• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: Dana Loesch

Video

Dana Loesch’s NRA rant

30 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by willykay in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Dana Loesch, Fascism, Gun policy, Incitement, missouri, National Rifle Associaiton, NRA

By now,  if you hang out on the Interwebs at all, you’ve seen or heard about the latest NRA fundraising atrocity, a video featuring former St. Louisian, Dana Loesch. Normally, I’d think  twice about  directing traffic to such an abomination, but, it’s everywhere now –  I’ve linked to it on Vox – and it should be. We need to know who it is we’re dealing with and what they’re capable of – which this video amply illustrates.

Here’s the script Loesch reads against a backdrop showing images of seething street violence:

They use their media to assassinate real news. They use their schools to teach children that their president is another Hitler. They use their movie stars and singers and comedy shows and award shows to repeat their narrative over and over again. And then they use their ex-president to endorse “the resistance.”

All to make them march. Make them protest. Make them scream racism and sexism and xenophobia and homophobia. To smash windows, burn cars, shut down interstates and airports, bully and terrorize the law-abiding — until the only option left is for the police to do their jobs and stop the madness.

And when that happens, they’ll use it as an excuse for their outrage. The only way we stop this, the only way we save our country and our freedom, is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth.

I’m the National Rifle Association of America. And I’m freedom’s safest place.

In case  you haven’t guessed, “they” are “us,” or at least a subset of the American “us,” the folks represented by the hated liberal trifecta of academia, entertainment and politics, all neatly “targeted” by the NRA in this  fundraising exercise. As Zack Beauchamp observes in the Vox article, the message conveyed is that “the ‘only way’ to protect yourself from this surge in left-wing violence (a made-up threat, to be clear) is to donate to the NRA — an organization that exists solely to help people buy guns.”

So, was it money and/or notoriety that tempted the former St. Louis Tea Party maven, Loesch, to identify herself with this exercise in fascist rhetoric, or has she always been this toxic? She’s had her low moments to be sure – during her short-lived tenure as a “political analysist” on CNN, she once expressed her willingness to “drop trow” and defecate on a Koran – but the NRA ad which she narrates is not just distasteful, but crosses the line into incitement. It offers, as Richard Wolffe puts it, “the kind of argument made by the fascist paramilitaries and dictatorship who terrorized Latin America for several decades.”

Apart from whether or not Loesch is really a true-believer or just depraved, the video also suggests why efforts to claim that “both sides do it” fails to capture the dynamic that motivates the levels of political polarization that we are now experiencing. Beauchamp notes that:

The problem with this rhetoric isn’t, again, that it’s telling people to use violence against others. It’s that it functions as a kind of anti-politics — casting the NRA’s political opponents as devious enemies who can’t be opposed through normal politics. Republicans control all three branches of government and a large majority of statehouses nationwide. There is literally zero chance that any kind of major gun control passes in America in the foreseeable future.

The threat, instead, is from a kind of liberal-cultural fifth column: People who are acting outside of legitimate political channels to upend American freedoms, through protest and violence. It’s a paranoid vision of American life that encourages the NRA’s fans to see liberals not as political opponents, but as monsters.

In other words, the goal is to manufactures a hobgoblin for the gullible. There’s no there there, nothing but fake images used to ratchet up division and if it  creates the potential for violent confrontation, well, that’s just collateral damage in the service of the almighty dollar.  At this time, in this country, as Kurt Eichenwald pointed out in a report published in Newsweek, rightwing militias – Trump’s spiritual homeboys – pose a greater threat to public safety than Muslim  terrorists. That’s the mindset that the NRA now serves.

The Loesch NRA ad may be one of the more overt manifestations of this false narrative, but it is not unique. It grew from the willingness of the Nixonian Republican Party to exploit white fear and racial resentment and culminated in the racially loaded, apocalyptic rhetoric employed by Donald Trump as he endeavored to aid the Russians in  his election effort. It may have been a winning strategy in the past, but it’s not an invitation to the civility to which “moderate” Republicans and “centrist” Democrats pretend to aspire. Ads like this – and I suspect we’ll see worse – are the natural outcome of a trend that has been developing almost exclusively on the right over several years.

In contrast, the self-labeled resistance, the folks on the left who are making themselves heard in opposition to the current Republican power structure, may use harsh language and, given the ripe target presented by Trump and his cohorts, resort to ridicule as often as not, but they’re frightened too. The difference is that the object of their fear is real and immediate, not a tool for politicians or, as in the case of the NRA ad, a chimera manufactured by a lobbying organization intent on cashing in. It consists of more than turgid emotions. It reflects the intellectual apprehension of destructive policies that will be imposed if they – we, that is, don’t stand up and make  our voices heard. Notice that I said voices, not “clenched fists” or guns – no NRA payola here.

Now we can also add to our list of things of which we are afraid the NRA’s cultural warriors, armed to the teeth and out to intimidate the outspoken. And what’s worst of all about the hate speech and lies promulgated by Loesch and the NRA  is that they serve nothing but greed. No black  bogeyman in the White House to drive up sales, how you gonna keep the good ‘ol boys and girls buying guns? You give ’em another target: their fellow Americans.

Addendum: Francine Prose makes an important point about the message of this video in today’s Guardian:

Interestingly, the video makes no mention of the NRA’s traditional role: to preserve the American citizen’s right to bear arms, a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Perhaps this is because Loesch is encouraging her viewers to deter other Americans from exercising their Constitutional rights.

And she’s doing it by encouraging violence.

Dana Loesch spills the beans about Steve Bannon

15 Tuesday Nov 2016

Posted by willykay in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Breitbart, Dana Loesch, Donald Trump, Steve Bannon

Many Missourians will remember Dana Loesch from her days in St. Louis. A former “mom” blogger for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, she moved into conservative political radio and rode the St. Louis Tea Party bandwagon into minor rightwing media celebrity with a short stint as a commentator on CNN. Loesch worked for Breitbart.com before the death of Andrew Breitbart and continued there for a year under the leadership of Steve Bannon, Breitbart’s successor, the head of Donald Trump’s campaign and, most recently, his newly appointed chief strategist. She knows the guy up close and personal.

Loesch really despises Bannon. She sued to break her contract with Breitbart.com after Bannon took over, alleging “basic ideological conflicts” and an “increasingly hostile” workplace. She describes the year she worked under his leadership as “one of the worst, most hellacious years of my entire life.”

Just to give you some context, Loesch is a far rightwing conservative and her salvos are usually aggressively mean and snarky, usually couched in an “I’m just to cute for words” style. Civility is not her forte – she’s the character who, on the topic of soldiers urinating on dead Taliban fighters, announced that she’d like “to drop trou and do it too.” A natural Trumpette, in other words.

But Loesch’s mean-minded wit doesn’t mean that she approves of the new enabler of Trump’s id. In August she reacted to Bannon’s role in the Trump campaign hyperbolically exclaiming that “one of the worst people on God’s green earth was just instituted as the chairman and CEO of the Trump campaign.” Her reaction to Bannon’s appointment as Trump’s chief strategist was equally horrified:

“Steve Bannon puts himself above everything,” she continued. “And I’ve worked with Steve, and I just don’t think this is a good fit for the country. Maybe it is for Steve Bannon, but it’s not a good fit for the country.”

Dana went on to explain that this position is a position of service to the voters and to the country, and because of this, is not a good place for a man like Bannon to be.

“You cannot go into this position with vengeance in your heart,” says Dana. “You cannot go into this position with pettiness in your heart, and that therein would disqualify Steve Bannon.”

So why is Loesch so hostile? Could it be Bannon’s cultivation of the racist alt-right? Maybe. I paid attention to Loesch when she was in St. Louis, frequently writing about her latest antics, and, Tea Party doyenne though she was, she never struck me as a person who condoned personal racism.

Loesch has mentioned ideological differences. Her recent comments about Bannon’s vindictiveness and egoism align with comments made by another disillusioned former Breitbart.com staffer, Ben Shapiro, who paints a dispiriting – and well-worth reading – discussion of Bannon’s modus and motives.

Loesch may be a hectoring ideologue, but she is not a stupid person and this time she is almost certainly correct. Bannon is a danger to the country. Like Bush with Carl Rove, the dim-witted Trump may have found himself a brain. But Bush’s brain was simply corrupt, Trump’s is likely diseased.

Dana Loesch’s etch-a-sketching on Todd Akin

21 Friday Sep 2012

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Dana Loesch, missouri, Todd Akin

Want some fun reading? Those who enjoy the excesses of St. Louisian Dana Loesch should take a look at Jeremy Stahl’s reprisal of her on-again, off-again support for Rep. Todd Akin since his “legitimate rape” gaffe. In Stahl’s words, “Loesch’s Twitter account was like a real-time barometer of Akin’s falling position within the party, but appearing on a weird 24-hour delay.”

Loesch’s response to  Stahl was in line with what we have learned to expect, shrill while managing to avoid substance. According to Stahl:

Loesch and I got in a little [Twitter] tiff in which she ultimately concluded that I was an “illiterate” moron and potentially “high” on drugs

The upshot, though, is that it’s highly likely that Loesch will be following Newt Gingrich back into the Akin sheep-fold – nor do I expect that she’ll be the last GOPer to shamble on over if/when it becomes clear that Akin isn’t going anywhere  – at least not until after November 6. After all, what are they going to do – sit back and let McCaskill run away with the election after they worked so hard to get the state riled up over the healthcare and death panel mongering socialist in the White House? A successful snow-job is a terrible thing to waste.

UPDATE:  What did I say about the coming GOP about face on Akin and Loesch as a harbringer of better days to come for Brother Todd?  It’s happening even sooner than I thought – there’s still several days to go until the 25th and already Jim DeMint thinks it’s time  for the NRSC to reconsider and apologize for the snit GOPers threw after Akin misspoke and put the GOP party platform front and center:

DeMint said the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), which has pulled its funding from the Missouri race, should reconsider its decision if Akin continues his candidacy.

The senator said backing Akin in Missouri, a red state, might be a better bet for winning a GOP seat than pouring money into blue states such as Maine and Hawaii that are likely to go for President Obama in November.

“I’m certainly looking at the race now. Todd’s a good conservative; he’s been a good representative for a long time. He did make a mistake and said it was a mistake,” DeMint said.

You know you’re in bad shape when Dana Loesch comes to your defense

20 Monday Aug 2012

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

abortion, Dana Loesch, legitimate rape, missouri, rape, Todd Akin

I guess it was only a matter of time until St. Louis’ shrillest contribution to the world of punditry, Dana Loesch, would chime in on Rep. Todd Akin’s claims about the biological impossibility of rape victims becoming pregnant (h/t The Turner Report):

Seems to me like Akin was trying to fit medical explanation into a soundbite. Not the best statement, but some are stretching it majorly.

As Randy Turner notes, it wasn’t a soundbite, but an interview with a sympathetic interviewer. Nor, my poor benighted Ms. Loesch, is there a credible “medical explanation” behind Akin’s absurd claims. Evidently, Todd isn’t the only one to fall for junk science claims that happen to be ideologically convenient.

Loesch’s outrage about the treatment Akin is receiving is, however,  understandable when you realize that she thinks the belief that a rape victim should be forced to carry her rapist’s child to term on a par with attempting to discourage the use of infant formula. As Turner notes, among other of her inane efforts to shift attention to the horrors of left-wing policy, Loesch tweeted in response to criticism of Akin (whose facebook page has, incidentally, been deluged with angry comments):

Michael Bloomberg wants to treat moms who use formula as criminals in NYC. What was that about “creepy old men.”

Of course, Loesch is also guilty of hyperbole here since Bloomberg’s proposed regulation of infant formula would not prohibit its use by women unable to breast feed or just determined to bottle feed. While women may be inconvenienced, nobody would be “criminalized.” Is it asking too much that these folks try to be accurate when they’re attempting to trivialize the major faux pas of their dimmer colleagues?

Dana Loesch thinks Mitt missed an opportunity to identify bigotry with free-speech

06 Monday Aug 2012

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Dana Loesch, free speech, Islamophobia, Michele Bachmann, missouri, Mitt Romney

All this time, I’ve been reading about Mitt Romney’s reluctance to pick up on the Michele Bachmann anti-Islam crusade as an example of his political cowardice. Bachmann’s efforts to instigate a Muslim witch-hunt were so egregiously hateful that even a small number of GOPers – those who still have a remnant of conscience – were willing to risk the ire of their mean-minded base and call her out.  I assumed Mitt’s reluctance to discuss the issue reflected the dilemma of a man who, like John McCain, knows better,  but who can’t afford to alienate his only real supporters – the folks who hate Obama and Muslims enough to vote for Romney just because he isn’t either.

Seems, though, that I was wrong – either that or Mitt’s cowardice just hasn’t paid off as regards the aforementioned base. None other than St. Louis fringewing luminary, Dana Loesch, wants us to read Mitt’s silence on the topic of Bachmann as a simple failure to take up the cudgels for free speech, which she presents as a potentially useful political gambit (via DailyKos):

If I were — which I’m not, I’m not advising him, he couldn’t afford me — it just seems so easy to do. Like, if they’re asking him, “What is your thought on the Chick-fil-A story, what do you think about Michelle Bachmann and the Muslim Brotherhood?” he could say, “I don’t have a problem with free speech, do you?”

And that report that Congresswoman Bachmann — the inquiry that they presented towards Congress — that raised a lot of questions. And who’s against free speech?

Who, indeed, is against free speech? Not I certainly. Michele Bachmann has every right to speak freely – but that does not make the content of her speech right correct, nor does it mean that others should let her get away with inciting hateful action without speaking out. I, for example, also have the right to speak freely and point out that Bachmann’s a hateful moron, which in no way contravenes Bachmann’s free speech rights.  So if Loesch is saying that folks should feel free to speak their minds, I agree – and I’ll go a bit further even and say that it would be great if Mitt Romney would do so and, just once, be up front with us about what he really thinks – and not continually try to game the political angles, even in the way suggested by Loesch.

After all, you can only go so far in politics and avoid all specifics. However, it’s also reasonably clear that you can’t go too far at all if you’re given to defending obvious bigotry. Nobody asked Mitt if Bachmann had a right to say what she did, just whether or not he agreed with the content, her call to take action against Muslims in government. Which fact just might explain why Mitt has hesitated to take advice of the sort Loesch is handing out.

And, just for fun, what’s that business about Mitt Romney (multi-billionaire beneficiary of political donors who fit the same description) not being able to afford Loesch? She’s trying to say she’s too principled to work for his prevaricating likes, or is it the case that the poor baby has delusions of grandeur? It’s hard to say, of course, since her advice seems to consist of just about the same drivel he’d get from any random Tea Party celebrant.

*Last sentence edited for grammar.

Weigel swats Dana Loesch again but the buzzing continues

19 Wednesday Oct 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

anti-semitism, Dana Loesch, David Weigel, missouri, Occupy movement, Occupy Wall Street, racism, Tea Party David Duke

Slate’s David Weigel seems to have just discovered St. Louis’ Dana Loesch whom he designates his temporary, “accidental nemesis.” Today he is taken by the alacrity with which the right-wing St. Louis scold has jumped on the trumped-up claims of anti-Semitism in the Occupy movement that are currently being worked up by the right.

Weigel’s point, which is that all new social movements attract a few looney-tunes,  is illustrated with a video of David Duke endorsing the Tea Party. I admit that I’m still not convinced that a healthy dose of Duke’s KKK-type philosophy does not animate at least some segments of Tea Partydom. This opinion was reinforced after I read Colin Woodard’s recent article in the Washington Monthly on the geographic distribution of the Tea Party, which notes that its area of greatest strength corresponds to what we traditionally think of as the South – where the conflict over issues of race may be more hidden than in the past, but arguably still run very deep.

Be that as it may, I think Weigel misses the real silliness of Loesch’s comment:

They have the blessing of Nancy Pelosi. They’re also endorsed by the Nazi Party of the United States. They’re also endorsed by Communists. These are things that we did not see with the tea party movement.

Weigel deals very effectively with the Nazi and Communist endorsements, but he ignores the presence of Nancy Pelosi on this list. Dana Loesch is evidently either so ignorant or so blinded by right-wing rhetoric that she thinks that Nancy Pelosi’s support for Occupy Wall Street is the equivalent of a lot of hot air from Nazis. We’re talking about the Nancy Pelosi who is the House Minority Leader, the first female Speaker of the House, and a respected California politician who was elected to office over and over again during the past 24 years. If you ask me, Loesch is trying to hit two birds with one  stone, both the Occupy movement and Nancy Pelosi, an outspoken and proud progressive.

Bear in mind that Loesch is paid by CNN to express her opinions in a public forum. Does this fact leave you feeling as embarrassed about the state of public discourse as I do right now?  

Weigel swats Dana Loesch

19 Wednesday Oct 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Dana Loesch, David Weigel, Dylan Ratigan, Matt Taibi, missouri

Slate’s David Weigel seems surprised (here and here) that St. Louis’ Dana Loesch, an editor at Big Journalism and a CNN commentator, has gotten her knickers in a twist because advocacy journalists like Dylan Ratigan and Matt Taibbi, who demonstrably make no bones about their sympathies, are allowed to practice – what? – advocacy journalism. He makes the point that, as far as their roles as advocates go they are, despite her denials, just like Loesch – although I’m not sure that if he knew as much as about Loesch as those of us in St. Louis do, he would qualify her advocacy with the word “journalism.”

In case you don’t know what I’m talking about because you haven’t followed Ms. Loesch’s career, Adam Shriver of the St. Louis Activist Hub, seems to have a post every week documenting her sensationalist and fact-free approach to advocacy. If you want to learn more, page through his posts – or, for a real laugh, take a look at her posts on Big Journalism.    

An ethical double standard in play for Dana Loesch?

12 Thursday May 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Dana Loesch, missouri

What does Dana Loesch have in common with Jayson Blair, Janet Cooke and Mike Barnacle? As the St. Louis Activist Hub has demonstrated very clearly, she like Blair, Cooke and Barnacle has posed as a journalist while making up facts to suit her own ends.

The real question, though, is how Loesch differs from Blair, Barnacle and Cooke.  And it’s an easy question to answer – they all lost their jobs and reputations. So far as I know, Loesch is still on for her CNN gig and she’s still got her talk show, right? Of course there couldn’t  possibly be a downside for her job at Big Government where what Loesch does so well is clearly considered a feature, not a bug – although, on second thought, shouldn’t an association with a site which seems to have as its raison d’être the dishonest political smear perhaps tarnish her credibility elsewhere?  

Nobody has denounced Loesch in the local press, there’ve been no tears and recriminations about tilting the playing field for tea partiers (a la the affirmative brouhaha occasioned by Blair’s lapses). To the contrary, I expect that I’ll continue to see her self-promotion supported in the local press for some time to come.  

So how is Loesch really different from all the other lying journos we’ve learned about in the past? She’s a right winger who has had the great, good fortune to work after Fox News freed conservative would-be journalists like Loesch from the constrictions of truth, permitting them to play fast and loose with the facts to their hearts content. The new motto is “If  you’re on the right, you’re right, even if you’re straight-out lying.”

* Last sentence corrected for clarity.

Breitbart and Loesch to Foxify ABC news on Election Night

31 Sunday Oct 2010

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

ABC, Andrew Breitbart, Dana Loesch, election, Fox News, missouri

Guess who ABC has recruited to cover election returns next Tuesday? Andrew Breitbart and his new editor, St. Louis’ own Tea Party favorite, Dana Loesch. Bear in mind that ABC, in distinction to Fox News, still has some lingering claim to being a news organization – although that may not be the case much longer given the network’s response when questioned about their choice of commentators:

Asked about Breitbart’s history of unethical behavior and misinformation, ABC News’ David Ford told Media Matters: “He will be one of many voices on our air, including Bill Adair of Politifact. If Andrew Breitbart says something that is incorrect, we have other voices to call him on it.

To which Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly quite correctly calls foul:

ABC’s explanation for this is woefully unpersuasive — if the right-wing hatchet-man starts lying on the air, “we have other voices to call him on it”? Here’s a crazy thought: if ABC News has reason to believe Breitbart might try to deceive the network’s audience, then maybe he shouldn’t be part of the election-night broadcast.

For that matter, this isn’t exactly a recipe for quality journalism — Breitbart will spew propaganda; others on the broadcast will be there to “call him on it.” Viewers will, in other words, hear some falsehoods and some corrections, but won’t necessarily know who’s right.

In case you haven’t had a chance to develop an appreciation for Mr. Breitbart and Ms. Loesch’s journalistic depravity, Mediamatters offers some links to a few of the highlights of Breitbart’s career; specifically check out the link titled “Wild accusations over Gladney case.” Not only does this link detail a St. Louis event, but Dana Loesch was intimately involved in helping to manufacture a fringewing cause celebre out of poor, inept Mr. Gladney and in pushing it as hard as she could, no matter how she had to fib. It should give you an idea about why it’s is so disturbing that ABC would let either of these night crawlers out into the light.

Some amusing comments on Benen’s post about Breitbart and Loesch on ABC: “… it’s like asking Jeffrey Dahmer to work in a restaurant kitchen“; “What, David Duke was unavailable? “; “…  Micheal Vick will be doing commentary for the Kensington Dog Show“; and “That is why comedians deliver news these days while news organizations now do really bad comedy.” Not so amusing, to paraphrase another comment on Benen’s post, is the fact that if the Tea Party does well on Tuesday night, we can expect to see more of this opportunistic pandering to the fringewing crazies in the future.

If you think that these two ethically challenged, hyper-partisan hacks have no place outside of Fox news, let ABC know that you will be watching election coverage elsewhere next Tuesday (and in the future, if this pattern persists).  And be clear that you are not objecting to conservative commentary, but to dishonest and unethical pseudo-journalists being legitimized by what has been, until this event at least, a more or less respectable news outlet. You can offer ABC News feedback here.  

Update:  Steve Benen reports that ABC is feeling the heat; issues clarification of Breitbart’s role – he’ll be part of an online panel only. What about Loesch, online only as well?

What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander – except if you’re Dana Loesch.

25 Monday Oct 2010

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Dana Loesch, First Amendment, free-speech, Helen Thomas, Juan Williams, missouri

I’ve been away from my computer for a few days and was mightily amused when I returned today and learned (via the St. Louis Activist Hub) that when news of NPR’s firing of Juan Williams broke last week, Tea Partier Dana Loesch immediately joined the swelling right-wing chorus and tweeted her opinion that this is a First Amendment issue:

Sorry, but when you’re a force-funded station and you routinely smear conservatives and fire people for speech … #DefundNPR

In firing Williams, NPR had simply, if somewhat belatedly, invoked their long-standing policy of requiring their news analysts to maintain a neutral public stance on issues that they might have to cover. Adherence to this policy is a contractual obligation, and since Williams had already been warned about past violations, his firing shouldn’t have come as a surprise. The NPR policy is also non-partisan – NPR employees have been, for example, prohibited from attending Jon Stewart’s Sanity Rally in their personal capacity. The requirement that news personnel maintain a neutral public persona is a subtle but important distinction and, since it involves an effort to eliminate a perception of bias, one that could be expected to go over the heads of those who consider Fox News “fair and balanced.”

Loesch’s invocation of free speech does, however, suggest additional considerations. Remember when the trad media (egged on by many right wingers) piled on Helen Thomas after she called for Israelis to “get the hell out of Palestine”? An offensive remark, perhaps,  but so were William’s ramblings, and, just to be clear, unlike Williams, Thomas was an opinion columnist who was not only permitted but paid to opine. I don’t remember that Loesch, or any other conservative for that matter, sprang to the defense of Thomas’ free speech rights.  I may be mistaken about this – I can’t say that I actually follow Loesch’s utterances – but if I’m wrong about this specific issue, there are plenty of other examples of the right-wing’s skewed concern over speech issues – the firing of Octavia Nasr by CNN also comes to mind and there are plenty of similar cases.

All of which leads one to an uncomfortable conclusion. If right-wing defenders of the First Amendment like la Loesch can’t be bothered to defend the actual free speech rights of people like Thomas, but get get royally bent out of shape when Juan Williams reaps the quite foreseeable consequences of violating his contractual obligations, it suggests that it is actually the specific target of the featured bigot du jour that determines whether or not our right-wing brethren and sistren will bring their impressive capacity for manufactured outrage into play.

I’m guessing that I’m coming in somewhat after the fact here, and that this brouhaha may have already been shouted to death in and out of fringeland while I was out of contact. I still, however, think that it will be important to remember just who in our vicinity has attempted to dress the sanctioned bigotry of the day in the constitution if or when some of the more volatile Tea Partiers get out of hand in regard to those scary Muslims who so frighten poor Juan Williams. Recollect, if you will, that we have already seen acts of anti-Muslim vandalism in St. Louis.

Update. Glenn Greenwald sees the wingers blathering about free speech the same way – but says it better.

Update 2.  Yesterday I warned about legitimizing the fantasies of the crazies – and today NPR has received a bomb threat that “timing suggests” may be liked to firing of Muslim-bashing Williams.

← Older posts

Recent Posts

  • Passing the gas – Donald Trump (r) does his thing
  • Who checks? You, Eric?
  • Just here for the ratio
  • Johnson County Democrats – James C. Kirkpatrick Heritage Luncheon – Warrensburg, Missouri – Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D) – March 14, 2026
  • Johnson County Democrats – James C. Kirkpatrick Heritage Luncheon – Warrensburg, Missouri – March 14, 2026

Recent Comments

Steve Duane Phipps on Profit!
The price we all pay… on “Up, Up and Away……
HB 2075: Who checks?… on Hey Brandon Phelps (r), we hea…
Campaign Finance: a… on Campaign Finance: Working Peop…
The mail pieces have… on Are you certain it wasn’…

Archives

  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Congress
  • Democratic Party News
  • Eric Schmitt
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Jason Smith
  • Josh Hawley
  • Mark Alford
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 1,034,395 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

 

Loading Comments...