Dana Loesch Brings Tea Party Views to 'This Week'
St. Louis Tea Party co-founder Dana Loesch was one of Christiane Amanpour's roundtable guests on Sunday's "This Week."
At the end of the lengthy segment, Loesch, who is also editor of Big Journalism, offered an interesting view about next year's elections (video follows with transcript and commentary):
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: So would that bring you great hope if [Sarah Palin] jumps in? I mean, look at her negatives. They're very, very high.
DANA LOESCH, BIG JOURNALISM: I think that she does have a little bit to overcome, in terms of -- I know that there was the Fox News poll which came out, and there was also an independent study which was done in conjunction with that, that also looked at Republican voters to see who they would or would not choose.
I think -- but we're still -- I mean, we're still really early on into this race, so anything is possible. I mean, and when I say anything is possible, I mean, when you look at the polls right now, the last poll that was released showed generic Republican candidate was beating this president in the polls.
JONATHAN KARL, ABC: That's who they should nominate.
LOESCH: So I think that we do -- I think that we do have a strong field. I do really think that we do have a strong field. But whether or not we're going to end up with someone that is speaking to the base -- because I think not only is this election going to be a referendum on Obama's first term, but this is also going to be a referendum on the Republican Party.
This is the Republican Party's decision right now. Who are they going to put forward? Are they going to keep going with the same Bush policies that helped create the Tea Party? Or are they actually going to put forward a real conservative, real Republican candidate, and actually unite the right once and for all? That's the question.
First off, I applaud Amanpour and her schedulers in inviting Loesch on the program.
In recent months, there have been a number of Tea Party members on "This Week," and it's nice to see that rather than just disparage this powerful movement, the folks on ABC News are willing to include them in the discussion.
As for Loesch, I thought she did a marvelous job in her first "This Week" appearance. In particular, her point about this election's referendum was quite compelling.
After former President George W. Bush and his Party that controlled both chambers of Congress punted on Social Security reform, the GOP made a hard turn left that led to their devastating defeat in the 2006 midterms and Barack Obama's easy victory in 2008.
In the course of just two years, as a result of a steady departure from conservative principles, the Republican Party relinquished complete control of government that had taken them decades to attain.
Two years later, the Tea Party surge helped to make the GOP a force again.
Will this movement to the right continue, or will Republicans go back to their "In Name Only" ways that have proven ineffective?
Depending on the answer, Loesch's point about the referenda in play next year might be quite prescient.
Brava, Dana! Brava!
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
As Rush says...
Submitted by tvhall on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 5:45pm.
Conservatism wins whenever it is tried. Being "Democrat Lite" is a losing bet every time.
She's absolutely right. Btw,
Submitted by Martin2717 on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 5:53pm.
She's absolutely right. Btw, I love the top she was wearing. Very nice. And Amanpour...... the reason why Palin's numbers are highly negative is because of scum like you that have been smearing her with ease.
No doubt about it!
Submitted by rockyracoon on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 7:12pm.
No doubt about it!
Facts are like kryptonite to the liberal.
Which is why
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 9:54pm.
Palin should not run. She can't get beyond those smears as her polling shows. It's a shame, but the liberals play the dirtiest ball and this shouldn't be a surprise. Palin should use her celebrity to get behind the eventual candidate and get him/her elected. Look at the alternative. It's the third year and we're all blue in the face. We must change chiefs.
At what point do we cease
Submitted by Immortal Fish on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 12:39pm.
At what point do we cease backing away from candidates we truly want? The media is going to disparage them at every turn regardless.
No matter who you like other than Palin, they are going to receive the same treatment. Will you also abandon them just as quickly?
true
Submitted by kinijane on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 8:24am.
How true, they even smear her when shes not even doing the
political things, bring her name up every chance they get and
always something negative. I think I would actually faint if I ever
heard any of them say one positive thing about her.
RINOs Beware
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 6:01pm.
Reining-in RINOs like Hatch will not be enough. They backslide too easily in the name of compromise. There is no compromise with the agents of evil. All RINOs out in 2012. Be gone!
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
oh I know RINOs....
Submitted by dmacleo on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 9:52am.
I'm from Maine.
god I hate to admit that sometimes.
Barack Collins and Olympia Biden (yeah I exaggerate ) need to go.
Did I misinterpret that?
Submitted by miss911ninja on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 5:58pm.
Or when ABC's Jonathan Karl said "That's who they should nominate," did he really mean a "generic Republican candidate?" In other words, one with no distinguishing characteristics; a run of the mill?
That's what I took away, Miss911.
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 6:47pm.
You know, someone like Huntsman. /s
"Huntsman" is a way too
Submitted by Dan Diego on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 7:31pm.
"Huntsman" is a way too sexist and violent name, IOT to attract the PETA & NOW vote he should be referred to as Seeksperson from here on out.
Makes you wonder......
Submitted by miss911ninja on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 10:41pm.
.....how Hunter S. Thompson could have been a favorite among lefties, doesn't it? ;-)
It was because of his rampant
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 12:31am.
It was because of his rampant alcohal and drug use, and his over-the-top halluconagenic ramblings with his speaking and his writing - kind of like Plugs Bite-Me, if you got some drugs and booze into him. As you know, Ninjie - making 'sense' is NOT important to loony lefties..............
Thompson was big into guns . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 9:41am.
. . . right down to the last act of his life.
Ka-Boom!
Submitted by miss911ninja on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 4:03pm.
Right! I'd forgotten about that.
But all the conservative luminaries say compromise is the way
Submitted by lsudolemite on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 6:22pm.
forward. You see, we have to compromise our principles, or we'll get the blame from the media. And compromise has worked so splendidly for us. We get to cave in, AND the media gets to blame us for the unpopularity of the compromise. Everyone wins!
Noel
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 7:48pm.
I got out my trusty Radio Shack sound level meter and checked the decibels on this video. There is approximately a 10 decibel difference between the NB lead in and the primary video section. That's double the volume. It's a cheesy media advertising method that I've yet to hear anyone likes except for the client and the people who produce the audio/video.
Either your audio-video technician needs more training, is recalcitrant to change, has been ordered not to change (if true then shame on NB or MRC.TV), or they have yet to know of the request to equalize the audio.
I note that one of your colleagues already has the audio properly adjusted for the volume of the primary video segment, so reason number one above isn't true (unless you use a different technician). So, what's the problem, Noel?
As usual, good article.
Strat
Submitted by Noel Sheppard on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 7:58pm.
Strat,
I have nothing to do with the creation of our bumpers. If you haven't noticed, I create videos and then write about them.
As someone that once considered himself an audiophile, I'm not offended at all by the decibel change. Maybe my ears are going along with eyes. I just got new glasses. Do I need hearing aids, too? ns
Do I need hearing aids,
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 8:52pm.
Maybe Noel, because I would had been far more impressed if she would had said something along the lines of....
Well Palin would be the go ahead front runner, if not for the libtard media demonizing her.
Also, I am not feeling at all generous of Christen either.
I think it's loud
Submitted by kata on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 9:04pm.
it has made me jump (and scramble for the volume) on more than one occassion. Now I usually mute my computer before I start an NB vid.
Me too! Jump. scramble and now mute, etc.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 10:47pm.
,
Too Many Rock Concerts?
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 9:13pm.
Noel:
Don't know if you need hearing aids, and I hope you do not, but I might from the cranked volume on the bumpers. It is an irritant to have to lower the volume for the bumper and then turn the volume back up to hear the primary video. Maybe my memory is failing and that's why so often I forget to adjust the volume before clicking on the video. Before I forget - please help!
Since one of your fellow writers already had an equalized audio out today, I'm wondering where the variation resides. Is it you who splices your own video inbetween the bumpers or do you submit your video to someone else to finish it for public consumption?
Thanks for the reply
BTW, do you have one of those TV's that alters the volume of commercials automatically? It is a good thing when it works.
Didn't they just pass a law
Submitted by amyshulk on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 6:25am.
Didn't they just pass a law that they can't do that on tv anymore? Will the net be next? I mute all sound when I surf, and only turn it on when the ad/bumber/lead in is finished, and have always done so, so I didn't know there was a disparity.
btw - I thought the tv problem was local vs national, with the local transmission {ads} being *much* louder???
Ronald Reagan
Maybe..
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 10:57am.
for broadcast TV but definitely not for satellite (DirecTV). Almostacowgirl & I always keep the remote near because the commercials are so much louder than the program.
I don't know Amy, but now
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 12:58pm.
I don't know Amy, but now that you mention it, I do recall something about Congress sticking their noses into the issue. Seems like they will tend to everything but what they should.
What did these illustrious meddlers do?
Here it is - I did remember
Submitted by amyshulk on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 5:48pm.
Here it is - I did remember right, lol!!! From October last - the CALM Act {Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation} :
Congress passes law ordering FCC to lower volume on TV commercials
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/home-theater/congress-passes-law-ordering-fcc-...
The Money Quote {h/t motherbelt}
"Leave it to Congress to legislate away an issue that’s been known for ages but that technology was nearly rendering irrelevant anyway."
Ronald Reagan
Thank You Amy
Submitted by stratman on Wed, 09/07/2011 - 1:05am.
The first sentence of the one year old ZDNet article sets the scene:
Cowards.
Agreed - cowards all!!!
Submitted by amyshulk on Wed, 09/07/2011 - 7:44am.
Agreed - cowards all!!!
Ronald Reagan
Dana - Hot
Submitted by djnyk on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 8:03pm.
Add Dana to the never-ending list of hot conservative women. Lookin' fine in that leather skirt - Yow!
Dana could sell me salt water in the middle of the Atlantic
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 8:17pm.
:-)
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Definitely A Charmer
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 9:15pm.
Did Clarence Page blow Dana a kiss at the 20-21 second mark?
Yeah............I've had her
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 12:35am.
Yeah............I've had her on the ol' killa's radar for some time - she's in the running for top hot conservative women, for sure!!! And I liked when she had her hair all curly and wild!!!
And since my own name is Dana - well, I've gotta love it, right???
LOL killa
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 6:03am.
:-)
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
That's a true statement,
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 9:40am.
That's a true statement, Dave................except I dont look like her, and even with the Wrathful Brunettes spike high heels, I still can't make that animal print blouse and leather skirt look as good as the other Dana does.......................I guess that twerp who draws Doonsebury will have another conservative fox to make fun of - since it's racist and sexist to ridicule any of the poor excuses for excellence in femininity on the whacky lib/left/Dem side.
I've been saying this for
Submitted by deerjerkydave on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 11:33pm.
I've been saying this for years now. The Republicans lost control of the Senate and the House under Bush because conservatives finally realized they had been duped by Bush and it was time to clean house. Conservatives could no longer support big spending big government Republicans. There is a very good chance that after next year's elections Republicans will control the Senate, House, and White House. Will they squander that like they did under Bush? It largely will be determined by whoever is in the White House.
------------------------
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. -James MadisonDana Loesch is just another confirmation of a recent study
Submitted by Rush Fan on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 1:49am.
that found Conservatives are more attractive than Liberals.
Dana is...
Submitted by AgentAmerican on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 2:20am.
worth fighting an entire gallery of union goons with only my bare hands...those brown eyes and perky voice...she reminds me and others that we are men...if you know what I mean.
You would fight for this woman...I would risk all so she could speak her brilliant mind.
Democrats controlled the Senate for almost half of Bush's
Submitted by ekslib on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 5:47am.
presidency.
The misnomer of control
Submitted by Ashrak on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 9:42am.
I must faithfully disagree with one point made in this piece. The Republicans never did control the Senate when George Bush was President, for that takes 60 votes. Absent those 60 votes, the minority controls what comes out of the Senate. To be sure a minority cannot get out of the Senate what they want, but it absolutely can stop what it chooses to stop and allow forward what it wants to allow.
It is true to say that Barry Soetoro and his merry band of Democrats totally controlled the legislative process, but it is untrue to claim the George Bush and Republicans did.
The simple fact of the matter is that Republicans did not control the Senate during Bush's terms. Democrats did from the minority position. Yes, they held a majority, but it takes more than just 50+1 to control the Senate from Majority position. It takes 60 votes. ONLY the Democrats have had that opportunity and it is intellectually dishonest to liken the two situations as if they are the same - for clearly, factually, they are so very different.
"....a referendum
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 10:59am.
"...a referendum on Obama's first term..."? His only term!