CNN's Erickson agrees: WH "meeting with" BP was "a shakedown"
June 18, 2010 7:01 am ET by Media Matters staff
In a June 17 post on RedState.com, CNN contributor Erick Erickson wrote that while BP was not "owe[d]...an apology," "[t]he White House meeting with British Petroleum was a shakedown."
From Erickson's June 17 Redstate.com post:
Let's be honest. The White House meeting with British Petroleum was a shakedown.
The White House threatened criminal prosecution of BP, the President gave a miserably received speech, then he hauled BP into the White House and put the Attorney General in the room with the CEO to stare at him, then the President demanded $20 billion.
It was a shakedown.
Had British Petroleum affiliated with Al Qaeda and tried to blow up an airplane, it would have gotten due process rights, a court appointed lawyer, and miranda warning while avoiding Henry Waxman.
But let's continue our honesty: Who the heck cares besides Joe Barton? What planet has the man been living on? Has he not seen what BP has done and not done? He thinks we owe BP an apology? I don't think so. [Note: Yeah, I do care that this is probably unconstitutional, but BP is a willing collaborator with Obama. They're made for each other. Barton should be apologizing to the American public, not BP -- this administration continues to operate as a thugocracy.]
Previously:
WSJ: Barton "rightly called" White House "pressure" on BP "a shakedown"
"Well it IS fair to say that the president probably was responsible for the Armenian Genocide..."
You know, I read comments like this and wonder what has become of America.
If someone like Nixon were president I'm sure that G. Gordon would already be on the case of clearing up Erikisons "misunderstanding".
This was just another way of pointing out bias, whether intentional or not, that pervades our society.
Bush invading Iraq = Good
Obama holding BP accountable = Bad
Four days after the worst speech of Obama's career (let's face it, it was a dud), these idiot conservatives have decided the best point of contrast between Left and Right is whether or not you side with BP.
How many American voters want to side with BP?
Of course people on the sidelines, with no accountability but plenty of attitude, like Gingrich, Erickson, and Limbaugh are promoting their "shakedown" story as if it were a brilliant political tactic.
Erickson says BP got mugged, they deserved it the same way terrorists deserve it (but they don't ever get mugged, hmm), and Barton's an idiot for saying otherwise.
Still, Barton should apologize for the fact BP agreed to get mugged - because that was unAmerican.
Whatever moral vacuum exists in Erickson's conscience, it remains dwarfed by his idiocy. His post here doesn't make any sort of coherent argument; his posts rarely do, that's pretty much a signature theme.
I find it simply astounding that these pathetic Troglodytes are calling this administration a "Thugocracy" (talking point), yet, they either cheered or remained silent while the previous administration butchered the justice department and dragged us into a totally unnecessary war.
That war, by the way, will end up costing us much more than HealthCare Reform.
However, we should judge by what Erickson writes under his CNN hat. I understand that CNN viewers might be disturbed reading such RedState incoherence, and start viewing anything coming out of Erickson's mouth with suspicion.
However, if you view Erickson's role as more an on-air clown act, not to be taken too seriously. After all, what qualifications does he have to backup any kind of commentary on political matters?
If you accept Erickson as some type of paid clown, then his other job (writing for RedState) doesn't seem too bad.