TRUMP EFFECT: IS ERICK ERICKSON THROWING DOWN GAUNTLET TO RUSH LIMBAUGH?

Breitbart ^ | 8-12-2017 | Edmund Wright

[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.

[Servant of the Cross]

Fine. And I had promised myself that I was going to take a hiatus from posting about Trump ...

I see this as Erickson doubling down on his dumb decision to disinvite Trump. And what a double down! He is not only fighting Trump, but he now dares Rush to pick a side too?! SRSLY?! There is no mystery as to how this will end up.

Clearly Rush will not 'apologize' for his treatment of "Trump phenomenon" or change his treatment of Trump on his program. Anything else would be like Trump apologizing for something he said. Erickson will find himself on an island. Trump and his supporters (this includes not only folks who will vote for him but also includes folks who favor others but who love how Trump has unapologetically defined the narratives for this election and shown that the eventual primary winner will come from the "fighter caucus") outnumber him greatly. If Trump won a spat with Megyn Kelly, a bout with Erickson will be a complete annihilation. The Trump phenomenon is anti-politician, anti-Establishment ... anti-Jeb/McConnell/Boehner/DC cabal (and this backlash 'phenomenon' is in fact their own creation/fault, a movement so sickened by their fecklessness, they dedicated to their removal from leadership) ... and fighting against it for 2016 is fruitless. The more you attack Trump, the stronger you make him.

If someone (Erickson or whomever) wants a different candidate than Trump to represent the "fighter caucus", they best figure out how to illustrate that their guy will be better than Trump without resorting to attacking Trump in the process. Treat it as a 'Shark Tank' competition ... beat him with better ideas, methods, marketing.

Or possibly ... even turn Trump into your biggest fan, investor and backer.

[miss marmelstein]

Rethinking your strategy of insulting everybody who likes The Donald? My, you’re being conciliatory today!

[C. Edmund Wright]

Erickson is not an impartial player. Nor is he a big voice, in my opinion. He is easily ignored. What’s he gonna do...drum up false accusations against someone else? And, I’m not being intentionally snotty here, just honest — I never thought Erickson was all that. Ingraham smokes him. In fact, Billy Cunningham is more interesting.

That's not your normally well thought out post. You may think he's a tiny voice, and on talk radio, he is - but every candidate badly wanted to be at his event - and yes, it was HIS event, this weekend. Every one of them. THATS NOT INSIGNIFICANT. He's not just a talk host. That's almost an after thought to him and not his base of influence. Cunningham nor Ingraham are hosting all the candidates to my knowledge.

And there's no false accusations going on here. It's just a line in the sand on the Trump effect. I happen to think the truth about Trump is somewhere between Rush and EE.

[C. Edmund Wright]

no, doing what I always do...responding in kind. If I’m engaged politely, I ALWAYS respond politely. If I’m snarked at from the get go, I tend to jump back ugly. Always. Same modus operandi.

You made a polite and reasonable post, and I responded in kind.

[navymom1]

He has even substituted for Rush on occasion.

---

Well Eric Erickson, if you substitute for Rush in the future, I won’t be tuning in and I’m certain Rush is “cutting edge” enough to know that means if one tunes out the stats come in at a loss of hundreds of thousands. Therefore, since Rush has stated on numerous occasions that his job is to attain the largest audience possible and hold it, well Eric, guess who probably won’t be hosting for Rush again.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Rush has been ignoring, for the most part, Trumps liberal reflexes on Planned Parenthood, on trade, on Ford, and on health care. This is not Rush like.

I don’t think Rush is living up to HIS 27 year standards of proportionality, and a relentless pursuit of the truth. Rush has only pursued the positive truth about Trump, and inappropriately downplayed the negative. I think that’s what David LImbaugh’s column today is about...a little tiny red flag he hopes his brother takes a peek at.

EE v Rush? No contest normally, but I think they’re both gonna get a little dinged in this one.

[onona]

Pissing matches between pundits don’t interest me at all.

[Psalm 144]

“Erikson is correct in saying that encouraging a candidate with Trump’s liberal history is not a conservative thing to do.”

Erickson is an irrelevant pipsqueak, carrying water for a corrupt, dying, Statist political party.

[CAluvdubya]

while the man most like Rush philosophically - Cruz without a doubt - has gotten very little.

I'm curious as to why you think this is? Cruz has just not caught on.

As far as Rush's attitude...I wonder if he thinks this whole thing with Trump is amusing? This is how I feel. It seems Trump is taking heat away from what may have been directed at Cruz. Plus, I love that Trump is, so far, taking the GOPe to the cleaners. The guy's brash, egotistical talk just makes me laugh. I don't think he'll be the nominee but I'm enjoying the heck out of the ride.

I've taken flack for my attitude from staunch Cruz proponents. Even though Cruz is my number one guy, I'm having fun watching Trump. Maybe Rush is as well?

[miss marmelstein]

He occasionally subs for Rush which sends his regular listeners running screaming to switch off the radio. Very. Bad. Guest. Host. And doubling down of the Titan of Radio is not a very good idea, either. And Levin will chew him up and spit him out all over his bunker.

[drpix]

It will become more complicated later.

But for now it was all about breaking the media embargo on tough positions on illegals, political correctness, the media control of campaign issues and Mexico & China's trade warfare.

Trump was the only candidate capable of doing this on a grand enough scale so as not to be ignored by the media. And he did it in an apologetically pro-American way that has awakened the masses disaffected by GOPe fecklessness.

When those issues become irrevocably the issues of 2016, then the rest of the true conservative candidates can make there move without being steamrolled by the GOPe.

[Psalm 144]

“This is pure liberal mob tactic. It will backfire, IMO.”

Agreed as to Erickson. The charlatans in the GOP used up all their credit for this kind of thing in 2012.

[Resettozero]

I have “unsubscribed” three times from Red State yet continue to get it.

Hitting the Unsubscribe button in this certain kind of email and following their procedures for unsubscribing by entering my specific email address, a valid but throwaway address...seems to be a waste of time these days.

SPAM is still arriving months later; who knows where they bought my email address and IF one can really Unsubscribe.

[Psalm 144]

“In summary, get back on the reservation or we won’t invite you to our party. The GOPe has all the maturity of a junior high girl.”

I don’t disagree with you but I do wish to point out that a junior high girl is usually more logical, always more honest, and can certainly fight harder.

[LS]

Funny for EE to claim Rush isn't a conservative. That's all you need to read to know this is REALLY sour grapes that EE lost his little one-upsmanship with Trump over the Atlanta event. Yes, it was well attended---but we have no way of knowing how many were there for Trump.

But I'm fine with EE going away. Didn't think he was that great a fill-in on Rush anyway.

[C. Edmund Wright]

yeah, he threw down a bit of an unreasonable gauntlet....that’s why it was “spit out my coffee” time when I first read it.

I do think there’s going to be some buyers remorse over DT though....

[Graybeard58]

There is *nothing* productive about obsessing about every squiggle in this election process. It’s just too early. That’s my view. We don’t “owe” the electoral process this much angst.

I agree, while the primary process is important, the event coming in November 2016 is a hundred times more relevant. The democrat candidate must be defeated, no matter whether it's Hillary, (I don't think it will be) or whoever.

Democrats will have been working to destroy our country for 8 years in a row, we must not let them have 4 or 8 more years to finish the job.

I doubt that anybody here wants to see Jeb Bush as the republican candidate and I really don't think he has a chance but think about the alternative democrat candidate.

I've seen so many posts saying, "I'll never vote for candidate X, if he wins the nomination and in different posts I believe I've seen every republican candidate mentioned as "candidate X". I understand that sentiment, I struggled in the last election over whether to vote for the utterly repulsive Romney, in the end, I just could not do it and voted for the Libertarian candidate instead.

People on this forum blame me for Romney's loss and I concede they have part of a point. Yep, my one vote here in Illinois cost Romney the election..................or was it Romney's political repugnance that lost the election?

Romney was the only republican candidate that I have ever refused to vote for in a very long history of voting, I'm not sorry for it.

There is no republican candidate in a very large field this time that I would reject in the general, not one as unacceptable as Romney, liberal to the core that he is.<

Yes, I readily admit it, I'd vote for Jeb in the general election against any democrat they put up.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Trump was the only candidate capable of doing this on a grand enough scale so as not to be ignored by the media. And he did it in an apologetically pro-American way that has awakened the masses disaffected by GOPe fecklessness.

I agree with that 100%. My prob is that his ideas on health care are still not very American...his idea on PP is still not very American...the idea that he's going to PREVENT FORD from moving a plant is not American. Great countries do not have to FENCE THEIR PEOPLE IN. The American idea is to remove the negative incentives of absurd taxes and regulations so Ford, nor anybody, WANTS to move a plant. Can you imagine Reagan fencing a company in by the jack booted force of gummint? And yet, Trump is all about that while citing Reagan. SHEESH.

You can wrap any idea you want in the red white and blue, but it doesn't mean it all belongs in there.

[LS]

No, and there is "no escaping the scoreboard" in reverse, either. So far, the anti-Trumpsters have been 100% wrong in their predictions about what would happen. ("He won't really run," "He won't file his financials," "He's done after the McCain comments," "He's done after the Fox debate," blah, blah).

No one can predict how someone will act when in office (well, Zero is an exception cause he was a devout Marxist). But Reagan went along with a tax increase, Bush folded on bailouts, etc. We CAN look at the predictions by Erickson and the other pundits as listed above. So far they have all been horribly wrong. Most of them, even if they have to admit it, really say it like, "Yeah, but we're only wrong because you voters are stupid." I went through this with Jim Geraghty of NRO---usually a pretty fair and smart guy. But the NRO crowd is 100% Bushie, and hate Trump. Of all things, THEY try to claim that Trump "isn't conservative enough."

My point is not to again debate Trump's conservatism or lack thereof, but to at least suggest that with a track record of the pundits about Trump, I'd take him in a bet any day.

[Psalm 144]

“...going after [Trump] like EE and the GOPe is doing is short sighted and foolish.”

And desperate.