Tag Archives: erick-erickson

Megyn Kelly Slams Erick Erickson for Views on Women, Earning Power

Megyn Kelly has joined her Fox News colleague in calling out two other Fox News colleagues. Earlier this week, Lou Dobbs and Erick Erickson reacted in horror to a Pew survey that reported how prominent a role female breadwinners are playing in the country these days. Erickson argued that the results are “anti-science” and that the male ought to play the “dominant role” in a family… while “having moms as the primary breadwinner is bad for kids and bad for marriage.” Following Greta Van Susteren’s Tweeting shock and outrage over such comments, Megyn Kelly invited Dobbs and Erickson on her show today – and let them have it! Safe to say the following exchange is a TKO, don’t you think? Megyn Kelly Slams Erick Erickson and Lou Dobbs Where do you stand? Are an abundance of female breadwinners bad for the country?   Yes, we’re doomed! WTH are these guys talking about?!? View Poll »

More:
Megyn Kelly Slams Erick Erickson for Views on Women, Earning Power

For Discussion: Fox News Commentator Says Women Making More Money Than Men Is “Hurting Our Children” ….Is He Right?

Fox News Commentator Says Women Making More Money Than Men Hurts Our Children Earlier this week, a report came out confirming that women are the breadwinners in many U.S. households today . Naturally, the conservative base wasn’t too pleased with this news, and now one of their own are speaking out against the notion that it’s acceptable for mothers to have careers and earn just as much money as their men, if not more. via Think Progress Conservative commentator Erick Erickson earned himself a lot of detractors Wednesday night when, responding to the news that a record number of families rely on women’s income, he argued on Fox News that it was “natural” for men to take the “dominant role” and that women being the primary breadwinner for families is “hurting our children, and it’s going to have impact for generations to come.” But Erickson stood by his comments on Thursday, first tweeting, “Husbands and wives should play complimentary roles w/ dad as breadwinner,” and then penning a longer piece on the site he edits, Red State, making the case for why women shouldn’t be the primary earner in a household. “In modern society we are not supposed to say such things about child rearing and families. In modern society we are not supposed to point out that children in a two-parent heterosexual nuclear household have a better chance at long term success in life than others. In modern society, we are supposed to applaud feminists who teach women they can have it all — that there is no gender identifying role and women can fulfill the role of husbands and fathers just as men do. Feminists and politicians on both sides of the aisle view these statements as insulting to single moms and antithetical to their support for gay marriage. What should be insulting to single moms is for society to tell them they can do it all and, in fact, will subsidize their doing it all. I know a number of wonderful, nurturing single mothers. They do as best they can. Most of them have wonderful children. But not one of them prefers to be a single mother.“ What do you think, Bossip fam? Do women who choose to balance a work and home life deprive the children? Or are they setting a positive example for their children in showing the strength of mothers and women in general? Shutterstock Continue reading

Newt Gingrich Promises To Create ‘Millions Of Jobs Right Now’

http://www.youtube.com/v/iPgJ8eDShVc

Read this article:

In the latest campaign ad from Newt Gingrich, God of Carnage, the former House Speaker says that “we can create millions of jobs right now.” Is this to be achieved by Gingrich hiring one million people to manufacture and market ” Ellis The Elephant ” merchandise? Because I’m just just trying to plan my next couple of days around Gingrich solving the crippling unemployment crisis in the next few hours… Broadcasting platform : YouTube Source : The Huffington Post Discovery Date : 28/12/2011 16:39 Number of articles : 2

Newt Gingrich Promises To Create ‘Millions Of Jobs Right Now’

Mitt Romney: It’s Conservative to Have Government Force You to Buy Insurance

http://www.youtube.com/v/4c2MWsTl41o

The rest is here:

Mitt Rommey says forcing Americans to buy a product in a conservative principle. As Erick Erickson says: This isn’t a flash back. This is today. Mitt Romney is again declaring the foundation of Obamacare, the individual mandate, “conservative.” To be … Continue reading → Broadcasting platform : YouTube Source : Gateway Pundit Discovery Date : 28/12/2011 17:36 Number of articles : 3

Mitt Romney: It’s Conservative to Have Government Force You to Buy Insurance

CNN: GOP ‘Very Far to the Right’; Guest Laments McCain’s Rightward Lean

On Tuesday’s AC360, CNN’s John Roberts labeled Republican candidates who have Tea Party support ” very far to the right ,” and specifically referred to Florida gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott as an ” ultraconservative .” Guest John Avlon also bemoaned John McCain’s tack to the right during the primary campaign, and slammed how the senator has been called a “RINO” by many conservatives. Roberts, who was filling in for anchor Anderson Cooper, along with Avlon, CNN liberal contributor Roland Martin and Red State’s Erick Erickson, discussed Tuesday’s primary results from several states for two segments during the first half hour of the 10 pm Eastern hour. Eighteen minutes into the hour, the CNN anchor asked TheDailyBeast.com senior political columnist, “[CNN anchor] John King laid it out there, that it’s going to be a challenging year, to say the least, for Democrats. Some people predicting that this will be equal to, if not worse, than 1994. What do you think?” Avlon replied that the GOP was in “reasonable striking distance” of winning control of the House of Representatives, and later added that “the question is, are the candidates the Republicans have been putting forward in these primaries, some of the more polarizing play-to-the-base candidates, are they going to be Kryptonite when it comes to independent voters and folks in the center? That’s really where this battle is going to be won or lost.” Moments later, Roberts asked Erickson about Avlon’s analysis and included his “right” label: ROBERTS: Erick Erickson, speak to what John Avlon was talking to us about. Some of these candidates who are very far to the right , the one- many of the ones who are backed by the Tea Party- are they going to be Kryptonite come November? The anchor brought back Avlon for a second panel discussion, this time with Republican and former Representative Susan Molinari and Democrat Lisa Caputo, a former press secretary for Hillary Clinton. Roberts raised the issue of the Republican gubernatorial primary in Florida with Molinari 46 minutes into the hour: ROBERTS: When it comes to Rick Scott, who ran as an ultraconservative against Bill McCollum, does he now have to run slightly to the center, if he wants to win in November? Put it this way: the campaign- the Rick Scott campaign is reaching out to CNN, to say, ‘Hey, do you want to have him on tomorrow?’ Four minutes later, Roberts broached the issue of McCain’s lurch to the right during the primary race in Arizona against J. D. Hayworth, which ultimately led to Avlon’s lament of the whole electoral battle between the two: ROBERTS: Well, you heard a lot of that- maverick, maverick, maverick, maverick- 2002, his book, ‘Worth the Fighting For,’ said that it was the ‘education of an American maverick.’ But now, John McCain saying, ‘I’m not a maverick. I never said I was a maverick.’ (laughs) And Susan Molinari, I’m wondering how could he say that?      MOLINARI: Well- you know, times change- (both Molinari and Roberts laugh) politics change, and the situation changed. The situation in Arizona, as he explained it- you know, changed, and the President- you know, by his lawsuit in Arizona, I think really kind of raised the ante. Look, John McCain is a smart politician, and he didn’t do what a lot of other politicians did, which is to assume that, because he was the party nominee for president, that he didn’t have to work hard. And he had sort of the gift which we always think is- you know, a terrible thing of a later primary, to see that some of his incumbent colleagues and others in the House might have taken their election and their reelection in primaries for granted. And so- you know, he ran a smart race. He spent a lot of money, and he did what he needs to do to, presumably, return to the United States Senate. ROBERTS: But John Avlon, it’s almost classic John McCain, where he says, ‘I never said I was a maverick,’ and then you play the audio tape, and you say, ‘Well, with all due respect, Senator, I think you did.’ AVLON: Yeah. No, that’s just a dumb thing for him to have said, (Roberts laughs) and it’s sort of indefensible, because it’s such a core part of his identify, not just one imposed upon him, but one he accepted. And it’s dumb, because this was- this was actually a great year for someone to stress their independence- for someone to stress- the John McCain who the American people have come to know and respect, somebody who was standing up against fiscal irresponsibility when Republicans were spending like drunken sailors. He stood up against his own party. That should be a message that’s perfect for this year, and perfect for the Tea Party. The fact that he was independent should be a strength, but being primaried from the right, people kept saying that maverick was code for independent. So we’ve got to get some clarity right now. The Tea Party folks who say that the number one issue is spending- John McCain should be always a hero to them, and the fact that he’s considered a RINO by some speaks to the sickness in our politics and a problem in the Republican Party right now. ROBERTS: One more quick comment from you, and then we’ve got to go to John King, Lisa. He doesn’t really have to- if John McCain wins the primary, he doesn’t have to worry about the general election. I think he won with 75 percent last time. CAPUTO: Likely not, but what he has to worry about is what’s the public perception of John McCain? ROBERTS: Yeah- CAPUTO: What’s his legacy? Which John McCain are we talking about? Are we talking about the maverick, or are we talking about the Reagan Republican? Who are we talking about? During two July 2009 appearances, Avlon picked “wingnuts of the week” from the right and the left, and was much more critical of his right-wing selections . He also labeled CPAC 2010’s “saving freedom” theme as “a little extreme” during two segments on February 18 and 19 .

Read more:
CNN: GOP ‘Very Far to the Right’; Guest Laments McCain’s Rightward Lean

Imagine If a Conervative Had Said It: Child- and Cop-killer Edition

Remember when media liberals were insisting ( falsely, by the way ) that RedState’s Erick Erickson had advocated shooting a census taker? Well imagine that a journalist had approached, say, Dick Armey and the following exchange had ensued. Then try to imagine what the media’s response would be. JOURNO: Obviously you don’t believe in killing census workers. ARMEY: Umm, not in that context, no sir. No, no. JOURNO: Okay, in what context? ARMEY: Just for the sake of this interview, no context. I don’t believe in that. There are too many other government forces out here that are much more powerful that I as a man would focus on. I wouldn’t focus on the census workers, sir, I’d focus on the police. Replace “census workers” with “babies” and “government” with “white,” and you have the exact statement from Malik Zulu Shabazz, leader of the New Black Panther Party, made in an interview with Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher (video below the fold). “So,” writes Tabitha Hale at RedState, “just for the sake of this interview, killing white babies is not okay. But those other times, in the proper context? It’s totally okay. You know, as long as the crackers are out of the way.” Mark Potok, please call your office . Oh the howling that would ensue if any Tea Party leader, let alone the head of a prominent organization like FreedomWorks, made a statement like that. “Killing census workers is not as productive as killing cops,” is what it would, rightly, be boiled down to. Shabazz is saying that he considers violence towards police officers to be a more productive activity in battling white people than killing their children. Phew. What a relief. Where is the media on this? Where is Chris Matthews to devote an entire hour-long special to the dangers of militant black supremacy groups, as he did with the Tea Party? Where is Rachel Maddow to devote an hour of her time to warning viewers that violent rhetoric can incite violent action, as she did in the context of the Oklahoma City bombing, naturally blaming it on conservatives? Where is Joe Klein to remind us of the definition of sedition — “conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state, in his words — and to accuse these groups of ” rubbing right up close ” to doing just that? Where are the host of media personalities who painted the Hutaree militia and a vague threat of “right-wing extremism” as the biggest threat to American peace since 9/11? They are all silent, because accusing the New Black Panthers of fomenting violence does not fit the narrative — it does not serve their political ends. And this is not some obscure member of the group holding a sign demanding that we “water the tree of liberty” — to use a Tea Party equivalent. This is the leader of a prominent (for a wacky fringe group) organization issuing a thinly-veiled endorsement of violence against police officers. The lack of condemnation even remotely similar to the hit jobs on the Tea Party movement is quite telling.

Continued here:
Imagine If a Conervative Had Said It: Child- and Cop-killer Edition

Michael Steele: Mentally Deficient

Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele has segregated himself from any and all party’s once again. Michale Steele seems to have either forgotten that there was a President before Obama, or that Bush was never President. Steele was caught on video spewing republicanism’s, saying that Afghanistan is “a war of Obama’s choosing”; I didn’t know Obama had the power to send troops while being on the Illinois senate. Steele is also quoted saying “If he’s such a student of history,” Steele said, referring to President Obama, “has he not understood that, you know, that’s the one thing you don’t do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? Everyone who has tried, over 1,000 years of history, has failed.” I again am astonished that this man is ignoring the fact that, Republican former President George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan in 2001 after September 11( I had to explain this just in-case there are more people who forget the past like Steele). Now the Democrats are jumping all over his words as they should, but shockingly even very prominent conservatives are demanding his immediate resignation. William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, called Steele’s remarks “an affront, both to the honor of the Republican Party and to the commitment of the soldiers fighting to accomplish the mission they’ve been asked to take on by our elected leaders.” Fellow conservative Erick Erickson had this to say, Steele had “lost all moral authority to lead the GOP.” Steele is now in full damage control, coming out re-explaining his statements. If you have to re-explain your political standings and true beliefs then your just trying to save face. A party spokesman said that Steele’s comments were in the context of speaking to future candidates and questions on the campaign trail. Steele however separated himself even further from his comments by saying this, Steele called winning the war in Afghanistan “a difficult task,” but “a necessary one.” While also backing it up with this statement, “The stakes are too high for us to accept anything but success in Afghanistan.” The Director of the RNC has been saying that Steele’s job is intact and that Democrats are misinterpreting his statements. This is just yet another example of the Republican foot in mouth that seems to be running rampant lately. While most Republicans surly believe what Steele has said, they cannot get elected by saying what they truly believe. Of course Republicans are going to back away from him, because they want to get elected off of the less conservative ideals they preach, and once in office force the more extreme views on the public. Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rnc-steele-20100703,0,44924… added by: Colin_McCabe