Erickson Called Out…

Our Editor emeritus and founder Erick Erickson sure knows how to stir things up. His remarks and writings on the Boy Scouts and same-sex marriage are the subject of an editorial at HuffPo by Anthony Michael Kreis (a Doctoral candidate at the University of Georgia and Political Committee Co-Chair, HRC-Atlanta Steering Committee) condemning Erickson’s view on those topics as “recklessness” and “low-brow” discourse. Kreis calls on “moderates” to speak out against what he calls “…self-promoting, willfully ignorant commentary [that] is unworthy to be called political discourse. It is time that moderates openly engage in conversation to reject base politics of anti-gay and strip it of credibility.”

Personally, I don’t believe the social issues are winning ones for Republicans anymore, and a that a fundamental tenet of conservatism is the the right to be left alone – a live-and-let-live mentality, which obviously defines me as a shamefully silent moderate to those on the left, and a RINO to those on the right. Cue Stealers Wheel. I’m also probably the only person on Earth who believes that social conservatives and same-sex marriage advocates could probably agree on the parts of this issue that are really tax reforms -which are, when you get right down to what would actually be changed, comprises the bulk of the issue. The rest is just plumbing.

Your mileage may vary.


  1. Ghost of William F Buckley says:

    ” I’m also probably the only person on Earth who believes that social conservatives and same-sex marriage advocates could probably agree on the parts of this issue that are really tax reforms”

    You are NOT alone because I have espoused this point for many years.

    The Titanic would have survived if there was a half degree change in course earlier in the voyage. The GOP can steam on, ignoring all points of reason, and meet with a fatal iceberg #voterfail or change its’ course, slightly, now.

    This is the most enlightened discussion only because of who is having it – It’s time to get out heads in the game, right now I feel like the Party is trying to find the ballpark, ala Pasquel Perez.

  2. jiminga says:

    Real conservatives have core beliefs about fiscal, moral, and social policies. And many of us are put off by minorities forcing us to believe otherwise. All this debate is driven by political correctness which is a progressive invention, always steering us in their direction. We have become a nation ruled my minorities with special interests, ignoring the will of the majority, or at least ignoring free will. In other words we are becoming Europe, and it’s easy to see our future as it’s played out in Europe.

    • Ghost of William F Buckley says:

      I am not a minority, my core beliefs are unaltered by the facts of political reality.

      I despise what PC is doing to America, yet a goodly portion of the majority was silent last cycle. Why was that? We cannot ignore what Moderates say because they are not as ‘pure’ as ‘real conservatives,’ nor can we ever abandon truly Conservative fiscal, moral, and social policies.

      Sadly, government can only effectively address fiscal policy.

      We’ll continue to redefine ourselves, calling ourselves the Party of YES, while continuing to say NO to so many issues that younger, conservative people either do not care about or do not feel should be a Party platform. And the iceberg of #voterfail looms ever closer.

    • John Konop says:


      In all due respect our goverment was not formed to be majority rules……that is the problem in places like the Midde East……our government was based on respecting minority views ie three branches of government, veto power………

      Under your definition President Reagan was not a real conservative. As you know he was major spokesman for gay rights……people like you in the GOP are not good for the party and the country in the long run…….we need a strong conservative voice that will attrack minorities, gays……not just just white people only……..

      • sockpuppet says:

        @John Konop:

        And as you know, John McCain and Mitt Romney are moderates. As was Gerald Ford and as is Bob Dole. They went 0-4 in presidential races. At some point we have to start asking when all this moderation is going to start paying off for the GOP. If the GOP becomes “moderate” on social issues (and by the way if the Democratic Party position on social issues is moderation, then what is a social liberal?) the social conservatives stay home, and you don’t attract anywhere near as many moderates/independents to make up for it. Without the social conservatives, deep red states like Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, South Carolina etc. become purple, and purple states like North Carolina, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin etc. become blue. And when more people see exactly what fiscal conservatism consists of – which is cuts to programs that they benefit from and support and not just cuts to Great Society programs, inner cities and other unpopular Democratic leaning constituencies – the ranks of socially liberal fiscal moderates for the GOP to chase after to replace the social conservatives that they lost merely in order to break even will get smaller still. Most of them will decide that they want to keep their public education funding that benefits their kids and corporate welfare that preserves their jobs right now and will want to keep their Social Security and MediCare when they get older when they retire so they will vote Democrat. Most of the rest will still decide that the GOP is a bunch of hateful bigoted right wingers because no matter how far to the left they move on social and other issues, the mainstream news and entertainment media will still depict them as such. Case in point: Rudy Giuliani. You can’t get more socially liberal than him and the national media still despised him. Also, Richard Nixon. Nixon was a social moderate (a Quaker) whose economic policies were at times to the left of Obama (wage and price controls etc. and Nixon actually dedicated far more social spending to urban areas than Obama did) and the media and Hollywood still to this day portrays Nixon – a Quaker!!! – as a far right ogre.

        And hey, do you think that Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina should throw away still more millions of their own money trying woo California voters with how moderate they are? According to you guys, if they keep trying it will work eventually, right? But if it doesn’t, hey, what do you care … it is not like it is your money.

        Throwing away the votes of socons to chase fickle moderates and independents doesn’t work. If it did, the GOP would have pulled that trick long ago.

        • MattMD says:

          Can I play this game too? As you know, Nixon and H.W. Bush were moderates. They went 3-1 in presidential elections.

          Of course this means nothing because it is absolutely, flat-out moronic to ignore the external situations which exist in every election. The economy in the case of McCain and Ford pardoning of Nixon (or Nixon fatigue). Do you honestly think Santorum or Bachman would done better against Obama?

          I just don’t know what planet you live on if you think social conservatives have the ability to elect anybody outside of the cultural boondocks of our country. Are you going to deny that W.Bush was chasing the moderate vote with all the “compassionate conservative” talk in 2000?

        • So just pretending, for a moment, that social issues are more important than fiscal ones… which party should a fiscal conservative who doesn’t care about social issues join? The way I look at it, if we keep ignoring the fiscal issues and just keep letting our debt and deficit climb, then the social issues soon won’t matter, as our country will be bankrupt. Who is going to stand up and say that we must start balancing our budget and paying down our debt? Who is going to say “we can’t afford these programs anymore”?

          Are you really saying we should celebrate that gay folks can’t get married, but hey, who cares if we spend another trillion on another war… it’s only money!?

          • Harry says:

            My issues are important to me…homo marriage ain’t on my radar. What’s important to me is that they not be legally emboldened to go after impressionable youth.

            • “What’s important to me is that they not be legally emboldened to go after impressionable youth.”

              So… just to be clear. Are you under the impression that homosexuals have some sort of a campaign going to turn everyone gay?

                • What is included in this “agenda” of which you write?

                  I spend a lot of time with gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals and find that they share the same agenda as most Americans: safe communities; fair workplaces; freedom to enjoy recreation, arts, and education; quality schools for their children and the children in their extended families. Beyond these ordinary “agenda” items, like their heterosexual counterparts, some enjoy nights out dancing and drinking, participating in politics, camping, vacationing, pursuing creative avocations.

                  Honestly, I have never determined a real difference, overall, in the pursuits of LGBT and heterosexual individuals. I would suggest that presumptions about a “gay agenda” are made by those who are not aware of the LGBT individuals in their families, workplaces, churches, and neighborhoods. Just ordinary Americans doing ordinary American things.

                  • Harry says:

                    Just like everyone wants to proselytize their beliefs and worldview, so is it with homosexuals. The problem is, it is often possible to influence impressionable young people into the lifestyle – even though some of them, probably most, are not born that way.

                    The interests of those of us who see value and fulfillment of God’s purpose in having children raised in a family with a natural mother and father means that we are interested in keeping as many impressionable youth as possible away from the barren lifestyle, whereas most overt homosexuals seem to have an opposite agenda and think they are due the same place in society, the same marital and family rights and benefits as have been carved out over millenniums for natural parents with children so as to provide generational continuity. But the reality is, the vast majority of people worldwide view homosexuality as a deviant behavior no matter the cause, and thus not something to be encouraged and considered “ordinary”, and for good reason.

                    It doesn’t mean we can’t co-exist and respect each other as individuals so long as the impressionable youth are not being proselytized, to put it politely.

  3. saltycracker says:

    I’m not sure that government can do much to preserve a culture. What govt can do is maintain protection of individuals, including children and contractual agreements.

    Perhaps Republicans should let society/religions define marriage and stick to laws protecting individuals including vulnerable children and the mentally challenged and stand for upholding legal contracts. Grandfather in but end spousal rights in legal speak while supporting partnership contracts.

    • saltycracker says:

      A social conservative would define marriage traditionally.
      Why does his/her position have to be on a lawmaking political list ?
      (Conservative lawmakers need to fall back to the individual position).

    • John Vestal says:

      Maybe we can get the Rev. Wright to pop in and give his the two different lists of requirements he has for young men to maintain ‘sexual purity’. :-Þ

    • If conservative means less government, then the less government option is to get out of the role of licensing marriage altogether.

      If conservative means “traditional marriage” and keeping the government involved, then I guess conservative means “I like more government when it enforces my values”.

      Personally, I’d opt for the first definition, though I know many who would opt for the second.

  4. Scott65 says:

    Oh wow…so much in this thread to go after. First, if you believe its governments role to legislate “morality” (assuming you can define what morality is), you are not a conservative “small government” type (you’re a hypocrite…but I digress). I read a very good editorial in the AJC today that talks about the Libertarian form of government that “liberty lovin'” types dream about…and it aint quite so pretty…in fact its a form of government thats never been adopted anywhere for a simple reason…it would never work, but you should read it for yourself. Now lets go with this fiscal conservative idea. Is a fiscal conservative a person who believes that tax money should be spent by the government wisely to promote the good of the country (and ALL its inhabitants), or is it one that believes that ALL spending by government (outside of defense of course) is evil and satanic? I would say that the Republicans we’ve sent to DC fall in the second category. If you own a small store in Anytown USA, I can promise you that the thing you worry about most isnt the tax code, isnt “uncertainty”, or what you are going to have to pay in taxes…what you worry about is are people going to buy my stuff. The “fiscal conservatives” in the second category are not doing anyone any favors in regard to helping the economy and increasing demand. They paint lower and middle class people as “takers” a la Paul Ryan…well guess what, the takers vote and will continue to do so, especially if Republicans are the face of voter suppression like they have been.
    As for Erick…I think Megyn Kelly pretty much took care of his ego, or at least should of after she smacked him down.

    • Doug Deal says:

      Spoken like someone who has never owned a business.

      The taxes and regulations at every level of government are to the point that I do not understand why anyone starts a business anymore. Even to make a few dollars on a side business to be completely legal, you have to navigate such a intricate web of laws that it isn’t worth it.

      • +1. It’s sad how much time I’ve spent during our first few years in business reading parts of the tax code, OCGA (state code), and county / municipal codes (had to read multiples when we were deciding where to buy a farm… didn’t want to buy where the code was overly restrictive).

        If you offer a good product / service that people want in a particular area, you don’t have to worry about whether you’ll have customers. But you do have to worry about being fined for such things as cutting down trees on your own property, or burning a pile of wood that is perhaps a foot too wide for what the code says. You have to worry about whether you’ve got all of the appropriate licenses and permits. Granted, having a farm is different than a store on main street, Anytown USA… it’s still ridiculous working / navigating through the numerous laws, regulations, and ordinances we have to abide by just to be in business. After I’ve done all that, only then can I find perhaps a few minutes to spend marketing the business to try and get customers.

Comments are closed.