Won't Someone Please Think Of The Children?

A couple of days ago, a Pew Research study came out stating that Four in ten mothers are either the sole or primary source of income for their families, a new high. Unsurprisingly, right-wing boys lost their shit!

Erick Erickson, the man who's so voll von der Scheiße * they named him twice, went on FOX to say this:

When you look at biology, look at the natural world, the roles of a male and female in society, and the other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it's not antithesis, or it's not competing, it's a complimentary role. We as people in a smart society have lost the ability to have complimentary relationships in nuclear families, and it's tearing us apart.

It's interesting that righties who insist that evolution is a myth and that people have nothing in common with animals because we were made separately, out of mud, or out of a rib, to be the spitting image of the Almighty suddenly want us to model our relationships after lions or warthogs or bonobos or whatever if it suits their argument.

Then Erickson went to his own ridiculous website "RedState" to double down on his bullshit.

The Truth May Hurt, But Is Not Mean

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  May 30th, 2013 at 02:57 PM

Many feminist and emo lefties have their panties in a wad over my statements in the past 24 hours about families. I said, in a statement reflecting the view of three quarters of those surveyed in a Pew Research Center poll, that more women being the primary or sole breadwinners in families is harmful to raising children.

Gee, why would anyone be put off by that? All I said was that 40% of families are harming their children because the mothers are too successful. I mean, that's just basic science!

Devestating rhetorical technique, by the way. "emo lefties," "panties in a wad?" You must have been the star of your school's debate team! Also, I assume you just wanted any excuse to type the word "panties," after which you copied and pasted the word into Google Image Search and then resumed your column a few hours later.

And what research did Erickson cite to back up his claim that women making more money is harmful to children?

This result came from a survey that found “nearly four in 10 families with children under the age of 18 are now headed by women who are the sole or primary breadwinners for their families.”

Wow, that's quite a leap! The study says that 4/10 families with kids are headed by women who are the primary earners, therefore, ipso facto, women being the primary earners is harmful? I don't even get it.
Maybe if I click on the link Erickson provided, I can read the entire study and see what it says about the harmful effects of mothers having good jobs. . . no. No, the link goes to a Washington Post article about the study, not to the study itself. The Post article does contain this bit of pseudo-info:

But the Pew Research report shows that Americans are decidedly ambivalent about mothers who work outside the home. Three-fourths of those surveyed say these mothers make raising children harder, and half worry that it’s bad for marriages.

Well, if Americans are ambivalent about something, that's pretty much scientific proof that it's evil!

I also noted that the left, which tells us all the time we’re just another animal in the animal kingdom, is rather anti-science when it comes to this. In many, many animal species, the male and female of the species play complementary roles, with the male dominant in strength and protection and the female dominant in nurture. It’s the female who tames the male beast.

Hmm, must be a bachelor!

 

 

Nobody tames wild animals! Hence the descriptive title "wild animals." Take bears, for instance. Mother bears have to keep their cubs away from adult males because the adult males see them as future competition and will kill them before they get big enough to be a threat. If we're going to model our child-rearing after wild animals, should we go bear?

 

You never go back!

 

 

 

Then it really gets good when Erick tries to seem empathetic.

Not everyone has the luxury of raising their children in a traditional manner and the rest of us have an obligation to help and support those in unfortunate situations.

COMMUNIST!

Likewise, there is nothing wrong with mothers having jobs. There is nothing wrong with women being breadwinners. Sometimes they have to by necessity.

Gee, it's awfully gracious of you to make such a generous allowance!

Life is terribly unfair. Sometimes a parent dies. Sometimes a parent is an abusive ass. There are unfortunate exceptions. But we should not kid ourselves or scream so loudly in politically correct outrage to drown the truth — kids most likely will do best in households where they have a mom at home nurturing them while dad is out bringing home the bacon.

And your evidence to support this thesis?

As Pew found, “Three-fourths of those surveyed say these mothers make raising children harder, and half worry that it’s bad for marriages. About half of those surveyed felt it was better if mothers stayed home with young children. In contrast, 8 percent thought it was better if fathers did.”

Well, that's pretty convincing. Of course, a third of Americans believe in UFOs,  about 30% believe in Bigfoot, and 17% believe that Obama is a Muslim, but still. . . if half worry that it might be bad for marriages, well it's hard to argue with that!
And yes, the link is again to the Washington Post article, not the actual Pew report, which it's safe to assume Erickson has not read.




Here is Erickson and the rest of the He-Man Woman-Haters Club discussing mommies with jobs:






More right-wing boys with their feelings hurt tomorrow!


* It means "full of shit" in German

What Is It Going To Take For CNN To Rid Themselves Of Erick Erickson?

(From Media Matters)

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.

Erick Erickson Could Not be Fuller of Shit

“All Catholics Are Pedophiles” — The Democrats’ Closing Argument

Posted by Erick Erickson

Okay, obviously no one has ever said this. Obviously this is something that Erickson just made up. Because no one has ever said "all Catholics Are Pedophiles." No one has ever even said "all Catholic priests are pedophiles." Nobody is saying this, much less making it the "closing argument" for an entire political party. So obviously, Erickson is so full of shit that some of it has leaked out into his silly little website.

But surely, he must be able to cite multiple instances of Democrats painting the entire Catholic Curch with the pedophilia brush to be able to make such an inflammatory claim, right? Well, no. No, not really. He does have this, though:

This is not the first time the Democrats have gone this route in this election season. This may, however, be the most desperate attempt.
And where Democrats are doing this in multiple places around the country, we can be sure they have hit on this as a theme within their world view. The theme, of course, being that all Catholics are pedophiles.

Okay, multiple places. Democrats have gone all anti-Catholic in "multiple places around the country," even though Catholics are generally seen a s a fairly reliable voting group for the Democrats( 55% to 44% for Obama), they went all Martin Luther on them in "multiple places," eh? Name one.

This time, in Missouri, Democrat Russ Carnahan has coordinated a smear against his rival Ed Martin. The attack alleges that Ed Martin was complicit in shuffling pedophile priests around St. Louis Catholic Churches while he served at the St. Louis Archdiocese.

That's it? You have exactly one example, and that example is of a single solitary Catholic man being accused of abetting pedophile priests, and you say that amounts to Democrats slandering ALL Catholics as pedophiles? So if I say that I think OJ Simpson was probably guilty of murder, am I calling all former NFL stars murderers? Or all naked Gun cast members?

I will say this, though. All people named Erick Erickson who blog on "Redstate" are full of shit.

How Bad Does the "Pledge to America" Suck?

So the long-awaited "pledge to America" was finally released, and surprisingly, it's a sad, flaccid little joke!




You want to know how lame this "pledge" is?

Erick "assclown" Erickson is ripping on it. And he's right! Erickson is right! That's never happened before. Do you know how disconcerting it is to read Erickson critiquing something and think "hey, he's got a point?"

Perhaps the Most Ridiculous Thing to Come Out of Washington Since George McClellan

Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)

Wednesday, September 22nd at 6:47PM EDT

I don't know what his beef is with George McClellan. According to CivilWarHome.com, he was considered "A brilliant engineer and highly capable organizer." But I guess when you're Erick Erickson, you have to lead off with something moronic and jerky so people know for sure that it's you writing.

But anyway, here's the opening of the Wedgie to America:

America is more than a country.

America is also a crappy band from the early Seventies!

America is an idea – an idea that free people can govern themselves, that government’s powers are derived from the consent of the governed, that each of us is endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That free people can crib shamelessly from Thomas Jefferson!

America is the belief that any man or woman can – given economic, political, and religious liberty – advance themselves, their families,
and the common good.<--Communism!

Whenever the agenda of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to institute a new governing agenda and set a different course.

Yeah, I think everyone already knew about that. We call them "elections" and in those "elections" we vote for the folks whose agenda we would like to see enacted. And then you assholes filibuster, stonewall and otherwise impede that agenda.

An unchecked executive, a compliant legislature, and an overreaching judiciary have combined to thwart the will of the people and overturn their votes and their values, striking down longstanding laws and institutions and scorning the deepest beliefs of the American people.

but enough about us. . .

An arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites makes decisions, issues mandates, and enacts laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many.

If by "self-appointed," you mean "duly elected," then yeah, I see your point. Obviously every action a presidential administration takes should be decided by a plebiscite, you know, the way the Bushies did!

Like free peoples of the past, our citizens refuse to accommodate a government that believes it can replace the will of the people with its own. The American people are speaking out, demanding that we realign our country’s compass with its founding principles and apply those principles to solve our common problems for the common good.

Well, you know, THESE American people:




These people are obviously concerned with "the common good"

With this document, we pledge to dedicate ourselves to the task of reconnecting our highest aspirations to the permanent truths of our founding by keeping faith with the values our nation was founded on, the principles we stand for, and the priorities of our people. This is our Pledge to America.

None of that means anything.
Even Erick Erickson can see that:

Yes, yes, it is full of mom tested, kid approved pablum that will make certain hearts on the right sing in solidarity. But like a diet full of sugar, it will actually do nothing but keep making Washington fatter before we crash from the sugar high.
(Red State)

It's really surreal, looking at something Erick Erickson wrote and thinking "hey, that's true. I can't argue with that."

We pledge to advance policies that promote greater liberty, wider opportunity, a robust defense, and national economic prosperity.

We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.

we pledge to promote greater liberty, and also give the government the power to decide who may marry whom, and restrict reproductive choice.

We pledge to uphold the purpose and promise of a better America, knowing that to whom much is given, much is expected and that the blessings of our liberty buoy the hopes of mankind.

That also means nothing. This is an agenda? It's like saying here is my plan. Step one: Be awesome! Step two: Do really cool stuff. Step Three: Be an inspiration to others.
Wow, I think I've actually met all those goals!

Supposedly, this thing goes on for 21 pages. http://pledge.gop.gov/ only shows the one page.
So I may have to take Erickson's word for it when he says:

The pledge begins by lamenting “an arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites” issuing “mandates”, then proceeds to demand health care mandates on insurance companies that will drive up the costs of health care for ordinary Americans.

and

The plan wants to put “government on the path to a balanced budget” without doing anything substantive. There is a promise to “immediately reduce spending” by cutting off stimulus funds. Wow. Exciting.

There is a plan to cut Congress’s budget, which is pretty much what was promised in 1994. Seriously? In 4 years did the Democrats really blow up the Congressional budget? No — the GOP did that too.

Hey, GOP. Do you have any idea how shitty your plan has to be for Erick "ass-hat" Erickson to rip on it? He's the guy who tweeted this about a dumb TV ad:

Tebow's mom didn't abort. That's enough for Erickson to conclude that all pro-choice groups have no credibility. This is the guy you couldn't excite with your little "Dredge America" agenda. Do you have any idea how hard it is to NOT impress this little nozzle of a man? In a way, it's almost impressive!

This Just In. . .

Erick Erickson is still a lying moron.

check it out:

Worlds Are Colliding

Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)

During a school trip to Washington a group of students. . .

OK, wait. Let me just stop you right there. Because this is sentence #1, and you've already lied.

Seriously, the FOX news story that YOU LINK TO, says that the students were: "attending a conservative leadership conference in Washington, D.C." So this was NOT a "school trip to Washington." I'm not saying it's a super-important distinction - maybe it is, maybe not, I don't know, but the point is that you lied about it. Why? Maybe to make the kids seem more sympathetic? Maybe so people wouldn't picture the kind of noxious little assholes that would attend a "conservative leadership conference" while in their teens?

I don't know. Maybe you're just lying out of force of habit. But do go on.

During a school trip to Washington a group of students were ordered by a park service security guard standing watch over the Lincoln Memorial to stop singing the national anthem.

And word came late last night that Republicans have a serious shot at something once thought impossible — taking back the United States Senate.

What do singing the national anthem and the GOP taking back Congress have to do with each other?

Oh, oh, I know! Um, not a goddamned thing?

What do singing the national anthem and the GOP taking back Congress have to do with each other?

Voters are so hacked off they are of a revolutionary frame of mind — throwing the bums out through violence at the polls. That is far better than the alternative.

Actually, since the alternative would be NOT having violence at the polls, I would have to say that it is in fact worse than the alternative.

And here's a little context to your idea about how upset the electorate is and how much they want to throw the bums out, courtesy of Conversation 101:

There have been 305 incumbent politicians on ballots so far this year. Six have lost.

Six.

So, is it that we have a hard time expressing anger? Or, do intellectually lazy “political journalists” like this do us a disservice by writing such shallow analyses?

And by the way, that's the entire text of Erickson's post. He never does explain what the kids singing in DC have to do with Republicans taking back Congress. I don't get it. Probably neither does he.

And since Erickson doesn't expand on the DC story, here is why the students were asked to stop singing:

[US Park Police Sgt] Schlosser explained that performances, regardless of content, are banned to “maintain a contemplative and reverent area for the Lincoln Memorial, for the other guests and visitors.”

“It’s not the content of their activity – that being the national anthem – it’s the location,” he said. “A couple steps and it would have been no problem whatsoever.”

Of course, as this story makes its way through the right-wing echo chamber, the version people are going to hear is "Since Obama took over, the Park Police have been ordered to arrest anyone caught singing the National Anthem, because Obama hates America, and blargh, blargh, blargh. . ." They already have this quote from one of the more disengenuous little weasels, Shawn Balcomb, of Richmond Hill, GA. “I didn’t realize there was something wrong with singing the national anthem.”

There isn't, you sniveling little prick. And you know that. The rule is that you're supposed to keep a respectful silence at the Lincoln Memorial. The problem isn't what you were singing, it is that you were singing at all. And I assume you meant no harm. I assume you were just moved to song by the monument to the last good Republican. And when the police told you to stop,

Instead of doing as they were instructed, Gassman said the students resumed the song – an impromptu form of civil disobedience.

So, you know classy move all around.

But anyway, the point was, um. . . what did I start out to. . . oh, yeah:

Erick Erickson is a goddamn lying moron.

For Memorial Day: Erick Erickson's Unassailable Logic

Okay, here's the background on this:

Barack Obama is attending a Memorial Day service in his hometown of Chicago. VP Biden will be laying the wreath at Arlington. To Erickson and the rest of the nutsos, this is proof, undeniable proof, of the President's disdain for the troops.

Media Matters pointed out that this was hardly unprecedented:

In 1983 President Reagan attended a "summit meeting in Williamsburg, Va." on Memorial Day while Deputy Secretary of Defense W. Paul Thayer laid a wreath at Arlington Cemetery. In 1992, George H.W. Bush attended a ceremony in Kennebunkport, Maine (where he also reportedly played a round of golf) while VP Dan Quayle laid the wreath at Arlington. In 2002, President George W. Bush commemorated Memorial Day at Normandy.

So Erickson came up with this argument. It's different for Obama because we have been slandering him with bs about his supposed hatred for the troops.

Then there's this,

From Erickson's ridiculous Redstate.com:

The problem for Barack Obama is simple.

The troops don’t like him no matter how much the White House propaganda machine tries to gin up staged pictures of Obama voting soldiers fawning all over him. But see the tepid response from cadets at West Point or talk privately with lots of soldiers and sailors and you get something else — they fundamentally do not respect their Commander in Chief.

Obama may talk about the government in the first person, but the men and women lying at Arlington know differently.

Yes, the corpses in the cemetery know differently. That's how you bolster your argument, with an appeal to the knowledge of dead people? The dead bodies know differently?
(grammar police: I think you mean they know "different" not "differently" To know differently would be to know by a different means of acquiring knowledge. For instance, I know about the battle of the bulge because I read about it in history class, whereas Grandpa McVet knows about it differently as he came by his knowledge by being present at the actual battle.)

Of course, Obama really doesn’t like the military, does he. [A period there, not a question mark, is intentional]

He doesn't like the military because we say that he doesn't like the military which proves that he doesn't like the military. It's hard to argue with logic like that.

Fuck You, CNN

What the hell is CNN doing putting lying libelist Erick Erickson on the air?

And then letting him toss out these patrhetic little explanations for his disgusting comments, like "I meant to call someone else Joseph Goebels," or I've grown up since I called David Souter a "goat-fucking child molester?"

And then you just sit there and accept his complete bullshit at face value and pretend like he isn't a complete asshole?



Erick Erickson adds nothing to the political discourse except vulgarity, name-calling and dishonesty. CNN used to have standards. Ted Turner must be rolling over in his what, ranch? farm? wherever it is he's living out in Montana or whatever. Come back, Ted. We need you.

Oh, and since I have yet to mature as a blogger, it is apparently Okay for me to state that Erick Erickson is a baby-murdering kitten rapist. Which he totally is. Raped a kitten yesterday, just to whet his appetite for infanticide. Erick Erickson. Kills babies. Can I be on CNN now?

The Spin makes me Dizzy

Ever since Tuesday's special elections, representatives of all 3 involved parties- Republican, democrat, and whatever the fuck Doug Hoffman is, have been all over the TV pitching their version of what it all means. Mostly it boils down to "this is a big win for my side" and/or "what a crushing defeat for the other side."




So who can give us the stupidest spin?

I gotta think Erick Erickson has a pretty good shot at being stupidest.

In NY-23, Conservatives Win

Posted by Erick Erickson

Hold on, here we go! Keep your arms and legs inside the car until the spinning has come to stop.

The race has now been called for Democrat Bill Owens.

This is a huge win for conservatives.

“Whaaaa. . . ?” you say.

Damn! that is what I say! How'd he know that?

There are two big victories at work in New York’s 23rd Congressional District.

Okay, obviously one big win was Democrat Bill Owens. what's the other one?

First, the GOP now must recognize it will either lose without conservatives or will win with conservatives.

No, first was Bill Owens. But please do go on.

First, the GOP now must recognize it will either lose without conservatives or will win with conservatives. In 2008, many conservatives sat home instead of voting for John McCain. Now, in NY-23, conservatives rallied and destroyed the Republican candidate the establishment chose.One might say that the folks you call "conservatives" might have learned that the can either lose on their own, or win with an "establishment" candidate, but that would presume that you have the ability to learn.

And whom do you consider "conservative" anyway? Dede Scozzafava was endorsed by John Boehner and Newt Gingrich! What is anyone to the left of Ron Paul a gay communist tree-hugger? Although, Ron Paul opposed the war, so I guess he wouldn't pass the test either. Hmm. . .who exactly is your constituency? Do you really think there are enough lunatic tea-baggers to win an election? Oh, shit! That is what you think, isn't it? Oh, um, you're totally right, Erick. Yeah, you should totally keep insisting that the republicans field Palin-approved tea party type candidates! Yeah, that's the winningest strategy ever!

I have said all along that the goal of activists must be to defeat Scozzafava. Doug Hoffman winning would just be gravy.

Really?!
The main goal is to defeat the candidate whose positions are pretty close to yours, and if you end up handing the race over to your political enemies, that's just fine with you? Really? Do you know how stupid that is?

A Hoffman win is not in the cards, but we did exactly what we set out to do — crush the establishment backed GOP candidate.

And make no mistake, despite the Beltway spin, we know for certain based on statements from the local Republican parties, that they chose Scozzafava based on advice from the Washington crowd.

Ok, first of all, crushing the Republican nominee, that's the job of the democratic candidate, why are you doing his job for him?

And i think the advice from "the Washington crowd" was probably to pick a candidate who could win, something your guy was seemingly incapable of.

Were we to combine Scozzafava and Hoffman’s votes, Hoffman would have won.

Yes, and if you were to combine all the runs the Phillies scored with all of the Eagles' touchdowns, Philadelphia would have won the World Series!

Secondly, and just as importantly, there has all of a sudden been a huge movement among some activists to go the third party route. We see in NY-23 that this is not possible as third parties are not viable.

That's your second "Big Victory"? finding out something which has been conventional wisdom for the last century or so? How is that a victory? You managed to lose one of the most conservative districts in New York State, and you learned something about why you lost. Wow! way to set that bar high! You forgot to count not falling down any open manholes as a victory! Oh, and Doug Hoffman didn't contract any deadly diseases during the campaign! Victory!!! And your guy lost, and your opponent won. Victory!!!! You know, there's no shame in admitting defeat. You say "we gave it our best shot, but we lost. We'll do better next time!" and you leave with your head held high. But no, you sound like Pee Wee Herman after he crashed his bike; "I meant to do that!"




For all intents and purposes, NY-23 is a trial run for Florida. And in Florida, the conservative candidate is operating inside the GOP. If John Cornyn and the NRSC do not want to see Florida go the way of NY-23, they better stand down.

Right, this one doesn't really count. You really just care about Florida.
And you have a problem with John Cornyn? I thought only sane people had a problem with John Cornyn!
Here's a little idea of what John Cornyn is all about, courtesy of Conservapedia:

John Cornyn (born 1952) is a Republican United States Senator who has represented Texas since 2002. In 2006, National Journal ranked Cornyn as the fourth most conservative Senator. [1] He also received a 100% rating from the Christian Coalition and from the National Right to Life Council. [2]

So, John Cornyn isn't ideologically pure enough for the Erick Erickson wing of the lunatic fringe? You guys are going to blow Florida too, aren't you? Yeah, keep it up Erick!

Who's Stupider? (Nobel Prize Edition)

Thank you, and welcome to a special Nobel Peace Prize edition of Who's Stupider?
I'm your special guest host, A Beanie Baby Guy Smiley!

Our first contestant comes to us from the worst right-wing rag in the country where he enjoys being wrong about everything and wearing a permanent shit-eating smirk, please welcome Bill Kristol.

Bill, why don't you tell us a little bit about yourself?

Well, I'm famous because I had a famous father. My famous father (Irving Kristol) pulled some strings to get me into Harvard, used his connections to get me a job in the Nixon administration, then arranged for me to get teaching jobs at Penn and the Kennedy School of government. I'm a firm believer in strict meritocracy and fierce opponent of affirmative action. (source)

Okay, I think that tells us pretty much all we need to know about you.

Let's welcome our returning champion, Erick Erickson!

Erick, let's start with you, what's your reaction to President Obamawinning the Nobel Peace Prize?

I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota for it, but that is the only thing I can think of for this news. There is no way Barack Obama earned it in the nominations period.

Ooh, tough break Erick! The affirmative action line proves you are kinda racist and kinda an asshole, but you accidentally made a good point that Obama certainly didn't do anything in the first month of his presidency to deserve this prestigious award. So let's ask the judges, can we accept Erick's answer?






































OOh, sorry, that's a thumbs down from Simon, Caesar and Fonzie! I'm afraid you're disqualified from this round, Erick.










Okay, Bill the floor is yours. All you have to do is say anything remotely stupid and you'll win. Whadda ya got, Bill?

if the Swedes Norwegians wanted to give the Nobel Peace Prize to an American, it would have been been better to give it to Sen. John McCain for having the guts to push through the surge in Iraq.

Wow! You came here to win, Bill! That may have been the stupidest thing we have heard yet on this show! Complaining that the Nobel Peace Prize was not given for war-mongering? Amazing work! You're going to go far in this competition.

Ladies and gentlemen, today's winner: Bill "the man who is wrong about everything" Kristol!

Who's Stupider? Round 2

Our First contestant comes to us from the State of Minnesota where she enjoys paranoid delusions and looking foolish on CSPAN. Please welcome Michele Bachmann!

Ms Bachmann was recently given the opportunity to question Fed chairman Ben Bernanke. What subject did she choose on which to question the man most responsible for our nation's economy?

You guessed it, ACORN!




Our next contestant hails from Macon, Ga where he is actually, honest to God, a member of the city council. In his spare time, he enjoys running the world's dumbest website. Put your hands together for Erick Erickson.

Mr. Erickson was unhappy that the underpaid, overworked police force in Macon might try to form a union to address their situation. His solution? Why, abolish the police department, of course.

No, really!

"I’m thinking I’ll have the City Attorney draft me legislation to dissolve the police department and contract with the Sheriff to provide public safety services," Erickson wrote on the blog Peach Pundit.

Boy, it looks like we have a tie. Time for the lightning round.

Erick, go!

If Barack Obama cannot convince the IOC to give Chicago the Olympics, how is he going to convince Iran to give up its nukes?

Great start! Can you top that Michele?

"Little children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal and natural and perhaps they should try it."

Ooh! Well played! Erick?

I think Media Matters hopes someone goes after the President because then they will get to cheerlead a rounding up of conservative pundits they think are harmful to the advance of socialism.

Wow! Stupid, paranoid AND assholish! The trifecta! Michele, can you answer this challenge?

"Literally, if we took away the minimum wage—if conceivably it was gone—we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level."

Okay, that was stupid and assholish, but I'm not feeling any of your usual paranoia. Ladies and gentleman, we have a winner! Erick Erickson is the new Who's Stupider champion!

Erick Erickson, Leading the Idiot Race

Erick Erickson, der Mann so voll von scheiss,* they named him twice, is staking out a pretty good lead in the race for idiot of the year. (see his previous entries here and here.)

Here is his latest entry:

The Spirit of Skidmore

This is the entire text of his "article" or whatever you call it:

Josh Trevino just sent me this picture. He’s standing in front of the sign right now.

The sign is for the Skidmore Historical Society Museum. The sign says, “Built and maintained by local citizens without benefit of state or federal funds.”

We need that spirit in this country. We need the Spirit of Skidmore.

We need the "Spirit of Skidmore" The spirit that built a museum without any government funds. Sounds exciting!

Now here is the picture to which he is referring:

Yikes! Check out the hours! The museum is open for TWO HOURS One Day A WEEK. Is that really the spirit we need?

Well, maybe the museum itself is more impressive than the sign.

No. No, it's probably worse. Check out their website: (LINK)

Looks like the bulk of the "museum" is a bunch of rusty old farm equipment scattered haphazardly on some redneck's front lawn.

Yeah, those pictures are from the museum's promotional web-page. This is what they're proud of.

Oh, God do we need more of that Skidmore Spirit in this country. The spirit that says "Our museum may consist of a 2-hour window to view dilapidated hunks of scrap metal, but by God we did it without the damn Guv'mint!

So Erickson is definitely leading the race. All you other idiots out there better start playing catch-up. The gauntlet has been thrown down.


*the man so full of shit.

Erick Erickson

Every morning, Erick Erickson rolls out of his race-car bed, changes out of his feetie pajamas, pours a bowl of Coco Puffs, (for which he is CooCoo!) and opens up the morning paper. Skimming through the headlines, he pauses at each article and thinks to himself "how can I make this story be about the badness of Barack Obama?"

Today, the story was Honduras.

President Obama gave a mild sort-of-condemnation of the military coup which ousted President Manuel Zelaya. So how do we twist this? How can this be a story about Obama's treachery and wickedness? Hmmmmmmmmm.........................

In the battle between good and evil, Barack Obama endorses evil

Whether Hamas, Hezbollah, Chavez, or Castro, Barack Obama faithfully sides with American enemies over American interests.

Oh, well done! That's a finely crafted, attention-garbbing headline! Now to fill in all the blank space left under the title part, and I can watch my cartoons!

We need to pay attention to Obama’s foreign policy. It is shaping up to be fatal to American interests.

Fatal! That'll scare some people!

He has given only tepid support to democratic protestors in Iran

And God knows how strong U.S. backing would have increased the credibility of the protestors. And our "American interests" lie directly in having the slightly-less crazy hardliner be the figurehead of Iran!

He refuses to take on the North Koreans despite their intentions to launch a missile toward Hawaii.

I gotta tell you, there are fireworks stores in Tennessee with more impressive arsenals than Kim Jong Il. The odds of him being able to hit Hawaii with one of his sad little missles are about the same as Erick Erickson's odds of hitting Angelina Jolie with his sad little missle.

And now Barack Obama is standing with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and a host of communist regimes and sympathizers in Central and South America on the issue of Honduras.

Also Canada, Russia, the United nations, the European Union, but whatever.

Oh, Erick, Obama and Chavez also agree that the sky is blue! They must be in cahoots!

Barack Obama sees it differently. He is supporting the democratically ousted President of Honduras. He joins Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

Democratically ousted? Losing an election would be democratcally ousted, I guess, but being evicted from the country by one's own military? That's a coup. And just because Fidel Castro agrees doesn't make it untrue.

Erick Erickson

Well, it's only April, but we already have our first nominee for idiot of the year. His name is Erick Erickson and he writes for something called "Red State.Com."

His latest post is entitled:

At What Point Do People Revolt?

I'm not sure if old Erick is afraid of the revolt he imagines is coming or if he supports it, but he writes hogwash like this:

At what point do the people tell the politicians to go to hell? At what point do they get off the couch, march down to their state legislator’s house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an idiot?


And This:

Were I in Washington State, I’d be cleaning my gun right about now waiting to protect my property from the coming riots or the government apparatchiks coming to enforce nonsensical legislation.

So what has happened in Washington to put him in such a tizzy? Has martial law been declared? Has the state government demanded the sacrifice of the first-born? What could it be?

Spokane County became the launch pad last July for the nation’s strictest ban on dishwasher detergent made with phosphates, a measure aimed at reducing water pollution. The ban will be expanded statewide in July 2010, the same time similar laws take effect in several other states.

Detergent?

Detergent. The stuff for washing dishes, that detergent?

What exactly is the problem here?

Washington State has turned its residents into a group of drug runners — crossing state lines to buy dish washer detergent with phosphate.

Really?

But the rage is building. It’s not a partisan issue. There is bipartisan angst at out of control government made worse by dumb bans like this

Really?

If the GOP plays its cards right, it will have a winning issue in 2010. . .

Really?

They're going to run on a detergent-based platform in 2010?

Really?

. . . But it is going to have to get back to “leave me the hell alone” style federalism where the national government recedes and the people themselves will have to fight to take their states back from special interests out of touch with body politic as a whole.

Yeah, reducing water pollution is such a tiny, special-interest issue. I mean, it only affects people who drink water. Or make canned soup with water. Or boil spaghetti in water. Or whose bodies are composed of around 2/3 water.

Erick Erickson. Nominee for idiot of the year!