A lot of chatter about this latest outburst from CNN’s newest hire:In re: the linked post from James Joyner, the (kind of) from Cole is because Joyner's an right-wing hack and apologist who still gives Erickson cover while basically saying the same thing Cole did: that Erickson isn't stupid enough to actually believe what he says.ERICKSON: This is crazy. What gives the Commerce Department the right to ask me how often I flush my toilet? Or about going to work? I’m not filling out this form. I dare them to try and come throw me in jail. I dare them to. Pull out my wife’s shotgun and see how that little ACS twerp likes being scared at the door. They’re not going on my property. They can’t do that. They don’t have the legal right, and yet they’re trying.Anyone who is surprised by this needs their head examined. Seriously. I know Erick, chatted with him for years while I wrote at Red State, and he knows that 90% of what he spews is utter nonsense. James Joyner got at this (kind of) the other day. You can say a lot of things about Erick, but he isn’t this stupid, he knows what he is doing. You at home can do your own math on the stupid to evil ratio.
Regardless, I’m sure there are people who are surprised that Erick would continue to say explosive things after his hire, including probably some of the clowns at CNN, but they shouldn’t. At this point, he has every single incentive to keep saying explosive and incendiary things. CNN hired him in spite of everything he had already said, so that was a de facto green light to continue in that vein. It will drive the ratings, and is clearly what he wants.
But an interesting tid-bit slipped through the cracks. In the discussion between Howie Kurtz & Erickson, in which Kurtz got as rough as Barney Fife questioning Aunt Bee, there was this exchange:
KURTZ: Yes. And She never said that, and she assures me that she never said that.
The first lady, you wrote the following — the headline was, “Is Obama shagging hookers behind the media’s back?” And you write, “I assume not. I assume that Obama’s Marxist harpy wife would go Lorena Bobbit on him should he even think about it.”
Why would you describe Michelle Obama in those terms?
ERICKSON: Well, you know, back during the campaign trail in 2008, a lifetime ago, frankly, in blogging, I was very passionate, very aggressive in defending my side. And at the time that I wrote that, the Eliot Spitzer story was breaking, and the point was — distracted by the language, obviously — that Barack Obama was as much a creature of the media as Eliot Spitzer was. Neither have been investigated. And, you know, since that time, I’ve really learned, headed into, frankly, the David Souter comment, that I don’t have to get personal in blogging to make my point. I’ve definitely evolved over time.
evolve (ē välv′, -vôlv′; i-)
- to develop by gradual changes; unfold
- to set free or give off (gas, heat, etc.)
- to produce or change by evolution
Etymology: L evolvere, to roll out or forth < e-, out + volvere, to roll: see walk
- to develop gradually by a process of growth and change
- ☆ to become disclosed; unfold
I used to be a juvenile foul-mouthed prick who would say outrageous stuff to get attention with no regard to the truthfulness of said statements.
But now I've . . . grown? Or grown up? or evolved?
So he's now better than before because he evolved from a fire-breathing wingnut blogger into a better-spoken Republican spokeperson?
Either way, his evolution doesn't speak well of his previous condition, which required evolution. Which he still doesn't believe in. Or something.