Erick Erickson’s Excellent Moment

Yesterday, the editor-in-chief of RedState, one of the most highly visited right-leaning blogs, wrote these words

Today I want to reaffirm and make it more definitive. If you think 9/11 was an inside job or you really want to debate whether or not Barack Obama is an American citizen eligible to be President, RedState is not a place for you.

Birfers and Truthers are not welcome here. Period. End of Story.

Good for him. Good for them. We should applaud such action, whenever the right or left applies a little common sense and says: “Enough. There’s plenty else to debate, and we will not suffer fools.”

Granted, Erickson’s post includes a brief gripe about biased media and their refusal to cover, with equitable intensity, the purported ties of the President to American Communists and the delusional elements among Tea Party adherents. Other than that, this post is a step in the right direction; a step toward isolating the fringe and thereby returning some sanity to our national dialogue.

____________________

Final Note

Among the more interesting points in Erickson’s post is this one …

So we arrive at one of those moments where I am fully prepared to part ways with the individuals and groups willing to share the stage and treat as legitimate the crazies who believe the President was born in Kenya, the crazies who believe our government was complicit [in the] September 11th terrorist attacks … two groups, incidentally that increasingly overlap.

I guess that overlap shouldn’t surprise anyone. Conspiracy theorists have a way of finding each other. Regardless of political inclination, they are mysteriously drawn together by the common belief that, whoever is in office, the fix is in and the “man” is out to get us. They might want to look up the Rev. Wright and see how well that worldview worked out for him.

Author: PETE ABEL

20 Comments

  1. I'm not fond of Erickson or Red State, but this is a good thing. Did you see that one of the Republican candidates for governor of Texas wouldn't separate from the 9/11 truthers on Glen Beck's radio show? Then of course there was the hasty press release later to try and show she was really a rational human being. Too late. Way too late.

  2. I can hardly believe Erickson deserves this much praise for just applying common sense.

    And as someone who sometimes reads the comments over there at Red State, I doubt he'll be able to enforce this, however well-intentioned he's finally become.

  3. He does deserve praise for applying common sense. Conservatives have some legit beefs with the way things are getting handled, and how are they going to be taken seriously when you've got a guy who thinks Obama is a muslim manchurian candidate spewing his nonsense in the same forum.

  4. now all he has to do is declare people stop comparing american politicians to nazis and he might start inching toward civility.

  5. Well, I wish Erickson luck with the plan and hope he is serious about it since that would be a major step away from seething nuttiness of that blog. Like George Sorwell though, I visit occasionally and the comments section shows what a huge undertaking he has ahead of him.

    We must be willing to draw a line in the sand and stand against fatuous nonsense that opens up the right to attacks by a left-leaning media intent on embarrassing the good people who have developed through the tea party movement a renewed sense of civic involvement. EE

    Well, let's be fair, the people in that movement who represent the fringes need no help from the left to highlight the embarrassment factor, although I think many of them are beyond embarrassement. In any case, Erickson's “line in the sand” is optimistic and simplistic, it will be more like “long and complicated surgery”.

  6. Absolutely right Mr. Becker. But than most people named Sam get things right! I know many conservatives who are furious that birthers have hijacked their true message and have stolen the limelight,

  7. Now if Obama would only make the same pledge about White House appointments. And let us know who vetted Van Jones. And the liberals who so passionately defended Jones before he was fired can come forward and repudiate this kind of exquisite nuttery. To be joined by the Atlantic editors who give the unhinged Palin Birther a platform to spew his insanity.

    After all, if someone is too nutso to comment on an internet site, ought they not also be considered too nutso to head up a multibillion dollar program from the White House?

  8. I agree this is a good step by Erickson. I'm not a huge fan of RS but I applaud the move.

    For those who question his move, how about a link to a similar statement on Daily Kos or Leftcoaster or a similar site that they will reject the conspiracy nuts of the left ?

  9. The resigning of Jones (not firing) has more to do with a Beck campaign of demonization than it does the ability of an appointment to do his job. For those who aren't familiar with Van Jones, go here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Jones

    Another point, an advisor in a branch of Environmental Quality isn't nearly on the same level as being chosen for a Vice Presidential candidate. Of course the folks who gravitate toward false equivalence arguments have no use for matters of degree.

  10. how about a link to a similar statement.”

    When pigs fly.

  11. That Erickson is willing to recognize the seriousness of the problem speaks to his concern for credibility. Re: the “link to a similar statement”, that assumes there is an equal basis for need to do so – which I think (again) goes to my aforementioned equivalence meme.

  12. Patrick–

    Now you are asking people to provide links?

    I used yo ask you to do the same–here's a sample from August 2008–and gave up long ago!!

    I think it would be wonderful if you were to begin living up the standard you're now demanding of others.

    By the way, where's your links to those “conspiracy” comments on Daily Kos or Leftcoaster?

  13. “Now if Obama would only make the same pledge about White House appointments.”

    That's the bigger fringist threat, by far, that needs to be ended. I'd like some more adeptness, too. I want less lightweight fluff and play-pen starry-eyed silliness, and more competence. We're stuck with the Dems and expect some liberal agenda items to be met, but next to nobody voted for extremism, or for those running the oversized federal government (and intending to expand it) to be Winging It at our expense.

  14. “extremism”? Please, there is almost nothing “extreme” about this administration. You've been listening to too much tea party caliber blather. The spending thus far has been considered necessary by most reputable economists and kept us out of a full-blown depression. Many on the right are trying to make political hay over the stimulus, and others on the left think it's been too conservative, so I suppose it's somewhere near what was necessary. The only thing “extreme” about this administration is your serial mischaracterization of it.

  15. “Please, there is almost nothing “extreme” about this administration.”

    Van Jones

    [chuckling during stroll around bases]

  16. Many people justify their opinions with the facts and the law, whereas others do not let the facts and the law get in the way of their reasoning. Which one are you? If you are one of those people out there who thinks that the birthers are nuts, then let’s consider something that is not nuts — which one of the three burdens of proof applies to any candidate for President regarding his Article II eligibility? Is it by a preponderance of evidence? By clear and convincing evidence? How about by beyond a reasonable doubt?

    Once you decide which one applies, and you must pick one if your argument is to be credible, then consider this before drawing a conclusion — Although Hawaii calls the posted Certification of Live Birth an “official” birth certificate, it is nothing more than a digital copy of a summary of a 1961 vital record that derives from one of the six birth records procedures in place at the time of Obama’s birth, five of which arguably lacked adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness because they were fraught with the potential for fraud.

    Does anyone know which one of these procedures was used to generate a 1961 birth record for Barack? Barack won’t tell. Was it the one with a doctor’s signature and hospital documentation, or was it from one of the other five, one of which allowed a family member to mail in a form attesting to an at-home birth and receive a Hawaiian BC? Consider this hypo — state A issues a birth certificate to a person who supplies a hand-written note that claims baby B was born somewhere on so and so date. No independent witnesses are required. Later, the state issues an “official” scant summary of the “original” birth certificate.” The issue is, do you trust that summary? You can read the actual Hawaii Revised Laws in effect in 1961 at birther.com that would have allowed for such a thing to happen.

    To date, not one single solitary person in the three branches of government has bothered to subject Obama’s 1961 vital record to any meaningful scrutiny. Furthermore, they have not even identified which burden of proof was applied to reach their conclusions. They have instead chosen to accept his posted Certification of Live Birth, a summary, as conclusive evidence of his alleged birthplace simply because it reads -“Born in Hawaii.” It reminds me of someone who tells another, “Because I say so.”

    Now, for those on the Left who like to pretend that the birthers believe that the Hawaii newspaper birth announcement was planted so Obama could run for president 47 years later. Nobody on either side of the fence really believes that scenario. It is nothing but a ridiculous distraction from an alternative, plausible motive — the announcement could have been placed so Ann Dunham would have had documented evidence for immigration purposes should Barack’s birthplace ever be called into question by the INS when he was younger. Even if you are not willing to accept this scenario, in 1961 a family member could mail in a form attesting to an at-home birth and receive a Hawaiian BC. The state registrar would then send that information to the papers. So the Hawaii newspaper announcement is not reliable or trustworthy evidence either.

    On a closing note, assuming arguendo, that Obama is completely barred from getting a copy of his original 1961 birth certificate, what prevents him from either admitting or denying that his 1961 vital record on file at the DOH Hawaii is the one with a doctor’s signature and supporting hospital documentation?

  17. Thanks. The rest of the post can be found at, you guessed it, http://birther.com .

  18. not one single solitary person in the three branches of government has bothered to subject Obama’s 1961 vital record to any meaningful scrutiny

    If you really believe that, then there isn't a thing anyone here (or anywhere else for that matter) can say that will change your mind. Thanks though for providing a moment of levity in your advocacy of “facts”, “law”, and “reasoning” in defense of a conspiracy theory. ;-)

  19. I understand that you believe that I am not looking at the facts with respect to any vetting of Obama. I cannot cite facts that are not there. If you have any facts, then by all means, please list them in your reply.

    By the way, thank you for being professional in your response. At least you did not lash out and call me names.

  20. thank you for being professional”

    I disagree with him 94.28% of the time, but he is well-mannered blogger. Others should emulate him.

Submit a Comment