Basically, Mr. Cochran is living with a staffer and having an affair. He flies her everywhere with him. He's abandoned his wife and is basically flaunting this affair with his staffer.
Only problem is, none of it is true. Sure, he lives in his staffer's house, but it's a big house, and he's renting an apartment in it. Sure, she goes with him on trips, but they are official business and she is his executive assistant, has been since 1981. And while his wife is in a nursing home in Mississippi suffering from dementia, that doesn't mean he has abandoned her. And he denies any affair calling any thought of it as "silly".
So, is it alright to attack and impugn the character of people in politics, now? Because if it is, Democrats who Dana accuses of attacking Sarah Palin deserve an apology.
In other news, Dana also accused Thad Cochran of shaking a Klan hood to scare black voters to come out and vote for him.
Forget that there is no evidence Cochran or his staff put this flier out, but can Dana refute the things that are said on the flier? Did he not vote against the Mississippi Civil Rights Museum? Did he not make racist comments on his radio show? Does he not oppose SNAP funding in the farm bill?
And did McDaniel supporters go into black neighborhoods and intimidate people into not voting? We are convicting Cochran for many things without proof, where are the questions about this revelation?
I can't believe Dana has been doing radio for so long and is still getting it so wrong. Where is the integrity in journalism? Hey, as Breitbart used to say, it's not mean if it's the truth. And since the truth isn't out there, Dana's just being mean. Too bad, because I think she's smarter than that.
Well, since they will be assigned through the Embassy, they will already have the immunity the troops at the Embassy have. That, and as Jay Carney said a few days ago, they have permission to go from the Iraqi government.
Dana had a couple pretty bad statements pertaining to the Redskins trademark ruling.
"Democrats want to hide their continual heinous treatment of American Indians, and they think that changing a team name that honors them will do the trick."
Yeah, I'm sure the Democrats are the only party that mistreated Native Americans. While Andrew Jackson did initiate the trail of tears, and he was the founder of the Democrat Party, he is far from a progressive, as a matter of fact, his ideas were downright conservative.
But I digress, I find it disturbing that someone could state that Democrats came up with the idea of changing the name of a Football team to cover up their previous abuses. Is that what Dana really thinks? There is really no evidence Democrats are behind this, and how can such a symbolic gesture actually do anything? Wouldn't being the first American president to hold a conference of Indian tribes at the White House or expand the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and make it permanent be a better way of "covering up previous abuses"?
"That name was a tribute to the first coach of the Washington Redskins who were formerly known as the Braves."
Well, he was never a Washington Redskins coach, because he never coached the team when it was in Washington. It was originally the Boston Braves for one season in 1932, then in 1933 when William Henry "Lone Star" Dietz coached the team to two seasons of equal wins and losses before being fired, they changed it to Redskins.
But first, the team not only had an "Indian" coach, they also had several members of the team who were Native Americans. But the owner at the time of the name change, George Preston Marshall, paints a very different picture on why he changed the name:
On July 2, 1933, the day the Braves officially announced they
henceforth would be known as the Redskins, Marshall told the Associated
Press that the name change was made in conjunction with the team’s
relocation from Braves Field in Boston to Fenway Park, home of the Red
Sox.
"So much confusion has been caused by our team wearing the
same name as the Boston National League Baseball Club that a change
appeared to be absolutely necessary,” Marshall said. “The fact that we
have in our head coach, Lone Star Dietz, an Indian, together with
several Indian players, has not, as may be suspected, inspired me to
select the name Redskins."
A shrewd businessman and something of a
visionary about the fledgling league’s potential to appeal to a
national audience, Marshall made a simple marketing decision: Two Boston
teams calling themselves the Braves was one too many, and Redskins
suggested a Fenway Park tie with the Red Sox while enabling them to keep
their Native American motif.
So the name wasn't changed to honor anyone. It was done to tie in with the "Red" Sox, and distance themselves from the team that would eventually move to Atlanta, called the Braves.
There is something else here, however. Did you know that William Henry "Lone Star" Dietz wasn't a Native American at all? He plead no contest and served 30 days in jail for stealing the identity of a Native American so he could dodge the draft. He actually was born of German parents in Rice Lake Wisconsin.
How could Dana, someone who hammers Elizabeth Warren all the time on this, get it so wrong here? I guess she'll have to "read up a little bit about it" before she remarks on it again.
And for the negotiators who labored all year to avoid that outcome, it
represented the triumph of politics over the reality of Iraq’s fragile
security’s requiring some troops to stay, a fact everyone had assumed
would prevail. But officials also held out hope that after the
withdrawal, the two countries could restart negotiations more
productively, as two sovereign nations.
A year of negotiations. They met by teleconference most times. But it broke down simply because America wanted immunity, and the Iraqi people (not Malaki) didn't want to give it to us. A year. How much longer do you need for it to BE a negotiation, or for Dana to notice?
Dana isn't stupid, nor is she ignorant of facts. Why would she be so blatantly wrong here?
On Sunday, there was a shooting in Las Vegas. Two gunman entered a Cici's pizza, shot two police officers, and then on their way into a Walmart shot another before one killed the other, then herself. My thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the victims.
I tuned into the Dana Show yesterday fully expecting something to be said about this shooting. All I got was crickets. There is a reason for this. To me, it's not because of the backgrounds of the gunmen, although they are conservative, and the man was at the Bundy Ranch during the standoff. No, to me it is how the 3rd victim died. He was a good guy with a gun. He confronted the gunmen, and didn't stop them. Now, we will never know if he kept his gun concealed whether he would be alive today, but it is likely he would since nobody else was shot. This is why I believe Dana isn't mentioning it. Although since they are violent conservatives, and that is something Dana has said repeatedly doesn't exist, she may be avoiding it for that as well.
I have only gone through the first hour of today's show, and while she has mentioned the Oregon shooting, still nothing about the one in Las Vegas. Rachael Maddow, the lady in a K-Mart pantsuit, covered the couple in her Monday show. Guess that Ivy League... er... Rhodes Scholarship is paying off for her.
Looks like Dana spotted me. Here's the text of her post, in case she takes it down:
"Creepy. Progressive male stalker that I banned from this page after he
spam-hated every thread created a blog dedicated to me. He unfortunately
made the mistake in thinking that he can be anonymous online. Not with
me you can't. Apparently he does this on working hours."
Lets see.
1.) I'm a moderate Republican.
2.) I got to post 3 thoughtful
rebuttals to her posts on Facebook before I was banned. Spam-hate? See
for yourself:
3.) Anonymous online? Well, I started a new email and created an account here and on twitter with a made up name. I'm not Todd Edwards, nor am I connected with him, I just like his films. So if she knows who I am, she's doing some serious hacking. Which would be illegal. I am allowed my privacy.
4.) I work during the day. All my posts are at night.
She is right about one thing, I did create a blog about her. Hey, one out of five isn't bad.
But let's forget whether she is right or wrong in the facts of her statement. Let's get to how wrong this post is. Calling me creepy, a stalker, implying I do this on company time... all of this is not just to discredit me, it is a very dangerous game. If I weren't protecting my identity, she'd be inviting her followers on Facebook to find me and attack me. Hey, she blamed Piers Morgan for doing the same thing to her.
All because I started a blog. I'm not creepy, I'm not a stalker. I'm just pointing out my opinions of what a public figure is saying. Nothing here is hateful. Nothing I am doing is wrong. Why is Dana afraid of that?
Here's hoping she comes to her senses and retracts her statement.
Edit: Got to the second hour of the show, and she goes one step further in stating this is a, "creepy serial killer shrine".
Edit II: Hey, I didn't know you could view people's edits!
Wonder why she added the remark about my blogging on work hours?
Ah, our veterans. You can't disparage them. Unless you are Dana. Then
if your name is Bowe, it's alright. Roll that beautiful bean footage:
In the clip above, Dana is reacting to Bill Maher when he said the release of prisoners was, "kinda illegal". Well, it was, kinda. There is a law in place stating Obama would need to give congress 30 days notice before releasing prisoners. Is that law enforceable in this case? Probably not, as it violates Presidential powers, specifically protection of American citizens abroad. Don't take my word for it, take Jack Goldsmith's word. He served as a lawyer under Bush for the DOD and the DOJ, and he states that (from Time Magazine), "...Obama may have been acting legally. On the website Lawfare Tuesday he
wrote, “If the statute impinged on an exclusive presidential power, the
president properly disregarded it and did not violate it.”" So, kinda is actually right, in this case. Especially since there is video evidence Bowe Bergdahl looked near death.
She then pivots to an article in the New York... er... Los Angeles Times titled: Maybe we should thank Mexico for intercepting that armed ex-Marine, by this one chick (I've been told they don't like to be called that) Robin Abcarian. Granted, that's not the most diplomatic of titles. In the story, we learn quite a lot more than Dana is willing to let on. Dana even disparages the article as being written with, emotional zeal and personal prejudice. That's kinda like saying, "pot, this is the kettle, you are black". Except you are saying it to a refrigerator, and it is white. While Dana's emotional zeal and personal prejudice shine through in the clip above, Miss Abcarian's article explores a few of the facts in question.
In Andrew Tahmooressi we have a man who crossed the border with guns that are illegal in Mexico. Upon authorities finding out about this, they take him into custody. He tries to escape twice, and inflicts harm upon himself. He is eventually moved to a better prison. He's had 50 visits, and a TV interview since his incarceration. And it looks as if he's been in Mexico a few times before (thank you Tony Perry).
The underlying facts are not good. A crime is a crime, he didn't just kinda carry guns across the border. He didn't just kinda try and escape from prison (twice). Take away that he's a veteran, and most of the current sympathy crowd would forget he exists. They may actually accuse him of running guns for Eric Holder. But as a vet, it doesn't matter how many crimes he may have committed. That makes him a saint.
I guess I should get on about how I believe the cases of Bowe Bergdahl and Andrew Tahmooressi are not the same. Well, Bowe more than likely walked away from his platoon, Andrew more than likely committed crimes, then tried to walk away from them. In Bowe's case, why he walked away is not known with any certainty. In Andrew's case, why he crossed the border is not known with any certainty. Heck, there are a lot of similarities.
But here's the crux of it all. Bowe was at war, Andrew was not. Bowe was held by enemy combatants, Andrew is not. Bowe was incommunicado, so his whereabouts and health were in doubt. Andrew has had 50 visits from family, lawyers, consulate members, etc, and his health is not in question. Bowe was held because he was an American, an enemy. Andrew is being held for the crimes he is accused of committing.
The Obama administration is doing all it can to either gain the release of Andrew Tahmooressi, or at least ensure him a fair trial under Mexican law. If they could gain his release tomorrow, I am sure they would do everything in their power to do so. To paint this debate as we love a deserter, but hate our veterans, is like calling a white refrigerator black. It may make you feel better, but it is far from the truth. And Dana, since one of your guiding principles is to, "gird your loins with truth", don't you think your listeners deserve some in this case?
So, Miss Nevada's question/answer blew up on Twitter. So Dana was on the case:
First, Dana incorrectly states that all of these tweets are corralled under #yesallwomen. But clearly, she got these tweets from another source. The source can be found here:
You can follow along while she reads the tweets. It is clear since not all the tweets say #yesallwomen that they got this information another way. I believe the story states the search term is, "#missusa self defense".
That being said, let me say this. When have we ever as civilized society rightly said that when a woman got raped, that it was her fault? So why is it that we tell them they MUST defend themselves against rape, like it is the only solution to the problem? Isn't this one and the same? If you are a woman and you don't have a way to defend yourself, are you then at fault for whatever may happen to you?
Dana thinks it is man shaming to say teach men not to rape. As a man, I'm not offended. Yes, women need to defend themselves. I am totally fine with that. But we as a culture need to get to the root of the problem. Just because we have free will, doesn't mean men have the right to rape, or anyone commit any crime. And we all should want to work toward fixing the problem. Until then, shaming women, even if you are a woman yourself, isn't helping.
