MyDD :: Erick Erickson gets off on attacking Cindy Sheehan

Erick Erickson gets off on attacking Cindy Sheehan

by Jerome Armstrong, Fri Aug 12, 2005 at 07:34:21 PM EST

Though RedState.org disallows the use of profanity in their comments, it's sorta ironic that Erick Erickson (an attorney and political consultant in Macon, Georgia) gets a free ride for using the term "whore" to attack someone. But not just for any old someone, but Cindy Sheehan.

Now, as I pointed out in their comments, if this were a Democrat that had personally attacked Sheehan with such language, Fox News and WSJ would be trumpeting:

Blogger Erick Erickson says Cindy Sheehan is a "whore in the form of a grieving mother".

And with little doubt, you'd see the likes of Erikson doing so on his blog.

I haven't read a single article about this whole sad affair, but when the ultra-partisans out in wingerland are resorting to such attacks, they are (as Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney would say) desperate. That the wingers can't ignore the case of this very sad woman, speaks more to their lack of decency than anything about Cindy Sheehan.

I guess that Erick, being a political consultant, works for candidates out there. But I can't imagine that even a ultra-conservative right-winger politician would follow-up the indecent statement above by uttering something as asinine as as: "She wants to attack the President (and Israel) and then hide behind her dead son to avoid criticism. She cannot."

Yes she can, this is America. Is this is what he's telling his Republican clients to say about a mother that lost her son in Iraq? Keep shoveling Erick.

Tags: Republicans (all tags)

Permalink :: 36 Comments :: Post a Comment

Well... (none / 0)

Erick is an idiot because Bush himself said yesterday that Cindy can say whatever the fuck she wants. Guess he hasn't been paying attention to his boss.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Fri Aug 12, 2005 at 07:37:02 PM EST

The Conservative political movement? (none / 0)

Nice of you to go into the lions den Jerome.

I had seen diaries about Sheehan over the last week or two and didn't think much of them until I started seeing her smeared by the right. I've always assumed that Republicans are in a stable political position, with the three federal branches as their own fiefdom. Seeing them attempt to take apart this woman with the full fury of their political machine makes you wonder how desperate they actually are.

The movement had to move this story out of drudgeland and the freeper world and posit it all over the right wing media hoping for a bit of political gain. Is someone so worried about Bush's rating on the war that they feel they can gain even minimally by attacking a poor woman in Crawford who lost her son in Iraq. What's there to gain? Illuding to the conservative backlash against Vietnam protesters?

I have no clue what they would gain. Maybe they thought no one would fight back.

by Kombiz Lavasany on Fri Aug 12, 2005 at 08:49:49 PM EST

Re: The Conservative political movement? (none / 0)

Seeing them attempt to take apart this woman with the full fury of their political machine makes you wonder how desperate they actually are.

I don't think it's desperation -- it's just how they're used to doing business, and how they got where they are. Rove didn't reach the white house by complimenting his political opponents.

The scary thing is that this episode shows that they don't know when to stop. They can't pull off the attack dogs, because those attack dogs slobber at the sight of anyone attacking Dear Leader. They strain at the leash, growling, and leap forward with unrestrained joy as they attack those who threaten their power.

It's their way of life, it's what they were trained to do, and it's pretty damn sick.

by TatteredCoat on Fri Aug 12, 2005 at 09:35:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

True, it's their M.O. (none / 0)

Think how they attacked Michael Schiavo, Max Cleland and so many others. They have perfected the personal attack -- it is almost reflexive. But I do think they are getting a little insecure, if not desperate. They are getting kind of testy. I commented on a Sheehan thread at Redstate.org earlier this evening -- I tried to follow their silly rules but I got banned. Now my life has no meaning.

by erasmus on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 01:28:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: True, it's their M.O. (none / 0)

<<Think how they attacked Michael Schiavo, Max Cleland and so many others. They have perfected the personal attack -- it is almost reflexive.>>

Well, that would make sense. After all, I believe Erickson used to work for Saxby Chambliss.

by Politicalhack06 on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 01:56:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am a veteran (none / 0)

I am a veteran.

What if I was killed in the desert? What if my mom took the same road that Cindy Sheehan has taken?

Well, we know what the republican noise machine would say and do to my mom.

This makes me sick, and I am not the only veteran who is mad about such behavior. Funny, in 2004 the republicans always cried, "Well, if you say.....then you are not supporting our troops."

So how on Earth can insulting a mother of a KIA veteran be supporting the troops?

People who insult Mrs. Sheehan are cowards.

Everytime someone insults her, or any other parent of a wounded or KIA marine/sailor/soldier/airman, he or she should be labeled a coward.

Cold, weak, desperate coward.

by Bill Felmlee on Fri Aug 12, 2005 at 11:26:49 PM EST

Give me a break (2.00 / 1)

Attack Erick - have at it.

But the least you could do is quote the man accurately.

"Blogger Erick Erickson says Cindy Sheehan is a "whore in the form of a grieving mother"."

Media whore.

If you really think that Erick made a comparison between Cindy Sheehan and a prostitute who trades sexual favors for money, you're far more dishonest than most. Since I don't happen to believe that - I can only assume you didn't read very carefully.

by mkrempasky on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 02:08:09 AM EST

Wrong (none / 0)

Please look again:

First paragragh, last line.

http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/8/12/94344/5076

by Bill Felmlee on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 02:15:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wrong (2.00 / 1)

Um. ok.

"this time a left wing media whore in the form of a grieving mother."

Emphasis added in case you missed it.

by mkrempasky on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 02:19:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Give me a break (none / 0)

Now that you've read it again, please understand that ANY use of "whore" in the same sentence as Mrs. Sheehan is not appropriate, and is disrespectful to the death of her son.

Whether her son would have ever agreed that her current actions are justified will never be known. He is dead. Killed in Action.

If you died, would you feel ok with your mother's name in the same sentence as "whore"? Of course not. It would be shameful.

by Bill Felmlee on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 02:22:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Give me a break (none / 0)

again, not seeing a lot of reading comprehension here. if it serves your purpose to truncate the sentence, you'll clearly not let facts get in the way.

by mkrempasky on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 02:35:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Give me a break (none / 0)

Mr. Krempasky,

If you cannot determine the moral dilemma of the word whore, regardless of context, when used in the same sentence with a mother of a KIA veteran, then I really feel sorry for you.

I hope that you never have to serve in the military, as I did, and wonder how others may treat your mom if/when she demonstrates her values.

by Bill Felmlee on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 03:47:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Give me a break (none / 0)

Additionally, placing "xxxxx whore" is a well used strategy to plant a message and provide a visual without directly calling someone a whore. A time honored, well used tactic.

Surely, you learned that at the Leadership Institute. Please do not tell me that Mr. Blackwell did not include this in the curriculum?

by Bill Felmlee on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 03:58:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Give me a break (none / 0)

Put away the tin foil, friend. Morton Blackwell? Come now. Time honored tradition? So calling someone a "corporate whore" would be the same, right?

by mkrempasky on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 09:23:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Give me a break (none / 0)

Name association. I just do not get it.

by Bill Felmlee on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 12:15:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

mkrepansky is a media faggot (none / 0)

There's your break mkrepansky, you spineless, limp wristed media faggot.

Erik Erickson is obviously a legal whore. Is there any other kind? It isn't even defamation because you can't defame a crooked lying shyster.

Grow Up as a closing thought is interesting in light of the preceeding eipthets:

This woman may be in grief, but she's also a moonbat.

War for oil. Warmonger. Gee, that sounds like the people who are commenting on the site. You people have come unhinged. You thought you had the perfect critic of the President -- a woman whose son had been killed in Iraq -- and I dared to call her what she is: an anti-American lefty willingly being used by the Michael Moores.

Oh, go cry me a river, people. This woman has every right to grieve. But she really doesn't have the rigth to not be criticized when she starts spewing your lefty talking points.

Grow up

Moonbat, unhinged, anti-American lefty, Michael Moores, spewing your lefty talking points.

That's pretty good use of defamatory adjectives cramed in to such a short comment. Let's remove the adolescent defamatory adjectives and see what we have left:

This woman may be in grief, but . .

This woman has every right to grieve. But . . .

Pretty standard format for wingnuts. Who's spewing talking points now?

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 04:39:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: mkrepansky is a media faggot (none / 0)

very impressive Gary. I'm glad you're so vocal, as I imagine every time you open your mouth...more folks vote Republican.

by mkrempasky on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 08:27:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: mkrepansky is a media faggot (none / 0)

We have quite a few Republicans here at MyDD mkrmepasky. Your concern is duly noted.

Query: If you believe my statment will motivate voters to pull the lever for Republicans, why wouldn't the statements your are supporting, and are far more public, have the same effect in reverse?

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 11:40:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Give me a break (none / 0)

Look, I said "if this were a Democrat that had uttered such an indecent thing, that the wingers would in fact be saying:

Fox News and WSJ would be trumpeting:

Blogger Erick Erickson says Cindy Sheehan is a "whore in the form of a grieving mother".

by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 08:42:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Give me a break (none / 0)

And you know what - I'd defend that Democrat.

Again, I think folks can attack Erick. He himself has admitted as such.

But when the attacks come in the form of hacked off sentences and half-quotes, it's a little hard to feel the outrage.

by mkrempasky on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 09:25:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Give me a break (none / 0)

Again, if you cannot determine the moral dilemma of the word whore, regardless of context, when used in the same sentence with a mother of a KIA veteran, then I really feel sorry for you.

I seriously doubt you would defend a democrat for saying such because you are unwilling to discuss the moral issue.

From what you have written, you refuse to admit that NAME ASSOCIATION is key to this issue.

I'll never understand people like you. I presume you have tunnel vision, or programmed by Blackwell and others.

Your argument is weak on values; perhaps you have no virtue when it comes to people you disagree with.

by Bill Felmlee on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 12:24:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Give me a break (none / 0)

BTW, Jerome - in your first line you reduce the phrase to just "whore."

by mkrempasky on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 09:26:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll reduce mine to faggot (none / 0)

Is there any difference? Are you happier being called a media faggot, as opposed to just faggot?

Please clarify the distinction mkrempasky.

Let's try another example. Since Cindy Sheehan is a woman, I may have been too charitable when I called you a media faggot. How about this:

Mrs. mkrempasky is a media whore. Her son was killed by a drunk driver, but she's a wingnut.

Do the crime, do the time. Manslaughter. Gee, that sounds like the people who are commenting on the site. You people have come unhinged. You thought you had the perfect critic of drunk drivers -- a woman whose son had been killed by a drunk driver -- and I dared to call her what she is: an anti-American lefty willingly being used by the Michael Moores.

Oh, go cry me a river, people. This woman has every right to grieve. But she really doesn't have the rigth to not be criticized when she starts spewing your lefty talking points.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 04:46:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll reduce mine to faggot (none / 0)

Gee - if you're daft enough not to realize that in one instance you're describing a homosexual, presumably in pejorative terms - and in the other you're making a snarky comment about a relationship to the media..then you're beyond hope.

by mkrempasky on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 08:29:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fancy words, weak stand (none / 0)

Wow! Daft and pejorative. I have not seen those words since the SAT.

Little used or obscure words do not make you look smarter when you're blogging. Kind of silly.

And why haven't you jumped over to start a discussion which, I must admit, you may be on higher ground than I?

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/8/13/144438/528

by Bill Felmlee on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 10:05:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fancy words, weak stand (none / 0)

I hadn't seen your thread before now, actually.

I'm sorry that you're not used to reading words like that. Daft, especially, tends to be good to use when trying to avoid profanity. Just comes in handy.

by mkrempasky on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 10:11:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Profanity? (none / 0)

Really? The only profanity I see is the term "media whore," which I understood you were defending as entirely appropriate for public discussion.

You wouldn't be trying to have it both ways would you mkrempasky? Are you holding us to higher standards than you are willing to abide by yourself?

IOKIYAR!

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 11:44:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Profanity? (none / 0)

awfully wierd definition of profanity you've got there.

one more time for the slow people. The word "daft" serves well when you might otherwise be inclined to let off a string of expletives.

by mkrempasky on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 02:08:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fancy words, weak stand (none / 0)

I'm sorry that you're not used to reading words like that.

Well you got me pegged: I really do only have an I.Q. of 50. These hard words...thanks for being sorry.

And trying to avoid profanity? This discussion was about the word whore.?!?

That statement is kind of foolish. Or, may I reply, daftly.

Wait -- I think just called your statement gay-like. Darn it! These hard words...

by Bill Felmlee on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 12:08:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fancy words, weak stand (none / 0)

You people really can't read this poorly, can you? No, I'm not accusing anyone of using profanity. I simply said that the word "daft" tends to serve well if you want to avoid it. Good grief.

by mkrempasky on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 02:09:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fancy words, weak stand (none / 0)

Perhaps you are not expressing yourself as well as you imagine.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 12:20:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fancy words, weak stand (none / 0)

Sorry Gary, I read it again. It's quite clear. You're just too dense.

Rather, that's probably unfair. I think you're far more likely to simply read what I write too quickly, looking for something to latch on and screech about.

by mkrempasky on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 04:29:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fancy words, weak stand (none / 0)

You're really into this "daft" thing.

I hope that's not your nickname.

And why are you not willing to answer my sincere questions?

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/8/13/144438/528

by Bill Felmlee on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 08:00:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fancy words, weak stand (none / 0)

That's because he's Daftly Krempansky.

Straigt from Talon News. Educated at the Leadership Institute. Hopeful student of Rove.

by Bill Felmlee on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 08:09:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fancy words, weak stand (none / 0)

get the order right.

by mkrempasky on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 09:17:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Cindy Sheehan (3.00 / 1)

We don't like a show of passion and bald faced grief. We are supposed to go on, pull up our boot straps, get over it. I am a mother and one with grown sons, and one who does not support this war. And if one of my sons would be killed for this war, I would have to be held back from tearing the White House apart brick by brick.

When you raise kids you develop a sixth sense for lies, and it was easy to see through the lies about Iraq from the beginning, it has also been easy to see through the lies of 9/11 and there are women over there who won't "let it go." Nor should they.

Cindy Sheehan didn't create this situation, George Bush created this present situation in Crawford. He could have easily and graciously seen her, validated her and the son she lost. Then any protest she made after that would have made her seem hysterical, his actions made her a martyr. He could have easily saved face for them both, but his arrogance and pride has turned this into a national tragedy with even war supporters going to see her, touch her, hug her and she is seeing everyone of them. If Karl Rove was really a political genius, he would have had Bush himself driving up to her with food and water and sitting down to talk to her, or coming down to invite her up to the house for a chat, replete with cameras rolling. What fools these "leaders" be.

by Samm on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 01:49:06 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.