Erick Erickson, CNN's Newest Commentator, Invites Stupak Backlash On His Blog

Despite his best efforts to look like a legitimate conservative media type, Erick Erickson is just another pot-stirrer inviting more hate to rain down

Despite his best efforts to look like a legitimate conservative media type, Erick Erickson is just another pot-stirrer inviting more hate to rain down on Bart Stupak. Sunday he posted this on his RedState blog:

We can’t [let] Bart Stupak go without a parting gift. Judas, after all, got 30 silver coins to sell out our Lord. Stupak needs something for selling out all the children sent off to be slaughtered thanks to his “compromise” that any President can pen away to oblivion — notwithstanding the questionable legal assumptions behind it.

He suggests fake silver coins. Whatever. This post might be interpreted as less than a threat, were it not for the comments. This comment, in particular is disturbing:

If this were a novel...

Stupack would eventually be found on the end of a rope, after realizing the extent of the lies on which he based his traitorous decisions.

It’s one thing to sell out. Quite another to sell out for no real reason at all. It eats at a man.

And then there's this incredibly confused commenter:

I donate for causes when I’m financially able to. Mrs. S. has been fighting cancer for 7+ years and the medical bills are piling up. Need to get all the medical help we can NOW, before she gets put on the Obama/Reid/Pelosi “Death Panel” list and won’t be able to get the treatments any more because her life isn’t worth saving!!!!!

One commenter offered to stop by Stupak's offices and leave a small gift:

Since I am in D.C. anyway, I will go by his office tomorrow or Tuesday and leave 30 pieces of silver (nickels) at his office with a little note.

How does “Here is your 30 pieces of silver for your betrayal of the unborn.” sound?

Another one thought it might be nice to send Rep. Stupak photos of aborted fetuses.

So here's my question for CNN: Given this guy's obvious bent toward wingnuts and hot rhetoric that whips already-frothy folks into a frenzy, why legitimize that behavior by giving him your brand to trounce?

Never mind that the very same abortion funding rules in effect on March 22, 2010 remain in effect on March 23rd and following. It goes without saying that this group of anti-choicers hoped to kill the entire health care reform effort with the Stupak wedge, but from the comments, it almost seems like they expected even more than that. It appears that the expectation was to ban abortions outright and overturn Roe v. Wade through the back door. When Stupak didn't deliver, they turned on him. Hard.

As I've said, I'm no fan of what he did. Abortion should never have been brought into this debate. But it was, and in the end nothing changed. It is the same today as it was before, but having the debate evidently raised expectations in these hard-core, hang-em-high types to the point of utter despair when the effort failed.

Some days it's hard to believe I share a country with people like this, but it's even harder to understand why CNN thinks it's a good idea to give them a daily platform from which to spew. Faux lite, I guess.

About karoli

karoli's picture
Card-carrying member of we, the people.

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.