I'm sorry, but this just isn't enough. The point of contention here is that rightwing pundits like Erickson — who have built widely popular GOP sites — are speaking not only for themselves because:

A) They've built a mass following; and
B) Nobody from either that following, or those who claim to not read Red State, have done anything to discredit him.

The likes of Michelle Malkin, and virtually every other pundit on the right, dictate that we on the left repudiate anyone they disagree with and atttribute to the left as a whole. Crazy anarchist protesters broke some stuff in a street march? Oh, that's all Pelosi's fault. Some unknown professor in Colorado who is to the far left of even the Green Party says something offense? Let's blame Obama.

I dunno if you've noticed, but we on the left get sick of this crap — especially when your well known, most popular pundits spew out the most offensive BS imaginable, and you people sit there claiming they only speak for themselves.

They don't. Pundits like Erickson will speak for your movement until conservatives make an active and sustained effort to abort the crazy from their side.

Until then, you own it. Now stop whining and get to f*cking work.

Was that “tool” with a “t” or with an “f”?

It seems that poor old Paleo Pat “Owner” (sic) doesn't have any problem in violating his own rules on other sites… Be thankful this site doesn't play by his rules… we'd be deprived of his entertaining faux pas.

As CStanley points out, that type of broad labeling has been the very successful tactic of the most heinous of the the Limbaugh / Malkin types. It's misleading, and although I suspect Malkin et al know exactly what they're up to when they deploy it, I can only put it off to lazy thinking when it pops up casually.

I've mentioned before but I find it highly ironic that the left is now using Limbaugh's favorite tactic (and Michelle Malkin's, for that matter) against the right. Continue to point out the most vocal, nonmoderate acts and words from the opposing side so that people who aren't otherwise paying attention get the constant impression that this behavior defines the other side. That's how Limbaugh helped make “liberal” into an epithet, and now the left attempts to do the same with “conservative”.

Anyway, dumb comment by Erickkson (and Redstate may be popular but it doesn't mean that they speak for all conservatives by any means- I have never found it to be very high quality.) As for Pacatrue's question, I wondered that too, and I'm not sure whether the insult is based on anything other than the hate that some conservatives feel toward Souter for a) not being Bork and b) not being an originalist as he was said to be before his appointment.

I don't read Red State and have only seen what I assume are the craziest excerpts.

Sorry I don't read Red State either, but I do know enough not to judge millions of people based on one guy's Twitter comment.

I don't have many problems. This is why. Zero tolerance policy. You act like a tool. You get banned.

Get help? Not quite troll, I own the damn site, (not this blog, my own…) and I make the rules, you break 'em and I can and will ban your IP address. It's my choice.

-Paleo Pat
Owner
http://www.politicalbyline.com

No, Erickson does not represent all conservatives, no more than Limbaugh or Cantor or Steele does. And no more than Obama/Pelosi/Reid represents all liberals, either.

But from people who have a greater amount of influence over public opinion than the average Joe Voter, well, I would hope we would expect better. This is amateur hour type stuff.

Just another example of sub-par slagging and namecalling from one of the right wing voices. While I am interested in (and often agree with) intelligent conservative discourse, lowbrow stuff is not helpful at all.

followed the link to your site and read this:
“I do tolerate dissenting views. I do NOT tolerate trolling or abuse. You do it, you will be banned from even seeing the Blog, this Blog records the IP addresses of those who comment and I can ban you by that address.”

While it's wonderful that you “tolerate dissenting views” I need to say that banning people from even seeing your site is really paranoid. Get help. Please.

http://www.politicalbyline.com/2009/05/01/oy-wh…

Excellent point.
Perhaps you could define more precisely the difference between Erickson and “all conservatives.”

I don't read Red State and have only seen what I assume are the craziest exerpts.

Yes, let's judge all conservatives by this Erickson idiot. Give me a break.