As an added bonus, it was more than a bit ironic to hear Barack Obama call Paul Ryan a social darwinist considering Barack Obama remains the only member of the Illinois State Senate to speak in favor of infanticide from the floor of the State Senate. – Erick Erickson
That’s the closing paragraph of Erick Erickson’s defense of Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget yesterday. It revolves around contraception and Trojans in an attempt at humor that ends with ghoulish glee.
Here’s a bit from the top of Erickson’s post:
The President called Paul Ryan’s budget a “trojan horse.” Given the President’s predilection for forcing all Americans, through regulatory fiat, to adhere to his view of contraception, I suspect that had Paul Ryan preemptively called his budget a ‘trojan condom,” the President of the United States would be campaigning trying to make us all adhere to it.
I have no idea what’s in the coffee infotainment talking heads drink, but I’m glad whenever I do media I bring my own.
Erick Erickson has taken a page from Joe “keep calm and carry on” Scarborough, who’s everyone’s favorite Republican squeeze toy, because of statements like this one:
“Nobody thinks Romney’s going to win. Let’s just be honest. Can we just say this for everybody at home? Let me just say this for everybody at home. The Republican establishment–I’ve yet to meet a single person in the Republican establishment that thinks Mitt Romney is going to win the general election this year. They won’t say it on TV because they’ve got to go on TV and they don’t want people writing them nasty emails. I obviously don’t care. But I have yet to meet anybody in the Republican establishment that worked for George W. Bush, that works in the Republican congress, that worked for Ronald Reagan that thinks Mitt Romney is going to win the general election.” – Joe Scarborough, via Newsbusters
Who really gives a rat’s patoot what the Republican establishment thinks? Ah, Joe does, because without access he’s mute.
Mark Halperin ran for cover after he uttered it.
It’s why Joe Scarborough was cast in the first place. The ability to balance unvarnished b.s. with pearls of insider wisdom that make you look like the town crier of Republicanism.
However, here’s the thing. The Republican establishment, people like Jeb Bush and Mitch Daniels, chose not to run because they didn’t want to do the primary limbo. Chris Christie can’t begin to do it and it’s the only way you can get the nomination. Mitt Romney’s willing to do the Etch A Sketch drill, because it’s exactly what any Republican will have to do to win the nomination then try to make himself electable by the general public.
The other issue they won’t admit is that there simply isn’t anyone who can beat Pres. Obama unless outside events set it up. It’s why Marco Rubio looked almost panicked when he endorsed Romney, because he was juggling the nightmare of being the guy’s running mate. Republicans who want to run are waiting until Obama’s gone, because the high odds and the taint of losing aren’t worth it.
Bemoaning Obama’s charges against Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget is what any conservative is obliged to do. But instead of making a cogent case, Erickson twists himself beyond his writing talents using murderous assertions and hyperbole that match Scarborough’s fiction.
Now, I’ve had a civil debate with Erickson on Twitter (Joe Scarborough, too, once upon a time and more than once).
But charging Obama with speaking in favor of “infanticide,” the charge made by many religious conservatives, including Rick Santorum, as well as Newt Gingrich, amounts to a criminal accusation of inciting murder no matter the target, so let’s have at it.
Does anyone actually believe Pres. Obama wants to kill a viable fetus that could live?
Erick Erickson, a favorite conservative of Scarborough’s to quote, is making just that case, as have other conservatives, though not as flippantly.
But we’re supposed to treat this as a serious discussion? People accusing the President, for partisan gain, of supporting “infanticide”?
Whether opposing “born alive” legislation is the same as supporting “infanticide,” however, is entirely a matter of interpretation. That could be true only for those, such as Obama’s 2004 Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, who believes a fetus that doctors give no chance of surviving is an “infant.” It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is “a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support.”
Erickson doesn’t care about the Illinois law that protects a viable fetus outside the womb, or that a constitutional lawyer such as Barack Obama would weigh the issue of a pre-viable fetus born prematurely and understand the consequences for laws already passed, which is why politicians put their opponents in this position in the first place, in order to squeeze them.
So no, Erick, Obama didn’t “speak in favor of infanticide from the floor of the State Senate.” You’d have to be an idiot to believe anyone could and then make it to the top of our political system.
But this is the word games we’re reduced to playing in our politics today.
Like Scarborough comparing Obama’s contraceptive mandate to the federal government mandating female deacons in the Southern Baptist Church, it’s not about truth or facts, it’s what partisan propaganda you can spew to raise the roof.