CNN's Erick Erickson responds to criticism of a Red State post declaring that "mass bloodshed" may be necessary if Roe isn't overturned:
First, I'd like to point out that I did not, contrary to the claims, write the post. However, I do stand by it.
Second, the accusation of the left is that both I and this site are calling for armed rebellion due to the persistent legal killing of children in this country. They are both lying and ignorant of history.
Erickson then spends a dozen paragraphs not addressing the key wording in the original post. Here it is again:
Here at RedState, we too have drawn a line. We will not endorse any candidate who will not reject the judicial usurpation of Roe v. Wade and affirm that the unborn are no less entitled to a right to live simply because of their size or their physical location. Those who wish to write on the front page of RedState must make the same pledge. The reason for this is simple: once before, our nation was forced to repudiate the Supreme Court with mass bloodshed. We remain steadfast in our belief that this will not be necessary again, but only if those committed to justice do not waiver or compromise, and send a clear and unmistakable signal to their elected officials of what must be necessary to earn our support. [Emphasis added]
Erickson responds to criticism of that paragraph by insisting that Red State condemns violence:
We at RedState are mindful that there are those so frustrated with this country allowing the lawful killing of children that those people are perfectly willing to take a life to preserve a life.
We not only do not condone that, but we condemn it.
But the paragraph in question said that mass bloodshed will be necessary if "those committed to justice" fail to "send a clear and unmistakable signal to their elected officials of what must be necessary to earn our support."
It didn't say mass bloodshed will unfortunately but inevitably occur if those conditions are not met. It said mass bloodshed will be necessary.
In responding to criticism of the post, Erickson addressed that wording only by saying it "sound[s] like a caveat, but it is not a caveat to any of us here." Whatever that means. He did, however, say he stands by the post, so … here we are: Erick Erickson thinks "mass bloodshed" will be necessary if anti-abortion activists fail to convey to their elected officials the importance of overturning Roe v. Wade. Not just inevitable: "Necessary."
And tonight, CNN will feature him as a contributor to its State of the Union coverage.
Here at RedState, we too have drawn a line. We will not endorse any candidate who will not reject the judicial usurpation of Roe v. Wade and affirm that the unborn are no less entitled to a right to live simply because of their size or their physical location. Those who wish to write on the front page of RedState must make the same pledge. The reason for this is simple: once before, our nation was forced to repudiate the Supreme Court with mass bloodshed. We remain steadfast in our belief that this will not be necessary again, but only if those committed to justice do not waiver or compromise, and send a clear and unmistakable signal to their elected officials of what must be necessary to earn our support.
That "only if" construct means that -- according to Erick Erickson's Red State -- "mass bloodshed" will be "necessary" if elected officials don't overturn Roe v. Wade. Again: Red State doesn't say "mass bloodshed" may occur if elected officials don't do what is "necessary to earn our support" -- it says such bloodshed will be "necessary." Erickson and his Red State colleagues didn't indicate how much time elected officials have to earn their support before mass bloodshed becomes necessary.
This certainly is not the first time CNN's Erick Erickson has used violent rhetoric in discussing elected officials. This kind of talk must have some fans at CNN, though: Erickson has been chosen to provide "insight and analysis" for CNN's State of the Union coverage.
In the wake of the tragic shootings in Arizona, several right-wing media figures have attacked Pima County Sheriff Dupnik for calling for an end to vitriolic rhetoric while discussing the shooting. However, the right-wing media repeatedly praised a different Arizona sheriff, Paul Babeu, who regularly engages in vitriolic attacks against President Obama and Democrats.
In a post on Red State today, CNN contributor Erick Erickson baselessly speculated that Defense Department budget cuts were related to the repeal of the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, and that those cuts would be "detrimental to our national security":
I am not one of those who thinks the Defense budget is sacrosanct and cannot be cut. Even Governor Palin is on record saying we cannot spare the Defense budget from cuts in these times and she, unlike me, has a child in harm's way.
In any event, the Defense Department is out saying it will make cuts to the various branches of the military. Am I the only one who thinks it rather ironic that the two branches in for the biggest cuts are the Army and Marines. They also -- I'm sure it is totally unrelated. totally -- are the two branches of the service that were most vocally opposed to repeal of Don't Ask - Don't Tell.
I guess cutting the Army and Marines will boost diversity. Or something. Good grief.
In fact, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen have publicly supported the budget cuts as necessary, and both men, along with numerous other military officials, have advocated for repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy.
A post that appeared on the front page of Red State today claimed that "Repeal of the Job-Killing Health Care Act will NOT Increase the Deficit." To defend that argument, Red State reprints Sen. Tom Coburn's distortions of a Congressional Budget Office report on H.R. 2, the proposed repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).
Let's break down the claims.
The first claim Red State reprints is:
Repeal Reduces Health Insurance Costs for Americans. "In particular, if H.R. 2 was enacted, premiums for health insurance in the individual market would be somewhat lower than under current law..."
This sounds convincing, until you read the full context of this phrase in the CBO report and find that many people would pay more for health insurance if PPACA were repealed:
In particular, if H.R. 2 was enacted, premiums for health insurance in the individual market would be somewhat lower than under current law, mostly because the average insurance policy in this market would cover a smaller share of enrollees' costs for health care and a slightly narrower range of benefits. The effects of those differences would be offset in part by other factors that would tend to raise premiums in the individual market if PPACA was repealed; for example, insurers would probably incur higher administrative costs per policy and enrollees would tend to be less healthy, leading to higher average costs for their health care. Although premiums in the individual market would be lower, on average, under H.R. 2 than under current law, many people would end up paying more for health insurance--because under current law, the majority of enrollees purchasing coverage in that market would receive subsidies via the insurance exchanges, and H.R. 2 would eliminate those subsidies. (emphases added)
The second claim is:
Repeal Reduces Federal Spending on Health Care. "Last March, CBO estimated that enacting PPACA and the relevant provisions of the Reconciliation Act would increase the "federal budgetary commitment to health care" by about $400 billion over the 2010-2019 period; CBO uses that term to describe the sum of net federal outlays for health programs and tax preferences for health care. In contrast, CBO estimated that enacting that legislation would reduce the federal budgetary commitment to health care during the decade after 2019."
This claim is simply self-refuting. CBO is saying that PPACA increased federal health care by about $400 billion over the 2010-2019 period. But even the part that Red State quoted says that PPACA will "reduce the federal budgetary commitment to health care during the decade after 2019."
In a September 22 RedState post, blogger and CNN contributor Erick Erickson referred to the House Republican's recently unveiled legislative agenda for the next Congress -- a "Pledge for America" -- as a series of "compromises and milquetoast rhetorical flourishes in search of unanimity among House Republicans because the House GOP does not have the fortitude to lead boldly in opposition to Barack Obama":
A+ Rhetoric. C- Ideas.
The House Republicans' "Pledge to America" is out. A thrill will run up the leg of a few Chris Matthews' types on the right. As Dan noted on Twitter, the Contract with America was 869 words and this is 21 pages. The Contract told you everything you needed to know about how a Republican Congress would be different from a Democrat Congress after 40 years of Democrat control.
These 21 pages tell you lots of things, some contradictory things, but mostly this: it is a serious [sic] of compromises and milquetoast rhetorical flourishes in search of unanimity among House Republicans because the House GOP does not have the fortitude to lead boldly in opposition to Barack Obama.
I have one message for John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and the House GOP Leadership: If they do not want to use the GOP to lead, I would like to borrow it for a time.
The entirety of this Promise is laughable. Why? It is an illusion that fixates on stuff the GOP already should be doing while not daring to touch on stuff that will have any meaningful longterm effects on the size and scope of the federal government.
This document proves the GOP is more focused on the acquisition of power than the advocacy of long term sound public policy. All the good stuff in it is stuff we expect them to do. What is not in it is more than a little telling that the House GOP has not learned much of anything from 2006.
I will vote Republican in November of 2010. But I will not carry their stagnant water.
According to a recent Houston Chronicle report, the Department of Homeland Security is reviewing "pending immigration cases and moving to dismiss those filed against suspected illegal immigrants who have no serious criminal records." Naturally, conservative media are outraged, claiming that this represents "backdoor amnesty for illegal aliens." This morning on Fox, Steve Doocy said:
DOOCY: Yeah, it looks like this could be a backdoor way toward amnesty for thousands of people. But what is ultimately the message here? Hey come on in, come on in, live in the country illegally because even if you are arrested, and the threat of deportation -- they're not going to do it if you don't have a criminal record.
Here are the facts that Fox didn't mention:
It's not complicated. There are limits on the number of people our immigration system is able to process and remove. Given the choice of whether to spend those limited resources on the removal of non-criminal immigrants or criminal immigrants, DHS wants to ensure that they're removing those who could be dangerous. This isn't a new idea. A GAO report written during the Bush Administration states that ICE officers prioritized "those who pose a threat to national security or public safety."