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.

PETE ABEL
Leave a replyComments (20)
  1. Jim_Satterfield February 13, 2010 at 10:56 am

    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. GeorgeSorwell February 13, 2010 at 10:58 am

    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. Samuel Becker February 13, 2010 at 12:05 pm

    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.

    • centristsam February 13, 2010 at 3:05 pm

      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,

  4. dmf February 13, 2010 at 1:34 pm

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

  5. JSpencer February 13, 2010 at 1:53 pm

    Well, I wish Erickson luck with the plan and hope he is serious about it since that would be a major step away from some of the 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

    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” strikes me as too simplistic. Protracted and complicated surgery is more like it.

    So… a great idea, even a progressive one insofar as its coherent and sensible intentions. 😉 Good luck!

  6. DaMav February 13, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    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?

    • JSpencer February 13, 2010 at 5:15 pm

      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 is hardly comparable to being chosen for a Vice Presidential candidate. Of course the folks who gravitate toward false equivalence arguments have no use for matters of degree.

  7. troosvelt_1858 February 13, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    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 ?

    • dduck12 February 13, 2010 at 5:19 pm

      how about a link to a similar statement.”

      When pigs fly.

    • GeorgeSorwell February 13, 2010 at 7:47 pm

      Patrick–

      Now you are asking people to provide links?

      I used to 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?

  8. JSpencer February 13, 2010 at 5:51 pm

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

  9. DLS February 13, 2010 at 7:58 pm

    “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.

    • JSpencer February 13, 2010 at 9:16 pm

      “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.

      • DLS February 13, 2010 at 9:19 pm

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

        Van Jones

        [chuckling during stroll around bases]

  10. forseti February 14, 2010 at 2:06 am

    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.

    Commenter: You may post a link to the rest of this article, but long run ons like this are not allowed in comments. See the TMV commenter’s rules at the top of the home page. Thanks

    ed.

    • forseti February 14, 2010 at 2:59 am

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

      • JSpencer February 14, 2010 at 11:29 am

        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. 😉

        • forseti February 14, 2010 at 12:14 pm

          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.

          • dduck12 February 14, 2010 at 6:22 pm

            thank you for being professional”

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