdly, offensively light in view of their crime.
PPP’s annual poll on TV news finds that there’s only one source more Americans trust than distrust: PBS. 52% of voters say they trust PBS to only 29% who don’t trust it. The other seven outlets we polled on are all distrusted by a plurality of voters.
When it comes to asking Americans which single outlet they trust the most and least out of the ones we polled on, Fox News once again wins both honors. 34% say it’s the one they trust the most, compared to 13% for PBS, 12% for CNN, 11% for ABC, 8% for MSNBC, 6% for CBS, and 5% each for Comedy Central and NBC. Fox News is the choice of 67% of Republicans, while Democrats basically split their allegiances four ways between ABC and CNN, both at 17%, and MSNBC and PBS, both at 16%.
Even more Americans identify Fox News as the outlet they trust the least- 39% give its that designation to 14% for MSNBC, 13% for CNN, 12% for Comedy Central, 5% for ABC and CBS, 3% for NBC, and 1% for PBS. 60% of Democrats give it their lowest marks while Republicans split between MSNBC (24%), CNN (19%), and Comedy Central (14%) on that front.
Fox News political analyst Dick Morris, who has been absent from the network for nearly three months following a directive that any segments with him would have to be cleared by a top network executive — will appear on CNN February 6.
Morris announced the appearance — his first on CNN since 2002, according to a search of the Nexis database — on his website, writing, “You read it right! I will be a guest on The Piers Morgan Show on CNN, yes CNN, this Wednesday night at 9 PM EST.”
After appearing dozens of times to provide political analysis in the weeks leading up to the 2012 election, Morris has not appeared on Fox News since a November 12 interview on Hannity, according to a Media Matters review of the Nexis and TVEyes.com databases. By contrast, following the 2008 presidential election, he appeared 19 times on Fox’s primetime alone from November 13, 2008, through February 5, 2009, making regular appearances to discuss the political news of the day on The O’Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes/Hannity, and On the Record.UPDATE: A CNN spokesperson confirmed to Media Matters that Morris will appear as a guest on the February 6 edition of Piers Morgan Tonight.
UPDATE 2: CNN’s Howard Kurtz and Politico’s Mike Allen are reporting that Fox News has allowed Morris’ contract to expire and will not renew it.
Looks like America’s #1 toe-sucker is off of Fixed News.
h/t: MMFA
For a political party whose last shred of survival lies in embracing America’s diversity, its leaders have absolutely no idea how not to stick their figurative feet into their proverbial pie holes.
Today, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley appeared on CNN’s Starting Point with Soledad O’Brien, one of the few journalists on television who refuses to let politicians spew nonfactual talking points without calling them out with actual facts. This generally yields some deliciously entertaining (albeit pathetic) quotes. And Grassley didn’t disappoint.
When asked why he was against the Center for Disease Control (CDC) studying the public health issue of gun violence in an area such as Chicago, he replied:
“I think that’s the place in our society where you would study the issue of black violence on blacks.”
Grassley took an anti-gun control stance at yesterday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence, rarely lifting his eyes as he dispassionately read his testimony, which included such gems as:
“The deaths in Newtown should not be used to put forward every gun control measure that’s been floating around for years….”
He went on to blame America’s out-of-control gun violence on video games and America’s growing “lack of civility,” and also ridiculed the idea that no more than 10 rounds are needed in a magazine, claiming, “an attacking criminal, unlike a deer, shoots back.” (See Chuck’s full testimony here.)
To begin with, such phrases as “black-on-black violence,” while finding popularity in the 1980s, has long since lost its vogue and is rightly considered highly offensive. To describe any epidemic of violence as such intimates that the problem of urban violence has everything to do with the race of the perpetrators and victims, and nothing to do with the truly predominant culprits behind violent crime – poverty and socioeconomic shifts. You won’t see the media referring to mass shootings as “white-on-white violence” even though that’s pretty much the case in almost every single U.S. mass shooting.
If Senator Grassley is a person of any substance, he’ll hopefully purchase and read this excellent analysis on how America mistakenly came to blame black lifestyle, values, and culture on urban violence, and he’ll hopefully emerge a less ignorant individual.
h/t: AddictingInfo.org
Politico: “Erick Erickson Is Leaving CNN For Fox News.” According to a report from Politico, Erickson is leaving CNN for Fox: “Red State blogger and conservative columnist Erick Erickson is leaving CNN for Fox News, sources at CNN confirm.” [Politico, 1/29/13]
RACIAL ATTACKS
Erickson Endorsed Whites-Only Scholarship, Suggested Women Have Always Had Equal Opportunity.On the March 1, 2011, edition of CNN Newsroom, Erickson endorsed white-men-only scholarships provided by a Texas group called “Former Majority Association for Equality,” saying, “If we’re going to get rid of scholarships for African-Americans and get rid of scholarships for Hispanics and get rid of scholarships for Asians and get rid of scholarships for women, then let’s get rid of the scholarships. But if we’re not going to get rid of those, then let’s keep this one.” Erickson then suggested that women, Hispanics, and Asians have not been historically disadvantaged in America. [CNN, CNN Newsroom, 3/1/11, via Media Matters]
Erickson: “If It Weren’t For Constitutionally Mandated Racial Gerrymandering,” There’d Be Fewer Congressional Dems In South. On the September 16 edition of CNN’s John King USA, Erickson said that “[i]f it weren’t for constitutionally mandated racial gerrymandering in the south, you’d probably have even fewer Democrats down there.” [CNN, John King USA, 9/16/10]
Erickson: Turn New Black Panthers’ Case Into Willie Horton Ad. In a July 13, 2010, blog post headlined, “[New Black Panther Party member] King Samir Shabazz Should Be 2010’s Willie Horton,” Erickson wrote: “Republican candidates nationwide should seize on this issue. The Democrats are giving a pass to radicals who advocate killing white kids in the name of racial justice and who try to block voters from the polls.” Erickson added: “The Democrats will scream racism. Let them. Republicans are not going to pick up significant black support anyway.” [Media Matters, 7/13/10]
ATTACKS ON WOMEN
Erickson Compared First Night Of Democratic National Convention To The “Vagina Monologues.”Referring to the first night of the Democratic National Convention, during which first lady Michelle Obama and other women leaders appeared, Erickson tweeted, “First night of the Vagina Monologues in Charlotte going as expected”:
[Twitter.com, 9/4/12]
Erickson: “Who Cares That” IBM CEO Wasn’t Given Augusta Membership? “She’s A Woman” And “Women Aren’t Allowed.” In response to controversy over the female IBM CEO being denied admittance to the Augusta National Golf Club, Erickson said “Who cares that she wasn’t invited into the club? She’s a woman. Women aren’t allowed.” [WSB, The Erick Erickson Show, 4/6/12]
Erickson: The National Association Of Women Are “The NAG Gang… The Angry Ones. Angry In Their Unibrows.” On his radio show, Erickson parroted Rush Limbaugh’s smear of the National Association of Women, calling them “The NAG gang, as the godfather of radio Rush Limbaugh would call them, the National Association of Gals. They are the angry ones. Angry in their unibrows I believe it was once said.” [WSB, The Erick Erickson Show, 4/2/12, via Media Matters]
Erickson Defended Rep. Todd Akin’s “Legitimate Rape” Remarks. When Rep. Todd Akin claimed it was “really rare” for victims of “legitimate rape” to become pregnant from assault, Erickson tweeted that the statement was “dumb” but that he would still support Akin in the Senate race:
[Twitter.com, 8/19/12]
Erickson: Transportation Secretary “Has Come Out In Favor Of The Chicoms Over Americans.” After Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood praised Chinese success in infrastructure, Erickson took his remarks out of context to claim LaHood “has come out in favor of the Chicoms over Americans.” [RedState, 7/5/12, viaMedia Matters]
Erickson Called Obama A “Composite Kenyan.” Erickson praised Breitbart.com for its “vetting” post on Obama, using the post to call Obama a “Composite Kenyan.” [RedState, 5/18/12, via Media Matters]
Erickson: “Violence” Is “Extremely Common And Can Fairly Well Be Considered Mainstream Within Much Of Islam” Internationally. Erickson wrote a post in the aftermath of the July 22, 2011, terrorist attacks in Norway explaining why his first instinct was to assume that the killer was a Muslim. Erickson claimed that it is “willfully naïve” for the “secular left” to ignore the “fairly common ties between terrorists and Islam” and went on to claim that while “violence and Islam may not be very common among American Muslims,” “internationally it is extremely common and can fairly well be considered mainstream within much of Islam.” [RedState, 7/23/11]
ATTACKS ON LGBT COMMUNITY
Erickson Agreed “With Every Word” Of Anti-Gay Sermon. In a January 11 Twitter post, Erickson wrote that he “agreed with every word” of a sermon from pastor Louis Giglio from the 1990s. In that sermon, Giglio advocated for “ex-gay” therapy, called on Christians to “lovingly but firmly respond to the aggressive agenda” of gay activists, and compared homosexuality to an unwanted addiction. Giglio was slated to deliver the benediction and inaugural prayer at Obama’s inauguration, but withdrew after his views opposing same-sex marriage drew criticism. From Erickson’s Twitter feed:
[Twitter, 1/11/13; Think Progress, 1/9/13]
Erickson: Idea That Gay People Shouldn’t Be Called “Gay” Because They “Have Nothing To Be Happy About” Is “Pretty Good.” On his radio show, Erickson spoke to a caller who claimed that he took exception with the word “gays” because “They have nothing to be happy about, in the sense that marriage is between a man and a woman.” Erickson replied: “I’m still stuck on you not calling them gays because they have nothing to be happy about. That’s actually pretty good.” [WSB Radio, 1/31/11]
VIOLENT RHETORIC
Erickson Threatened To “Pull Out [His] Wife’s Shotgun” If Arrested For Not Filling Out American Community Survey. In response to the American Community Survey portion of the U.S. Census, Erickson insisted “I’m not filling out this form. I dare them to try and come throw me in jail. I dare them to. Pull out my wife’s shotgun and see how that little ACS twerp likes being scared at the door.” [WMAC, In the Morning with Erick Erickson, 4/1/10, via Media Matters]
Erickson: “Watching A Hippie Protester Get Tased Just Makes My Day.” Discussing an Occupy Wall Street protest, Erickson said “Watching a hippie protester get tased just makes my day. It is just made of awesome.” [WSB, The Erick Erickson Show, 1/30/12, via Media Matters]
Erickson Likened Former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist To A Child Molester. In August 2010, Erickson likened former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist to a child molester, writing in a post on Twitter: “We know what Rubio’s truck looks like. Is this Crist’s?” For Crist’s truck (according to Erickson), he linked to an image of a van with the words “free candy” written on the side. [Media Matters, 8/24/10]
Erickson Equated Abortion With Holocaust. Erickson equated abortion with the Holocaust, saying, “I think the Holocaust of the millions of children killed in this country is pretty equal to [slavery].” [CNN, John King USA,1/20/11]
Erickson: “Social Security Is, For All Intents And Purposes, A Ponzi Scheme.” In a September 8 Redstate post, Erickson said “Social Security is, for all intents and purposes, a ponzi scheme.” [RedState,9/8/11, via Media Matters]
See Also: JPC: Carville, Matalin, and Erickson exit CNN
Politico.com: Erick Erickson joins FNC from CNN
H/T: MMFA
CNN confirms that political contributors James Carville and Mary Matalin are leaving the channel. TVNewser has also confirmed that Erick Erickson will be leaving CNN and joining Fox News as a contributor.
The moves follow executive VP and managing editor Mark Whitaker‘s announcement this morning that he would be leaving the company, and the addition of Chris Cuomo to a new morning program.
Carville and Matalin have been political contributors and hosts at CNN for the better part of 20 years, while Erickson joined the channel in March of 2010.
h/t: TVNewser.com
