Dana Loesch verbally smacks Tommy Christopher for conspiratorial, condescending article
http://twitter.com/#!/DLoesch/status/203557326060388352
Earlier this morning, Breitbart foe and wearer of crazypants Charles Johnson published a piece on his blog suggesting that Breitbart.com employees have been in collusion with the Romney campaign.
Readers on this site are already aware of the leaked document that showed a super-rich right-winger planning a $10 million “scary black President” smear campaign. Of course, once the plan and the billionaire backer were exposed to the sunlight, they quickly pivoted to say that they never really planned on running the ads.
Romney, after initially hemming and hawing and saying he hadn’t “read the papers yet,” eventually got around to “condemning” the attack strategy, saying, “So in regards to that PAC, I repudiate what they’re thinking about.”
But some in the right-wing blogosphere think that Romney actually is offering “wink wink nudge nudge” support for the smear campaigns, and is simply employing the strategy of “good cop, bad cop” alongside his surrogates.
Johnson cited tweets by Loesch in which she analyzed Romney’s campaign in order to “prove” his point that Romney and Breitbart.com are in cahoots. He even went so far as to suggest that Breitbart.com employees were present at a top-secret meeting with Romney’s campaign.
Now, any journalist worth his or her salt should know better than to take Johnson seriously.
I had a "secret meeting" with Romney? Really? News to me. Prove it, lefty birthers. I dare you. I dare you. This will be comedy gold.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 18, 2012
I can't even get Romney on my show, but according to Jazzy Johnson and the WashU Ponytail Brigade, we're BFF with secret meetings!
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 18, 2012
I can't wait for Tommy's story. This will be comedy gold. Hope they Photoshop a good pic of me in this meeting he suggests I attended.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 18, 2012
I analyze Obama's strategy every day too, so why no assumptions that we're secret BFFs and colluding? Racists(TM)!
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 18, 2012
Can't wait for Charles Johnson-inspired Mediaite story from Tommy Christopher on how I'm working with Romney because I analyze him.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 18, 2012
And, right on cue, Mediaite‘s Tommy Christopher used Johnson’s piece as a springboard for his own story, in which he doubled down on the “secret meeting” theory.
What'd I tell you? RT @tommyxtopher: RT @mediaite: @DLoesch: Romney 'Acting Outraged' Over Aborted Rev. Wright Attack http://t.co/VdiBv67E
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 18, 2012
From Christopher’s piece:
Loesch, for her part, says her tweets were not the result of some inside information …
…
Since the blogger outreach meeting was off the record, Loesch wouldn’t be able to reveal what was told to her by colleagues who were at the meeting even if she wanted to, but “All of my Tweets are based purely on my own conjecture unless specified” seems to pretty well cover it.
I’m not sure that it makes much of a difference, since what Loesch is saying rings just as true whether she got it from the Romney meeting or not. Loesch has been getting very defensive on Twitter (pretending that a meeting everyone knows about didn’t happen is a lousy way to tamp down suspicion) about Johnson’s post, but what they’re each saying isn’t all that incompatible.
Johnson is really only saying that Romney failed to make clear to the meeting’s attendees that these kinds of attacks by others were unacceptable. If he had, Johnson reasons, surely one of Loesch’s colleagues in attendance would have corrected her tweets. It’s also not a stretch to believe that Loesch’s analysis might be colored by conversations with her colleagues who were at that meeting.
Loesch wasn’t having any of it, and she tore into Christopher for his conspiratorial and fact-starved article:
Funny, @tommyxtopher taking content direction from Charles Johnson & suggesting I was magically on air in studio in STL AND in person in DC!
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 18, 2012
I'm magical like that.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 18, 2012
In his story, Christopher also condescended to Loesch, suggesting that her Twitter analysis of Romney’s campaign was so “astute,” she couldn’t possibly have the ability to make those observations on her own.
. @tommyxtopher and Charles Johnson: "Dana's observations were so astute, she had to be at secret meeting." I kid you not.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 18, 2012
Clever, Tommy. Too bad you picked the wrong woman to talk down to.
"Since the blogger outreach meeting was off the record, Loesch wouldn’t be able to reveal what was told to her even if she wanted to"
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 18, 2012
"since what Loesch is saying rings just as true whether she got it from the Romney meeting or not." Own it. You implied.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 18, 2012
No. Didn't say you were. RT @DLoesch: Hey @tommyxtopher , can you explain how I was magically in STL and DC at once? http://t.co/mobNyxSm
— Tommy Christopher (@tommyxtopher) May 18, 2012
@tommyxtopher Yes you did. You suggested as such. Explain it.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 18, 2012
Typical dishonesty tho. RT @DLoesch: Hey @tommyxtopher , can you explain how I was magically in STL and DC at once? http://t.co/mobJ0XRs
— Tommy Christopher (@tommyxtopher) May 18, 2012
Really @tommyxtopher ? Explain to me how I'm being dishonest by calling you out as a hack.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 18, 2012
@tommyxtopher You wrote a story claiming I was in DC at a Romney meeting when I was in STL on air. Explain.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 18, 2012
@DLoesch Whatever, liar. I made no such suggestion. Save the lies for your fantrolls. Even they can read. http://t.co/FpkjR3nF
— Tommy Christopher (@tommyxtopher) May 18, 2012
Bet she won't. RT @tommyxtopher: Show where I made that claim or apologize. Sweetly. @DLoesch http://t.co/FpkfjtmL
— Tommy Christopher (@tommyxtopher) May 18, 2012
Nothing patronizing about that.
. @tommyxtopher Why not just give Charles Johnson a byline at Mediaite? He basically wrote your story.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 18, 2012
Media Matters has weekly con calls with WH, Tommy silent. I do my job and analyze a politician and Tommy screams conspiracy. Hack.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 18, 2012
BREAKING: The new definition of lying is "quoting another's words verbatim but copying and pasting." #tommylogic
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 18, 2012
@DLoesch "by conversations with her colleagues who were at that meeting" is pretty clearly *not* saying you were at it.
— Tommy Christopher (@tommyxtopher) May 18, 2012
@DLoesch Was clearly referring to colleagues of yours, referenced elsewhere in the article, but I added a clarifying clause. You're welcome.
— Tommy Christopher (@tommyxtopher) May 18, 2012
Here’s the clause:
Clarification: Dana Loesch is under the impression that this post was meant to imply that she was at the meeting herself, despite clear language to the contrary. To be clear, any references to Loesch gaining information from this meeting is in reference to her colleagues who were there. Dana Loesch was, in fact, not at that meeting, and I never suggested she was.
Finally, @tommyxtopher posts clarification (except he did clearly imply it)!
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 18, 2012
Was Riehl only blogger named? How did Riehl being there become "colleagues?" Is he multi-person?
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 18, 2012
#tommylogic: Conservative women are too dumb to analyze politics without their male colleagues.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 18, 2012
At least we know definitively where Tommy stands on women in politics. Women only "parrot" men, apparently.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 18, 2012
During the course of all this, conservatives leapt to Loesch’s defense, calling out Christopher for his disingenuousness and really letting him have it.
Back to reality: the notion that @DLoesch would parrot talking pts is ridiculous. If u try to put words in her mouth, u risk losing a limb.
— This Will Kill You (@stephenkruiser) May 18, 2012
@DLoesch How dare you use deductive reasoning and reach a conclusion on your own, get back in line like #Julia 😉
— Jake98 (@Jakeninety8) May 18, 2012
https://twitter.com/#!/jdonels/status/203610311293538304
Another hit piece full of lies by @tommyxtopher who cites @lizardoid as a source. A boring day in #Loserville http://t.co/lozPKBdb @DLoesch
— Nancy Couch (@ShadowPatriot) May 18, 2012
@DLoesch Parroting and teleporting. Don't forget teleporting. #teleportingdana
— CFLancop (@CFLancop) May 18, 2012
I'm dying because I know what @tommyxtopher really wants is @dloesch to link his piece so he gets hits and she isn't playing along.
— Nathan Wurtzel (@NathanWurtzel) May 18, 2012
Tommy Christopher citing LGF? You *know* that's good quality "reporting". http://t.co/7KuXliKl
— Ken Brown (@K_P_Brown) May 18, 2012
@tommyxtopher I read the whole piece, Tommy. It clearly & unfairly implies she either was at the mtg…
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) May 18, 2012
@tommyxtopher Or got talking pts fed to her bc her colleagues were at a secret mtg where conservatives just couldn't WAIT to discuss Wright.
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) May 18, 2012
@tommyxtopher The whole piece based on conjecture based on conjecture w no named sources & implies unflattering things about Dana & others.
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) May 18, 2012
Christopher’s silly implication that Loesch was able to be in two places simultaneously even launched a hashtag game: #TeleportingDana.
Love how the left simultaneously cuts down @DLoesch while giving her more powers… She can do everything! #TeleportingDana
— Chris Loesch (@ChrisLoesch) May 18, 2012
@tommyxtopher Did #TeleportingDana have the Illuminati join her at this meeting?
— Brett Stevens (@BrettStevens2) May 18, 2012
Now that @DLoesch has teleporting powers, I expect there to be a shortage of bacon & bacon related products #TeleportingDana
— Tim McCormack (@MrTimMcCormack) May 18, 2012
#TeleportingDana 1, Werner Heisenberg 0.
— Off A Cough (@OffACough) May 18, 2012
Dana Loesch, all the points; Tommy Christopher, nothing but a goose egg and ego bruises.
Comments are closed.