CNN's Erick Erickson Suggests "Mass Bloodshed" May Be Necessary If Roe Isn't Overturned
January 24, 2011 10:15 am ET by Jamison Foser
Seriously, is there anything this revolting pustule of a man can say that would get him removed from the once respectable CNN?
CNN's Erick Erickson is also Editor-in-Chief and "Dear Leader" of the conservative blog Red State, so this charming passage posted by "The Directors" is presumably his doing:
Here at RedState, we too have drawn a line. We will not endorse any candidate who will not reject the judicial usurpation of Roe v. Wade and affirm that the unborn are no less entitled to a right to live simply because of their size or their physical location. Those who wish to write on the front page of RedState must make the same pledge. The reason for this is simple: once before, our nation was forced to repudiate the Supreme Court with mass bloodshed. We remain steadfast in our belief that this will not be necessary again, but only if those committed to justice do not waiver or compromise, and send a clear and unmistakable signal to their elected officials of what must be necessary to earn our support.
I have to assume that the "once before" is referring to the Civil War. Not that the Civil War was exactly a response to a Supreme Court decision but I can't think of what other "mass bloodshed" he could be referring to. And if that is indeed what he refers to, I think that if memory serves, the "repudiators" were themselves repudiated by losing the war.
Either way, how is it ever acceptable to call for mass bloodshed if you don't get your way politically? Mass bloodshed will not be necessary ONLY IF we get what we want? That's a pretty direct threat. I know that threatening violence is one of those things that is OK as long as you're a right-winger, but there has to be a limit. If CNN wants to reclaim any scrap of respectability, they will throw Erickson out on his ear. But I'm not holding my breath.
