Is Erickson’s Ego too big to fail?

Erickson wrote another post yesterday in a never ending stream of contradictory proofs and reasons why Governor Palin should not run, will not win, and has no support left, while attacking her for stringing her supporters and others along and that her supporters have criticized his negative columns.

The funniest part of his piece was this:

Sarah Palin has to take some responsibility for her supporters

His request is the epitome of hypocrisy and irony as Dan Riehl so aptly explained in a great post.

Pretty ironic for Erickson to hold Palin responsible for her fans, when he repeatedly claims to not even be responsible for what’s posted on a blog he edits. But then, I don’t expect consistency there.

Erickson then tweeted the following yesterday, linking to another front pagers ramblings, Leon H. Wolf whom I’ve already taken to task at length in the past, lamenting that Governor Palin refuses to bow to their threats to simply disappear.

@EWErickson Honestly, when you’ve lost the front page of RedState and you’re conservative, you’re doing something wrong. redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/20…

Strutting about with an over-inflated ego, it hadn’t dawned on Erickson that it’s Red State who’s “lost it” and been “doing something wrong” in their false pretense of neutrality.

For instance, since Perry is an incumbent, Erickson has suddenly discovered an interesting advantage for candidates. Namely, it’s beneficial to be an incumbent while running for higher office, since instead of just talking about past leadership and action, one can actually show leadership and action.

Erickson wrote the above in regard to Rick Perry’s heroic act of leadership when he cancelled his attendance at the Jim Demint Forum and instead headed back home due to the out-of-control wildfires raging in Texas.

I don’t disagree with a Governor’s duty to govern. But hey! I’d love to hear from Erickson his opinion whether he also considers it as advantageous for the Texan residents to have their barely reelected Governor who promised to serve a complete term campaigning across the country at a regular basis and remembering his constituents only at a time of crisis.

Perhaps this is why Erickson hasn’t forgiven Governor Palin for her resignation although it hasn’t affected him in the slightest bit. You see, it seems as though Erickson believes that a candidate’s future comes before the people’s good. Governor Palin should have rather remained Governor for the rest of her term despite the crippling effect it had on her state due to the political games of both parties who opposed her and the nonsensical lawsuits continuously dumped on her staffers, because it would’ve benefited her political career. Putting oneself before the people also explains why Perry was correct in running for reelection instead of not seeking another term at a time when a presidential run was pretty probable.

In 2008 two incumbents won the primaries, John McCain and Barack Obama. Erickson originally supported Fred Thompson in the primary who was a non-incumbent, although incumbents are supposedly at an advantage. Come to think of it, it’s pretty funny how Erickson had drafted Thompson to join the race and never proclaimed his window to have already closed or some similar nonsense. It’s also interesting how executive experience wasn’t that high up on his list in 2008, but I can understand how Obama changed that. Erickson’s support for Thompson is also sensible since Thompson was the most conservative candidate on the ballot, which is by the way the precise reason why I support a Palin presidential run. Palin is far more conservative than all the others and yes, that includes Perry.

Tuesday, Erickson took a cheap shot at Governor Palin while whining for a supposed contradiction.

On Saturday, Sarah Palin went to Iowa to lament crony capitalism in both parties. Her aides said she was taking shots at Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. We don’t know for sure whether or not she was because Sarah Palin herself did not confirm it. History is full of times Palin aides said something only to find Palin herself contradicting the aides.

Yesterday, Sarah Palin went to New Hampshire and said we shouldn’t be squabbling with each other on the same team.

For the record, Governor Palin’s aide simply said that she’d discuss Crony Capitalism and the “permanent political class” without taking any direct hits at Perry or the other candidates, which is what Governor Palin did in her speech in Indianola, Iowa. As for the squabbling part, she spoke in New Hampshire directly to Tea Party members and asked them to remain focused on their goals and not allow anything to cause the movement to splinter.

With his above supposed discrepancy Erickson thereby concurs that Perry is equivalent to Crony Capitalism and that it’s not necessary to actually mention Perry by the name to make the connection. As for the supposed contradiction between a plea for unity and an attack on Perry via an attack on cronyism, these two are no contradiction. What will it take to cause Erickson to admit the obvious; that Perry is not the Tea Party guy he pretends to be? That Perry is rather a member of the “big old boys” politics?

Tea Partiers demand small government, serious reform, and spending cuts. Which of the above has Perry ever done? None! What does the increased spending, subsidized education for illegals, and attempts to force his will upon the people via executive orders indicate? What does having the Bank of America telling Rick Perry not too worry say about Perry and shady dealings?

So which part of “unity amongst Tea Partiers” includes a Crony Capitalist and non-Tea Partier?

Erickson’s contempt and false betrayal of Palin supporters is another indication of where the site has gone wrong. Close to 100% of Palin supporters would vote for the Republican nominee even if it’s not Palin. However, at this point in the game they see no reason to support anyone but her since they are of the opinion that Palin will run and win.

Erickson also “reminded” his readers that the Republican focus is supposed to be on uniting against Obama in this race and not squabbling between one another. He chooses to forget; A- the negative attitude of Red State, and b- that primaries are meant to vet the Republican candidates so the candidate who voters consider best for the job can then run against Obama in the general election which is when everyone will unite against Obama.

The tweet at the start of this article linked to an article written by Leon H. Wolf, a front page writer. In yet another anti-Palin post, Wolf once again blamed Governor Palin for tying up her supporters. He then wrote that;

Whereas three months ago she would have been in an ideal position to be kingmaker in the Republican primary … she might well be in a position that the first person she calls to offer an endorsement will politely turn it down.

If, according to Wolf, her strongest and best moment was three months ago, why waste it to crown another rather than herself taking the plunge? Wolf obviously only wanted her to be a kingmaker and not an actual candidate! Keep in mind that this came from a guy who blames Governor Palin for having become turned off her.

Additionally, why make such a big deal of and waste so much time and effort lately to attempt to influence a non-candidate and her supporters if her supporters are insignificant and her endorsement worthless and unwanted? If they are merely attempting to lure the Palin supporters to the Perry camp, they sure are clueless in how one goes about at such a task. Attacking them and their candidate doesn’t seem to wise.

They are also clueless as to who her supporters are, which Jen Kuznicki put down in a terrific article which is worth your while to read in its entirety.

The people supporting Palin with such passion are people new to the whole scene. We don’t watch what we say, we don’t care about your feelings. We are concerned about the destruction of our nation, and a lot of us have just figured out how to work computers, to be honest. We are truck drivers, waitresses, cooks, grandmas, veterans, union workers, mechanics, seamstresses, electrical workers, plumbers, carpenters, small businessmen and businesswomen, and lots and lots and lots of us are women. Homeschoolers, ranchers, farmers, miners, all of us could be categorized by the beltway political class as “rednecks.”

What rednecks do best is talk straight. What redneck women do best is point out where you’ve gone wrong, and sometimes that just seems over the top, but they don’t give a rip. We get made fun of by the political class, and that just firms our resolve.

Finally, what part of “ by the end of September” is too difficult for these dimwits intellectuals to comprehend?



This article has been cross-posted at Conservatives4Palin

Erick Erickson’s Virginia Senate Flip Flop Undermines ‘Badge of Honor’ Talk

In response to my C4P post Tuesday highlighting RedState’s inconsistent treatment of Republican candidates, including its pro-Perry, anti-Palin bias, Erick Erickson wrote this: (emphasis mine)

God help us, but if there is one uniform criticism from all sides, it is typically that we here at RedState are not team players. And I wear that proudly as a badge of honor. I’m not willing to sacrifice my conservatism for the GOP or a particular candidate.

Erickson might not chuck conservatism “for the GOP or a particular candidate” but he does appear willing to “sacrifice his conservatism” when it threatens his paycheck.

Politico’s Ben Smith posted an article Wednesday shedding light on Erickson’s conscience-for-hire, providing yet another glimpse into Erickson’s well-documented ability to quickly spin away earlier views and inconvenient facts. No doubt he calls this flip flopping behavior “being objective” or something.

Erickson originally endorsed Tea Party candidate Jaime Radke in her Virginia GOP senate contest against establishment pick, and former senator, George Allen. Notice Erickson’s bold proclamation of how important it was to support the grassroots. That is … until he was told not to.

“This race may be the big grassroots vs. party establishment race of 2012 and a test of the tea party’s continued momentum,” wrote Erickson, who is also a CNN contributor.

[Erickson's] endorsement, Jaime Radtke campaign manager Carter Wrenn said, gave the campaign a boost. But soon, he noticed that RedState wasn’t giving Radtke’s campaign much attention.

“The word came back to me that the people who own Human Events and RedState were for Allen and had asked Erickson to step back,” he said.

This summer, Radtke emailed Erickson to ask if she could speak and network at his RedState Convention earlier this month, to which she had not been invited.

Erickson responded in the August 4 email to Radtke, which her campaign manager Wrenn forwarded to POLITICO, with a frank explanation of why he couldn’t offer her a speaking slot.

“[M]y bosses are HUGE Allen friends, not just fans. They are socially connected,” he wrote. “So I’m having to tread carefully in this. Happy to help, but it’s got me in a difficult position. So please come and let me introduce you to people, but just understand that I have to be delicate for now.”

Erickson did, ultimately, allow Radtke to introduce Stephen Bannon, the director of the Sarah Palin film The Undefeated in which Radtke appears. He did so, Wrenn told Radtke, because the Eagle officials weren’t present. Radtke didn’t respond to a request, through Wrenn, for an interview.

Erickson responded in an email to POLITICO that the Eagle officials hadn’t forbade him from taking sides, but simply “asked [that Erickson] go slower in evaluating that race instead of diving in head first.”

“It was not a commandment or order, but out of respect to the long-term relationship a George Allen has with Eagle, I thought it was a reasonable request I was happy to accommodate,” he said. “As it turns out, I don’t really see any way George Allen gets beaten and I’d rather focus resources in Indiana and elsewhere.”

I’m not taking sides in the Radtke vs. Allen battle. Nor do I have any issues with the Eagle officials since they are businessmen like any others who’ve got the right to support the candidates of their choice. I can similarly understand Erickson’s need to respect his bosses’ wishes.

What’s troubling is Erickson’s delusional self-portrayal as this “idealistic pure conservative” who won’t allow anyone or anything to sway his positions when the truth shows otherwise time and time again. It’s nothing but spin.

Erickson’s initial support of Radtke as evidenced by his promotion of her articles — to his rapid turnaround toward openly mocking her — makes him seem like an insincere, self-serving flake. (Remember when he promised to provide the names behind the Will Folks smearing of Nikki Haley, then quickly changed his mind on that, too?)

That was precisely the point of my C4P post about RedState’s hypocrisy with regard to covering candidates. They don’t promote conservatism. They promote flavors of the month. In his nonsensical, self-martyring response Wednesday, Erickson dismissed all these facts I laid out in the piece, and chose to focus on one C4P reader comment calling him a “hack” out of more than 150 comments.

I’ll just close by pointing out the irony that on the same day Erickson talked proudly about wearing badge of honor for being a “non-team player” he devoted two columns to hyping Perry’s candidacy. In the first one he cited a PPP poll which has Perry up, as a likely sign of his winning the primary. He cited a Gallup poll in the other piece as proof that Palin should not think the nomination is hers for taking if she runs.

Funny how Erickson forgot to mention this inconvenient piece of info from the PPP poll:

Independents view him (Perry) negatively already by an almost 2:1 margin, 29/55, and Democrats pretty universally give him bad ratings at a 10/71 spread. As a result Obama leads Perry thanks in large part to a 24-point advantage with independents at 56-32.

To Erickson’s mind, Perry’s negative numbers are neither worthy of being mentioned nor a sign of him being unelectable. But Palin’s high disapproval figures are reason to believe she has been made radioactive. — despite the fact that unlike Perry, she hasn’t even begun to campaign, and she has already had everything including the kitchen sink thrown at her for three years.

Two candidates. Two different standards at RedState. Par for the course.

The internal politics at RedState are irrelevant save that all conservatives should be made aware that the information there is tainted. Erickson’s views time and again are based on additional factors besides the promotion of “conservatism.” Sometimes it’s about his own bottomline.

In consuming the information provided at RedState, it should be buyer beware.


This article is cross posted from Conservatives4Palin.