CNN Contributor Strikes Again: Dana Loesch Goes Nuts

CNN is on a roll these days, from Roland Martin’s offensive tweet about David Beckham’s Super Bowl underwear ad to Erick Erickson’s unforgiveable comments about President Obama to the latest offense du jour.

Tea Party affiliate, Editor-in-Chief of Big Journalism and CNN contributor Dana Loesch brings this one to us from her radio show, saying women who have abortions are “ageist bigots”. Dana thinks that women who advocate for choice are ageist bigots, and that they had a choice when they were at Wal-Mart or Target (to buy contraceptives) but they don’t get a choice after they engage in activities that create a life.

From the February 3 edition of KFTK’s The Dana Show courtesy of Media Matters:

Sure, Dana’s offensive in her name-calling but what’s really offensive is the level of her ignorance. She spent most of the two minutes just nattering away about Wal-Mart and Target, not getting to the point, not even suggesting what the point was, but just talking to hear herself talk. It’s not that she dropped out of college (she did), but rather that she has nothing to say that can’t be read in the comment section of a site like TMZ meets Free Republic.

When she finally got to the point, Dana stepped up on her carnival-barking chair to preach with rage about bigoted women who want an abortion because they are ageist.

While every movement has their radicals, most are not on allegedly impartial networks. Dana is on the self-proclaimed non-partisan CNN. CNN hired her for her “Tea Party” point of view. To balance things out, they hired a Democratic strategist and another hard right conservative (to balance out the other hard right conservatives).

If they were really balancing things out, they would give Code Pink an anchor desk at CNN. Or Michael Moore. Or an Occupy Wall Street spokesperson. Or, heck, any a liberal who is a radical humanist.

Perhaps CNN is unaware that just as conservatives have a Tea Party, so too do liberals have their activists. But Dana was hired as a “political analyst,” a title that assumes she will be analyzing politics, instead of spouting feelings.

So if CNN is so balanced why don’t they hire Michael Moore as a political analyst or some far left environmentalist? They hired Erick Erickson allegedly because he hails from “small town America” so what about midtown America? What about urban America? No, I mean real urban, not elite urban.

They say they want different points of view, but in reality they want conservative Tea Party points of view. This is fine, if they admit what they’re doing. But America doesn’t need another partisan, dishonest cable network dumbing down Americans while pretending to be non-partisan.

Clearly, intelligence and media savvy have nothing to do with CNN’s job offers, for Dana shows in this clip that she couldn’t create a sound bite to save her life. Maybe it’s that she’s top mom on the interwebs. Maybe it’s her being named top “15 Hottest Conservative Women of the Year in The New Media.” If so, may I urge CNN to call me in the name of balance, as I have several gorgeous liberal friends who would be happy to be used as eye candy while spouting their feelings about Wall Street vultures and lawless capitalism, and they even have an established online presences and knowledge about politics.

Preaching isn’t the same thing as political analysis or commentary. You can tell the difference because if you take the emotion out of what the person is saying, there is nothing left. So it is with Dana’s ageist bigots abortion rant. Nothing Dana said made one bit of sense. She just threw some bombs to make her audience feel morally superior and that was it. Any empty-headed, egomaniacal loudmouth can do that.

In fact, they do it all day long on Fox News.

Someone has no doubt offered Dana the advantages of Google, wherein she might learn about rapes and incest and contraceptives that didn’t work or ectopic pregnancies or other life-threatening conditions, but obviously Dana isn’t talking to inform people. She’s talking to incite them.

The Right wants to frame this debate (all debates) around the emotions of hot issues like abortion. In doing so, they avoid discussing facts and the pros and cons of their policies.

The Right will throw the fire to distract Americans like they always do. The question is, once again, why is CNN employing people like this?

Let us not forget Dana’s recent contribution to political analysis, when she gleefully supported Marines urinating on the dead bodies of alleged Taliban, “I’d drop trou and do it too. That’s me though. I want a million cool points for these guys.” In response to this, Politico emailed CNN for a statement. Here is their excuse, “CNN contributors are commentators who express a wide range of viewpoints—on and off of CNN—that often provoke strong agreement or disagreement. Their viewpoints are their own.” Only CNN legitimizes these viewpoints by giving them a respected platform and denying the other side the equivalent platform. And then CNN calls their network non-partisan.

Dana calls her level of discourse “diverse thought”, issuing the following statement when she was hired, “I’m excited to be working with CNN and am appreciative of their efforts to showcase diverse political thought on their airwaves. I look forward to the discussions.” I take issue with both qualifiers, actually, for Dana is contributing neither diversity nor thought.

Sure, Dana’s lacks of intelligence and poor media showing are not nearly as offensive as Erick Erickson’s “Obama perverted the word of God” hate. But CNN is building a reputation for pallin’ around with hate, and using their network to legitimize it.

In this, they can never hope to compete with Fox, so it’s a bad business move on top of being out of step with America. Lastly, it’s offensive, unpatriotic, and downright insulting. CNN, the place where paid political analysts condemn the President as “perverting God’s word,” call pro-choice women “ageist bigots”, tweet anti-gay “jokes”, and say they would piss on the dead bodies of alleged Taliban.

CNN must be so proud. I remember the days when they fired people for less.

Petition for CNN to fire Erick Erickson here.
Image: Reboot Politics, a conservative site that labeled this photo “Pouty protest babe”

22 Replies to “CNN Contributor Strikes Again: Dana Loesch Goes Nuts”

  1. CNN used to be my go-to place when hot stories were breaking. Now it’s either msnbc or political blogs like dailykos and politicususa. CNN is pandering to the teabaggers and trying to vie with FUX News for ratings.

  2. This is yet another outstanding article by Sarah Jones. I have been screaming at my TV because of CNN for years! Since throwing out Ted Turner, CNN has gone nowhere but down the drain. I cannot receive MSNBC in my area, so I am stuck with CNN’s relentless butt-kissing of The Tea Party. If you want to learn more about precisely how CNN became so despicable, read Fools Rush In by Nina Munk, the story of Steve Case and Jerry Levin.

  3. If you want news find it on the internet. If you want entertainment watch TV. TV or any corporate controlled medium is a lost cause when you need information.

  4. These idiots act like women get abortions for fun!?! I suspect that in their twisted ignorant thinking every act of birth control, whether it be BC pills, condoms, IUD and whatever new BC control that are available now, including Plan B…well they are so uninformed and downright IGNORANT, they think all these things are “Abortions”.
    How else on the blogs can you explains the rantings of “conservative ‘men'” saying “all libs women have had 200 abortions”!
    Seriously, I see this insane ranting all the time. Its physically impossible, unless you include acts of “Birth-control” something these loons know nothing about.
    Hence not surprised that Stupid is coming out of DL mouth since she is ass(ociated) with BrietFart.

  5. Dana is clearly ignorant of the meaning of the word ‘choice’ when it comes to women and reproduction and established law.

  6. The ironic aspect of CNN’s Tea Party “hires” is that the Tea Party has basically fallen apart. Their glory days of the 2010 elections are only nostalgic memories for them now. Nobody in their right mind is interested in listening to these nuts anymore.

    Way to read America’s pulse, CNN! Epic fail…

  7. …except Stewart and Colbert. How else would we “communally” learn how Super-Pacs actually work?

  8. I was curious to see if Mz. Loesh was actually using the word correctly in terms of her castigation of woman’s desire to abort. It seemed rather odd for her to go off on women being that she happens to be one herself! (well, I never watch CNN and I’ve never seen her so many I’m wrong or am
    missing some “vital” background information)

    I “borrowed” this explanation from a course taught at my old Alma mater (I doubt they would claim to know me, even hold their nose!)

    …”Ageism, however, is different from other “isms” (sexism, racism etc.), for primarily two reasons. First, age classification is not static. An individual’s age classification changes as one progresses through the life cycle. Thus, age classification is characterized by continual change, while the other classification systems traditionally used by society such as race and gender remain constant. Second, no one is exempt from at some point achieving the status of old, and therefore, unless they die at an early age, experiencing ageism. The later is an important distinction as ageism can thus affect the individual on two levels. First, the individual may be ageist with respect to others. That is s/he may stereotype other people on the basis of age. Second, the individual may be ageist with respect to self. Thus, ageist attitudes may affect the self concept…[or self-esteem…]”

    Yes, Ms Dana, no one is exempt from ageism…tick, tick, tick, tick
    …anyone wants to breed with “aging teabagger” like, Ms Dana?

    I know, perhaps Newt is looking for #4, or Dick Army, needs a protege to keep the patrician line going; maybe the Koch Brothers? Oh, Dana! The old “tri”-corner hat teabagger position…tick, tick, tick….

  9. She is just talking to hear her own voice, because nothing she says makes any sense. What does “ageism” have to do with being pro-choice? It’s a sad commentary that Sarah Palin’s presence on the political scene produced a paradigm of vacuousness and ignorance on the right that embarrasses and angers any rational, thinking woman.

  10. Thanks Sarah. I haven’t watched cnn or any corporate media since 2002 and I can tell by the net that it’s only gotten way worse. I started watching “news” in 2000 from a naive state of mind but it didn’t take me too long to see what was going on.

    I signed that petition from on your site to Fire Erick Erickson and gave the following reason when they asked why we signed it..

    “Because Erick Erickson is a hateful hack and cnn needs to stop picking their pundits from the gutter.”

  11. I do remember when CNN came out with the news last year that they were going to cater more to the Tea Party people. Reason was: Their ratings were poor and in the tank.
    One can see the change in David Gergen’ s rhetoric and he was one I thought highly of.
    I agree. CNN is NOT the place for MY politics. Am a big fan of MSNBC, they are the #1 cable news/politics station in my estimation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.