Sometimes movement conservative actors perform deeds that are so dark and disgusting that it makes me ashamed. Ashamed of their cruelty towards their fellow human beings. I won't trace the roots of the movement conservatives players here or repeat the stories of their bowing to the shrine of Ayn Rand narcissistic greed and arrogance, but we know the major players. Just think of Jack Abramoff, Paul Ryan, Alan Greenspan, Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist. For all his many transgressions against American families, Grover's K Street Project ranks up there with the worst of the worst.

At this moment in time, the U.S. has an incredibly bad economy, punctuated by high unemployment and staggering wealth inequality throughout the country. Students, recent and older college graduates, working class families and just about every one under the sun has been affected by the global financial collapse. As the Occupy Wall Street protests began to expand around the country, the conservatives tried to downplay the protests by saying the protesters were just too lazy to work. As a response to this unparalleled financial inequality that now pervades our nation, a small minded conservative pundit tries to counter the protests with his own idiocy. You know him because CNN hired him: Erick Erickson.

His response to the "We are the 99 percent" website, in which regular people document all the hardships they've had to endure as the top one percent sits fat and happy is to create his own site, named "The 53%ers," or something ludicrous like that.
Gawker has a nice rundown on it.

Did you know that if you are uninsured or jobless, you should just suck it up? That if you're overworked or underemployed, you should be thankful? Learn all that—and more!—at "We Are the 53%," the right wing's incredibly depressing response to Occupy Wall Street!

"We Are the 53%" was created thought up by CNN's chief goat-fucking correspondent Erick Erickson as a response to "We Are the 99 Percent," an Occupy Wall Street-affiliated blog that collects the stories of the underemployed, overworked, debt-ridden and uninsured victims of the recession. The blog, run by conservative filmmaker Mike Wilson, gets its name from the popular (and wildly simplistic!) Republican talking point that only 53 percent of households pay federal income taxes, and Erickson himself sets the tone:

The poor dear has to work three jobs. Notice he doesn't say what they are. My father had to work twelve hours a day down in Manhattan's Flower Market from 5am, then drive a cab for about eight hours a night part time and then he took every carpentry job he could find on the side, but hey, going on CNN is really a heavy burden to behold. I haven't seen anything this moronic in a long line. Clearly, Frank Luntz's hands were nowhere to be found on this one.

We'll be honest: when your three jobs include "appearing on CNN" and "starting Tumblrs," our sympathy is... somewhat limited. Also, if your house can't sell, you probably should blame Wall Street, because the subprime mortgage crisis and housing market crash really is Wall Street's fault. And the thing about "complaining" is that it's kind of how politics works!

Continue reading »

So professional kvetcher Erick Erickson has a new project up called "We are the 53%" that purports to speak on behalf of the 53 percent of Americans who pay federal income tax. As per usual with these sorts of things, Erickson fails to note that while many Americans pay no federal income tax, they do pay payroll taxes, state income taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes... well you get the idea. But for professional propagandists such as Erickson, only federal income taxes count as Real Taxes because... well, who the hell knows at this point? Payroll taxes pay for Social Security and Medicare, which are two of the biggest items in the budget, while federal income taxes pay for the military, which you'd think Erickson would be happy to fund.

But anyway! As is his wont, Erickson has posted his own comical self-pity pic bemoaning the fact that he "works" three "jobs" (presumably as an Internet gasbag at RedState, as a radio gasbag on his talk radio show and a TV gasbag on CNN) and is thus one of the Randian Supermen who is supporting all the unwashed losers protesting Wall Street.

This type of weapons-grade st00pid demands a response, of course. And as someone who does in fact pay federal income taxes I've decided to make myself the de facto spokesperson for the 53 percent Who Hate the .000000001 percent that is Erick Erickson.

Of course, I do not have the final say in all this. I encourage all of my fellow federal income tax payers to post similar messages to Erickson. We can make a collage out of 'em if you want. We could even get out own Tumblr: "We Are the 100 Percent Who Think Erick Erickson is a Tool." Revolution, baby. Revolution.

Erickson really doesn't appear to be able to help himself. It's a sickness, really. But what does it say about CNN that Rick Sanchez can get fired but Erickson is still working, even after writing such violent prose like this?

CNN's Erick Erickson is also Editor-in-Chief and "Dear Leader" of the conservative blog Red State, so this charming passage posted by "The Directors" is presumably his doing:

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."

Truly, I don't think you could expect the man who referred to Justice Souter as a "goat-f@#$ing molester" and Michelle Obama as a "Marxist harpy" to elevate the dialogue. It's just not within his sad, over-compensating little wheelhouse.

But this kind of carelessly eliminationist rhetoric--especially in the light of the Tucson shootings and the Dr. Tiller assassination--is frightening to see so unabashed. And it would be irresponsible not to speculate if CNN was aware of it when they touted Erickson for their SOTU analysis.

Perhaps you might ask CNN. Politely, of course. Edie Emery is listed as the contact person for CNN's SOTU coverage. Maybe Ms. Emery is unaware of the Son of Erick's body of work.

Conservatives have an easy time of procuring a gig on cable news TV. Promoting uneducated, bigoted, misogynistic and racist ideas is very helpful for gainful employment on the airwaves. David Neiwert tackled CNN's promotion of an organization that David Duke would be proud of on 03/05.

CNN tries to tackle white anxiety -- by treating white nationalists as credible sources

This was the headline yesterday at CNN:

Are whites racially oppressed?

"We went from being a privileged group to all of a sudden becoming whites, the new victims,'' says Charles Gallagher, a sociologist at La Salle University in Pennsylvania who researches white racial attitudes and was baffled to find that whites see themselves as a minority. "You have this perception out there that whites are no longer in control or the majority. Whites are the new minority group."...read on

Enter Erick Erickson on CNN, spewing example #1,347,976 of the type of lunacy that lands you a job on CNN:

Supporting a White Male Scholarship

CNN drew criticism last Friday for an article headlined "Are whites racially oppressed?" In addition to legitimizing "pro-White" commentators James Edwards and Peter Brimelow, the article quoted the president of a Texas group called "Former Majority Association for Equality" that exists solely to provide college scholarships to white men. FMAE president Colby Bohannan told CNN, "There was no one for white males until we came around."

As it turns out, that wasn't the first attention CNN gave Bohannan and the Former Majority Association for Equality. On Tuesday, March 1, CNN posted an interview with Bohannan on its web page, then devoted two segments to it during that day's edition of CNN Newsroom. During that coverage, CNN contributor Erick Erickson endorsed the FMAE's white-men-only scholarships:

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN ANCHOR: What do you think, Erick? Isn't this just another in a multitude of specific scholarships for lots of different kinds of people?

ERICK ERICKSON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Oh, absolutely. It is. If we're going to get rid of scholarships for African-Americans and get rid of scholarships for Hispanics and get rid of scholarships for Asians and get rid of scholarships for women, then let's get rid of the scholarships. But if we're not going to get rid of those, then let's keep this one.

Erickson then suggested that women, Hispanics, and Asians have not been historically disadvantaged in America:

ROMANS: But Erick, don't you think --- this is a little bit different. Because we have a history that's tortured and painful in this country that makes, even today when you start talking about a white-male only scholarship it makes people kind of cringe. Because there was a time when white men frankly ruled this country and had all of the access, and the reason why we have all of these --

(CROSSTALK)

ERICKSON: Absolutely. But they don't anymore. You can justify that, for example, a scholarship for African-Americans, given the history of this country. But can you for Asians or Hispanics or for women? Now we've reached the point in Texas, at least, where the white men are no longer the majority in Texas.

Pat Buchanan would be proud. This is supposed to be a rational Conservative position. You can deconstruct the lies, but I guess EE sees "brown people" everywhere and it scares him.. And I think he forgot that women had to fight for the right to even vote in this country not too long ago in our history.

Digby writes:

I suppose it's progress that he admits that there has historically been discrimination against African Americans. Haley Barbour would have us believe that Jim Crow wasn't "all that bad.")But evidently he looks around him and sees a world in which Hispanics, Asians and females are in positions of social and professional dominance. That may, in fact, be true on camera at CNN. But if you look at the power structure behind it and every other corporation, university, government agency and elected body, I think he can feel safe in assuming that the white male isn't in any immediate danger of having his power usurped.

It looks like the GOP Congress members have used up their allotment of White Male scholarships for the next 1000 years.

This.

I saw this via a ggreenwald tweet.There's really not enough targets out there for EE to wank against that he has to lie about Greg Sargent? I guess good reporting makes Erick nervous. First, he writes a neon glaring lying headline which in turn frames the post as if Sargent is demanding union violence and then is rewarded for his ask. Here's the link, click through if you like:

Washington Post’s Greg Sargent Demands Unions Get Violent. Union Goons Attack Fox Reporter.

The Washington Post’s leftwing mouthpiece, Greg Sargent, who they ostensibly pay to be an objective reporter is on twitter demanding that unions in Wisconsin get violent to get their way.

In what we can presume is unrelated to Greg Sargent’s call, a Fox News reporter was attacked by union thugs in Wisconsin.

Once I pointed out on Twitter that Sargent was calling for unions to get violent in Wisconsin, Sargent declared he was not promoting violence despite actually writing on twitter:

Dear union thugs: Will you please get violent in Wisconsin already? Pretty please?

Note also that Sargent is calling union members “thugs”.

Wow, Greg did all that with one tweet. Behold the mighty tweet. The scummy part is that Erickson knows Greg was being sarcastic when he wrote that so he admits it later on in the post, but still justifies the smear.

The point here is not that Sargent actually is endorsing violence. I’m sure he really was being sarcastic.

The point is that Greg Sargent, after demanding that unions get violent in Wisconsin, wants us to extend to him a courtesy — that of not taking his tweet at face value — he has a willful pattern of refusing to do with conservatives and Republicans.

See, for example, his insistence that the tea party movement wants “to reverse” abolition, women’s suffrage, and civil rights.

What’s good for the goose . . .

Exit point: Yes, I believe Sargent was being sarcastic. The problem is that if I or Sarah Palin or anyone on the right had said something similar, Greg Sargent and his friends would never, ever extend us the courtesy of recognizing the sarcasm, etc. If you need proof, just dig around for Sargent’s writings about Sarah Palin’s target map.

EE is clearly clueless or just lying again because Sarah Palin's target map was not sarcasm. It was reckless and she was called out about it immediately by someone who was shot in the head after complaining about the target map. Maybe EE forgot her name. It's Gabby Giffords.

Greg shouldn't have to defend himself from this, but he did so I wanted to mention it to you all.

(h/t Heather at VideoCafe)

Oh, those classy, classy producers over at CNN. When iconoclastic MSNBC host Keith Olbermann announced that Friday's Countdown episode would be the last, it took only minutes for Red State Editor and media gadfly Erick Erickson to gleefully tweet

Wait what? You mean I have a radio show and am on TV and Olbermann is not on either? Hahahahahaha.

setting off shell-shocked liberals still reeling from the news, feeding the son of Erick with even more joy.

So who would be the most natural person for CNN to ask on Anderson Cooper 360 to comment on Olbermann's abrupt departure? Of course, the conservative blogger responsible for such illuminating analysis and debate as calling Justice Souter a "goat-f@*&ing molestor" who was only moments earlier taunting and blocking liberals on Twitter. What, CNN Producers, were you unable to book Bill O'Reilly or Dick Morris for that cogent conservative analysis you apparently crave?

Even Erickson, by his own admission, thought it was rather pointless for him to comment on the situation.

COOPER: Let’s get our political panel in here. Erick Erickson, what do you make of this?

ERICKSON: You know, I don’t know if I should say anything. I’m kind of laughing at this and getting torn up on Twitter about it.

Whether or not Olbermann voluntarily wanted to leave or was pushed out in the wake of the Comcast merger, there is a more worrying concern that a strong (and rare) voice for the left has been silenced. Think about it, Olbermann is contractually prohibited from being on another TV show through 2012, but come Monday, I promise you'll see Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough on MSNBC. Liberal media, my Aunt Fanny.

But for perpetually also-ran CNN, it's perfectly apt to put on this disgusting conservative hack who has no business having as many media outlets at his disposal as he has to "analyze" the departure of one of the few voices of sanity during the dark Bush years.

Transcripts below the fold

Continue reading »

I'm taking a wee break from writing about the economy because Erick Erickson has written something so skull-crushingly stupid that I would be remiss if I didn't comment on it. And yes, I know Erickson writes things that are skull-crushingly stupid every single day, so it takes a lot to get my attention. But Erick, m'boy, you really managed to do it this time. Behold:

I am tired of talking about the Arizona shooting.

[...]

Through it all though, well meaning people on both sides of the ideological and partisan divide are not talking about the one thing that should be talked about — a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

I am no saint. And I am no preacher. This is not intended to be a sermon. But it needs to be said and is not being said. Thankfully God is the God of the imperfect and all of us are.

In all the discussions we’re having, let’s not forget that bad things have happened throughout history, but we are seeing more and more a pattern of violence from those who reject Christ and we are seeing the most extreme rhetoric from those who reject the only real truth while embracing every other historic fad and nonsense as variations of truth.

There are times when I cannot tell if Erickson is a genuine conservative or an extremely elaborate performance artist who has infiltrated the conservative movement in order to undermine its intellectual credibility. This is certainly one of those times.

So Erick, the people who have rejected Jesus are the ones engaging in "the most extreme rhetoric?" Does that include these folks?

Fred W. Phelps, leader of the anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church that regularly pickets the funerals of troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, is praising the killings in Tucson and says his group will picket the funerals.

A federal appeals court last year ruled that picketing by the church congregation at funerals is free speech protected by the Constitution. The issue is now before the Supreme Court.

Phelps, in a video on his group's web site, thanks God for the "marvelous work in Tucson," which he says is part of God's vengeance on America. He says his church prays for "more shooters ... more dead."

The Kansas-based group is made up largely of Phelps' family and has been denounced as a hate group by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Or this guy?

Like the prophets of old, Terry Jones has a message -- and it's fiery.

The controversial Florida preacher, who first lit a spark on Facebook when he called for people around the world to set fire to copies of the Koran, is now at the center of an international conflagration.

Jones' plan to set ablaze thousands of copies of the Muslim holy book on Sept. 11, a day he's dubbed International Burn a Koran Day, has become a flashpoint. What has been seen for weeks as a strange front in the culture wars, this weekend became a front in America's real war, with Gen. David Patraeus weighing in to say he believed the display would be detrimental and dangerous to U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan.

Or heck, how about this guy?

At what point do the people tell the politicians to go to hell? At what point do they get off the couch, march down to their state legislator’s house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an idiot?

You can feel Jesus' love flowing through all of this wonderful Christian rhetoric, can't you?

(My point here isn't to say that Christians are prone to violent rhetoric, by the way. My point is more that Erickson is comically and embarrassingly full of s***. Which should surprise, like, nobody.)

OK, back to Erick:

The topic of faith in Christ makes people cringe. But whether you believe it or not, here is the reality: beyond us is a world we cannot see with our eyes. It impacts us on a daily basis. It is a world of very real angels and very real demons. It is a world of a very real God and a very real Satan, a very real Heaven and a very real Hell.

I sort of doubt this invisible world impacts us every day. Because if it did, God would have certainly come down from the sky by now and told Erickson to shut the hell up and to stop speaking on His behalf. In fact, there are lots of people of many different faiths He probably would have done that to if He actually did want to get involved in our daily lives. As for myself, I think God only intervenes when He decides whether or not to let NFL players catch touchdown passes. Other than that, we're on our own.

So, to recap: Erick Erickson. He's a not-very-smart religious lunatic who has a history of justifying violence against elected officials. And he's a star on a non-Fox cable news network. Our country is sorta screwed, in case you haven't noticed.

Remember this? CNN must have thought EE was just joking around so they hired him. Hey, more power to him, but being an open racist is really too much. Isn't it?

Could this finally be Erick Erickson's 'firing offense' for CNN?

After 20 years working for CNN, Senior Mideast Affairs editor Octavia Nasr is leaving. Why? Because she dared to express sadness at the passing of Hezbollah leader Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, stirring all sorts of anger from the right.

Evidently, if you're CNN, it's perfectly fine to hire commentators who refer to a US Supreme Court justice as a "goat f@$king child molester", but God forbid an emotional, somewhat easily misinterpreted tweet should be granted similar mercy.

CNN's internal memo (according to Mediaite) dismisses her with this terse explanation:

I had a conversation with Octavia this morning and I want to share with you that we have decided that she will be leaving the company. As you know, her tweet over the weekend created a wide reaction. As she has stated in her blog on CNN.com, she fully accepts that she should not have made such a simplistic comment without any context whatsoever. However, at this point, we believe that her credibility in her position as senior editor for Middle Eastern affairs has been compromised going forward.

In other words, she didn't carry the requisite press bias toward Israel?

Her original tweet (now apparently deleted) was this:

“Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah… One of Hezbollah’s giants I respect a lot.”

Yesterday she posted a clarification on her blog.

Here's what I should have conveyed more fully:

I used the words "respect" and "sad" because to me as a Middle Eastern woman, Fadlallah took a contrarian and pioneering stand among Shia clerics on woman's rights. He called for the abolition of the tribal system of "honor killing." He called the practice primitive and non-productive. He warned Muslim men that abuse of women was against Islam.

She also clarified her position with regard to his other activities with regard to Hezbollah; in fact, she made it clear that acts of Hezbollah had killed members of her own family:

It is no secret that Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah hated with a vengeance the United States government and Israel. He regularly praised the terror attacks that killed Israeli citizens. And as recently as 2008, he said the numbers of Jews killed in the Holocaust were wildly inflated.

But it was his commitment to Hezbollah's original mission - resisting Israel's occupation of Lebanon - that made him popular and respected among many Lebanese, not just people of his own sect.

In 1983, as Fadlallah found his voice as a spiritual leader, Islamic Jihad - soon to morph into Hezbollah - bombed the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 299 American and French peacekeepers. I lost family members in that terror attack.

At the same time, she notes that he ultimately emerged as a more moderate voice against the harsher, more powerful Iranian clerics.

In later years, Hezbollah's leadership apparently did not like Fadlallah's vocal criticism of Hezbollah's allegiance to Iran. Nor did they like his assertions that Hezbollah's leaders had been distracted from resistance to Israeli occupation of portions of Lebanon and had turned weapons against their own people.

At first, he was simply pushed to the side, but later wasn't even referred to as a Hezbollah member. Rather, he was referred to as the scholar - the expert on Islam - but nothing more. During the 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel, his honorary title "Sayyed" - indicating that he's a descendant of the prophet - was dropped any time he was mentioned on Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV and other Hezbollah media outlets.

The only thing this proves is that when it comes to Israel and the Middle East, emotions run so high and so hot that I doubt anything resembling peace can ever come to pass. There is a centuries-old rift that gets scratched open by the softest fabrics brushing thin skin. It doesn't matter what side the US takes, or what side Nasr takes on these issues. I'm certain Nasr's position at CNN -- even though she is a Lebanese Christian -- has long been a bone of contention among the pro-Israel press.

I will miss her. She was one of the few journalists on Twitter who quoted Pablo Neruda and shared the sheer joy of her travel and her job. She loved that job. I'm sure she's heartbroken.

I agree with the sentiments of her Twitter fan, Bashar Hamad:

I wonder if all these people so quick to jump on @octavianasrCNN comment Re: Fadlallah's passing be so quick to jump on real hate speech

Not only wouldn't they, they're the ones who routinely step up and use it. Whether it's racist comments about our President or libeling Supreme Court justices, they not only don't jump on it, they embrace it in the name of the First Amendment.

Remember this?

Are the media really that desperate to paint arch-conservative ideologues as something more than they are?

The NY Times decided to do some fluffing when it comes to CNN's new conservative pundit, Erick Erickson. By the way, as you read this piece, you'll realize yet again that conservatives can say absolutely anything and not only not be criticized for it, but be exalted to higher planes of existence.

MACON, Ga. — In his seven weeks as one of CNN’s newest contributors, Erick Erickson has made scarcely more than a dozen appearances on the network. But his every utterance — every Twitter message, blog post and radio rant — has been parsed with the rigor usually reserved for a Supreme Court nominee.

Liberal detractors have obsessively cataloged his right-wing rhetorical excesses, from calling Michelle Obama a “Marxist harpy” to a flip accusation that the former Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter molested children and animals. Even the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, criticized Mr. Erickson for suggesting that he would threaten a census worker, saying the comment “should concern CNN.” The Boston Globe protested what it called “one more screamer on cable.”

Except for the "we hang on his every word" beginning, the NY Times exposes some of his more idiotic and typical rants. Good for them, but then comes the usual false equivalency that always seems to accompany a piece done by the MSM these days on the far right.

What critics have not noted is that Mr. Erickson, the editor of the influential conservative blog RedState, is as hard on many Republicans and conservatives as he is on Democrats. He has accused Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, of playing the race card; suggested that RedState readers send toy balls to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, during budget negotiations; and, of late, begun exhorting Tea Party followers (he considers himself one) to move beyond protests and get involved in the nitty-gritty of precinct-level politics.

“I always think there are more people who hate me on my own side than there are on the left,” Mr. Erickson said on a recent afternoon as he went from Macon City Hall, where he serves as a councilman, to his favorite coffee shop.

See, he's so cool because he even attacks Republicans. What Shaila Dewan doesn't do is answer this vital question: Why does he attack his fellow GOPers? The answer: It's not because they are bad-faith players who fail to represent Americans that voted them in office -- it's because they aren't far right and loyally conservative enough.

Get it? When Michael Steele expressed the opinion that because he's black, conservatives and the media might have a problem with him, well that didn't sit well with EE.

Actually, it could have nothing to do with race and everything to do with outsourcing the RNC to the same consultants who have been bleeding the RNC dry for years.

Anything to do with race and conservatives drives them off the rails.

Dewan then states that EE is all about advocacy now and not calling people goat fu*&king child molesters.

With about 4.5 million page views a month, according to Nielsen, RedState does not attract nearly the traffic of other right-wing blogs like MichelleMalkin.com or Hot Air. But Mr. Erickson said his site fell into a different category, one of advocacy, and he said he measured his influence by the number of Congress members who call his cellphone and the candidates who plead for his attention.

See, he's had a rebirth since CNN hired him so all is forgiven.

The conversation provides a glimpse of the new Erick Erickson, the one who says he has grown up since his Twitter message that Justice Souter was a child molester. After CNN was strongly criticized for its decision to hire him, Mr. Erickson was invited onto the network’s media criticism show, “Reliable Sources,” to take his lumps.

“It was about the dumbest thing I’ve done,” he said of the Souter comment on the show.

I guess he should thank me for his conversion because I was the blogger who highlighted the Souter remark which has made him into a new man. Sorry guys, I'm to blame. Maybe he'll send me a box of See's Chocolates for showing him the light.

Erickson also has a very interesting brand of "advocacy": He used his position as a blogger to lead a campaign to strip away eligibility from as many nonwhite Georgia voters as he could by promoting the 2005 Georgia Voter ID law.

The Georgia measure was prepared with the assistance of Erick Erickson, a self-described right-wing political junkie from Macon who is a part of a network of other conservative political activists and groups working to enact similarly restrictive measures across the nation.

Even Bush lawyers said that it was racist.

A team of Justice Department lawyers and analysts who reviewed a Georgia voter-identification law recommended rejecting it because it was likely to discriminate against black voters, but they were overruled the next day by higher-ranking officials at Justice, according to department documents...read on

Ah, good old Jim Crow.

Erick Erickson is a classic right-wing bad-faith player, but because CNN needed a right-wing voice they probably helped clean him up and put him on the air. Hey, CNN can hire who they like, but his record on voter suppression exposes him for what he truly is.

Now, if he went back and helped reverse all Voter ID laws and bills that are spreading throughout the country, then I might think he actually has changed into a decent guy. If CNN thinks Dewan's piece has helped clean him up, put him in a new suit and turned him into an honest political player, it is sadly mistaken. He's nothing more than your standard movement-conservative operative. Period.