Posted on 08/14/2015 5:39:49 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
Did we just see Erick Erickson’s Red State draw a red line in the sand in front of Rush Limbaugh? And if so, is it another aspect of the booming dynamic known as “the Trump effect?”
That very case can be made – as Erickson used Red State’s daily email blast lead story from Dan McLaughlin on Wednesday to fire shots across the bow of all talk radio hosts who are in any way supporting Donald Trump. And while Erickson does not have the by-line on this indictment, it is right in line with his recent dis-invitation of Trump to speak at the recent Red State gathering. (snip)
(snip) gauntlet is thrown down on all talkers with the bombastic warning that “all those in a position of leadership…. cable and talk radio hosts, pundits, columnists, bloggers – (who are) actively encouraging the Trump phenomenon, you are neither a conservative nor a Republican anymore and should not expect anyone to take you seriously again.”
There’s nothing else to add to that, other than to notice that a direct endorsement of Trump was not a requirement here – no – merely the encouragement “of the Trump phenomenon” is in and of itself damning.
And just in case anyone still missed the main point of the article, it closed with the harsh notice that “Donald Trump’s feckless campaign is a millstone…. take it off your necks, or be drowned by it.” The close was dramatically stark on purpose.
Translation: Those talk leaders who now speak well of Trump’s campaign are heading for a major embarrassment down the line….and ole Erick will be there to remind them.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I’m very honored that you think CEW is someone worth pretending to be....
Don't flatter yourself, I'm calling you out as a fraud and you seem to have ignored my previous comment about your home page:
Contributor at Breitbart, American Thinker, Newsmax TV,
How about posting some of your articles?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....READ THE ONE FOR THIS THREAD YOU NIMROD!!! LOLOLOL.....you just stepped in....
Just back in time to see your piece! Very nice work and you did ring the bell with your sharp observations! Maybe my favorite piece. Of course, I agree with it from start to finish.
In my travels this week I listened to Rush. A young caller, eighteen years old, called in complaining that Rush was giving a pass to Trump above all others by failing to criticize him. Rush explained that he is after one thing— beating the Democrat nominee. He believes as most do, that our worst candidate is better than giving our nation’s future to another Democrat. (None are of the Romney type, so I also agree with that.)
Rush rather assured his listeners he has no intention of banging away on our candidates and that he has actually criticized none of them, including Trump.
Eric could learn from Rush on how to win a war and not to fuss over appearances. Erickson disappointed me by dissing the Trumpster, thereby shining the light on his own glaring self righteousness in these treacherous times that are crazy scary and no time for journalistic prima donnas.
Eric will be rewarded by the Establishment for this isolation tactic against Trump, but he will lose some foot soldiers.
Losing votes...not loosing.
Right On! I cancelled EE’s newsletter and refuse to listen to his ranting and raving ever again.
Seems to me Trump has been loud and clear about his condemnation of the OVERSPENDING by our Government. AND he wants countries to help pay for our expenses which we incur protecting them. It is long overdue, in my opinion. It has always been a sore spot with me that throughout the cold war, America protected Canada but the cheap skate Canadians never contributed one penny to SAC. (Strategic Air Command.)
How many times have the so called conservatives had their heads beat in by the Democrats, Media, Republican Elites and establishment? I’m sick of losing because of the purist who have to have it their way or the highway. This time I’m all for a proven WINNER, warts and all.
Trump should have been ricked off by the snub. Trying to foster his own image, EE made a big mistake trying to punish Trump for being Trump. It wasn’t the first time I’ve been ticked off at EE, but it served as the last.
I don't think he's been loud and clear about government spending -not in context of most of his rhetoric. I've never heard him mention the term limited government once. In fact, the first thing he wants to do will require a huge increase in government employees. I've never heard him mention the Constitution per se - only a couple of amendments that dovetailed with a particular policy. His overall rhetoric, not to mention his life body of work, can hardly be characterized as Constitutional limited government. Not at all.
However I do agree with other countries helping with protection money - in theory - but I don't think it's going to happen. We don't protect them just to protect them - we have interests there as well. Trumps rhetoric on this outstrips any reality - but I do understand the appeal - because it appeals to me too. But I look at things the way they are, not how I'd like them to be.
Good conversation, thank you.
Yes, it was a mistake by EE - a point I made - I think pretty early on - in the article. And I suspect it did tick off DT.
BRAVO!
We should respect people who take a stand, agree or not. This is risky gutsy move.
......................................................
Both sides of your mouth, perhaps? How can you claim we should respect EE for “taking a stand”, but not apply the same yardstick to Donald Trump? Also prove your statement about Trump being Big Government. I do not equate Trump’s stand that the “runaway spending must stop” with big government. I equate that with cutting some of the bureaucracy which is, after all, reducing the size of government...the opposite of Big Government.
I’ve never heard him mention the term limited government once.
.........................................................
Does one have to mention a certain phrase like “limited government” to be understood? I don’t think this is a chemistry class. What has Trump suggested, specifically,that leads you to believe “the first thing he wants to do will require a huge increase in government employees.” If you are referring to building the wall or increasing the border patrol, these are things that have been promised and even funded many times in the past but have never been brought to reality. Trump will do it and I don’t call completion of a mission long overdue as leading to a “huge increase” in government. In fact, I think he will trim government as he would do any nonproducing business he controls.
Good. Vote for Cruz.
Erick Erickson isn’t even in the same league as Rush. Or anyone else in the same business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.