I've passed prolife legislation, we defunded Planned Parentiood signed a law that requires an ultrasound, um, which, think about that, the media tried to make that sound like it's a crazy idea. Most people I talk to, whether they're prolife or not, I find people all the time will get out their iphone and show me a picture of their grandkids's ultrasound and how excited they are. That's a lovely thing. My sons are 19 and 20, we still have theur [sic] ultrasound picture, it's a cool thing out there.Dana states, "What's the point of discussing a possible candidate's answer on life issues if you're not going to accurately state what was said?" What the media is saying, is that Walker stated that forced ultrasounds are "a cool thing out there."
What he said can be interpreted that way, and his wording leads you to believe that. Implying that making ultrasounds mandatory is not a "crazy idea", then saying ultrasounds are, "a lovely thing" and "a cool thing out there" to prove that point kinda sounds like an equation to me.
Then Dana steps in it even worse. From her article:
Anyone with the reading comprehension of a dolphin knows that Walker was specifically describing ultrasound images, not the legislation itself -- which yes, it is cool that women seeking an abortion as a form of birth control must think and see the life they are ending before ending it.Getting my dolphin reading comprehension glasses on, this makes it sound even more like Dana says it (the legislation) is a "cool thing out there". While I think Dana did that on purpose, it may also show that lately, she's been slipping. You hear someone you are interviewing, and want to look good, say something that can be misinterpreted, your next question should be about clarification. Dana did not do that here. Maybe balancing a home life, kids, a husband, a radio show and a TV show is more than any amount of SuperBeets can help.
I am game, though. Let Mr. Walker have a pass. He didn't mean to equate mandatory ultrasounds for abortions as being lovely or cool. I wonder if there is an example of someone on the right misinterpreting something someone on the left said? Oh, I don't know, maybe one Dana Loesch?
Back in February, Dana had another article with the flashy headline, "Michael Bloomberg: We Need To Disarm Minorities". Here is how she interprets what Bloomberg said:
Bloomberg claimed that 95 percent of murders fall into a specific category: male, minority and between the ages of 15 and 25. Cities need to get guns out of this group’s hands and keep them alive, he said.Did he say this? Well, here is what he really said:
It’s controversial, but first thing is all of your — 95 percent of your murders, and murderers, and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take the description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all of the cops. They are male, minorities, 15 to 25. That’s true in New York, it’s true in virtually every city in America. And that's where the real crime is. You’ve got to get the guns out of the hands of the people getting killed. First thing you can do to help that group is to keep them alive.There are a few irregularities here. He said 95% of murders, murderers and victims, not just murderers. He states we need to get the guns out of the hands of people getting killed, not the "whole group" (in this case, just the murderers). He states that the first thing you can do to help that group is to keep them alive, not take guns away and keep them alive.
This leads Dana to make more mistakes in her article further down the line.
Additionally, Bloomberg can't do math.
To Bloomberg's credit, there is a 93% statistic on murder but it describes the percentage of black Americans killed by other black Americans.Although Bloomberg didn't say black Americans, he said minorities.
This seems to be the stat Bloomberg was talking about.
I want to point out the irony of the mayor who championed the loosey law in NYC -- which brought officers to engage Eric Garner -- discussing black male lives.Isn't is ironic? Don't 'cha think? What Dana is missing here is while there was a law in place to not sell loosies, blaming Bloomberg for something that happened the year after he left office, the fact that tax rates on cigarettes were increased after he left office, and enforcement was stepped up after he left office, means there is a lot more to it that Bloomberg's supposed infatuation with loosies.
So Dana did the same thing Politico did, probably to an even greater extent, as Bloomberg never even said the words, "We Need To Disarm Minorities", and Dana to this day hasn't changed her headline.
What I find hilarious though is the title of the webpage for the article she wrote on the Walker misquote, which you can find by looking at the source code, "Politico deliberately used a quote from Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker on ultrasound images." Hey, sometimes Dana can be right after all.