5 votes

Erick Erickson: "Mitt Romney as the Nominee: Conservatism Dies and Barack Obama Wins"



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Erickson is hardcore establishment

and when you are establishment, it doesn't matter if you are republican or democrat.

Establishment wants Obama again and Romney will help folks get there.

Erickson has always been pro-obamaney and been vicious to all the conservatives in the race - knocking them all down and leaving Romney alone.

jj

So does this mean that Erickson is campaigning for obama now?

& likes to bend over & take it? His words not mine

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/04/12/the-harriet-miers-p...

That site is full of buffoons

They were originally for Perry then they hopped on the Cain bandwagon then on the Gingrich bandwagon then on the Santorum bandwagon and now they support Romney. For each of those bandwagons they put down the other candidates only to later hop on that candidate`s wagon lol...

In November (the month that entry was done was November 2011) most of them were on the Cain-train (some were still for Perry) putting down Gingrich, Santorum and Romney. They aren`t conservatives, they are Romney-like with their finger in the air to see in what direction the wind's blowing.

If Obama had an "R" beside his name, they would be supporting him regardless of what he supports or does, a bunch of buffoons...

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an

You said it

there all flip floppers

Romney, the silly putty of politicians

That reminds me of one of the fantastic four, Reed Richards, AKA Mr Fantastic. He is the One who can be like rubber, and stretch. Romney even looks like Reed Richards. LOL

What? Huntsman 2012:)

They tried everything to avoid Ron Paul http://video.msnbc.msn.com/morning-joe/45204585#45204585

Erickson is just a

Erickson is just a presstitute wannabe.
Just another whore .
And he's dumb too.
But Faux New pays him for it.

oh, and Miguel--

I'm not voting you down because I disagree with Erickson; I appreciate this being pointed out. It's valid reading to understand the mentality of many Americans.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

"the other candidates are a 'pathetic lot'"?

I don't think so, Mr. Erickson.

Doesn't he completely leave out Dr. Paul? Or did I just not read it correctly? He either left out Ron Paul (calling the candidates a 'pathetic lot') or he considers Dr. Paul to be part of the 'pathetic lot'--

either way there is no support here.

He may be right about Obama and Romney; so what!?

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Interesting, Erick Erickson

Interesting, Erick Erickson says,
”To beat Barack Obama, a candidate must paint a bold contrast with the Democrats on their policies.”

Well, which candidate does that? Is it Santorum who voted to raise the debt ceiling five times out of five times, and every budget he voted for was unbalanced. He never held principled to insisting on a balanced budget. Santorum voted in favor of tthe expansion of Medicare, the largest expansion of socialist programs since the “Great Society”. Santorum voted to double the size and powers of the Department of Education, another big government centralized social planning and control program. Santorum voted in favor of direct subsidies of taxpayer money to medical clinics that performed abortions (so long as that particular money did not fund abortions as if it makes any difference at all. Gee the X dollars subsidy money will go to payroll and overhead leaving exactly X dollars more to be used for abortion procedures). He supports redistribution of wealth through ethanol subsidies.

Is it the Newt with over two decades in the house and becoming speaker, yet he also repeatedly raised the debt ceiling, and every final budget he supported except for one was unbalanced and adding to the debt. The Newt, who never acted to eliminate a single government Department, nor did he even suggest such elimination as part of his platform in his presidential run (at least Rick Perry gave lip service to doing so). The Newt who idolizes FDR, proposing to add him to Mt. Rushmore. The Newt who joined with Nancy Pelosi in support of an international governing body for onerous cap and trade regulations (the world government extortion tax) in order for nations or free people to use any energy. The Newt who also wants to redistribute wealth through ethanol subsidies, who supported government health insurance while and health insurance mandates in Congress, who supports WTO and GATT and other bureaucratic bodies for world government, who repeatedly supported federal gun control laws like the Lautenberg Act, the Newt Gingrich who proposed a system of mandatory internal passports and checkpoints in order to be able to travel within the United States, and Newt’s list of big government, tax and spend, command and control, and redistribution of wealth support is enough to fill an encylopedia

And of course Erick admits it is not Romney, whose record we already know about: http://www.dailypaul.com/225796/romney-expose

There is only one candidate who paints a bold contrast, who has not only consistently espoused principled virtuous stances on government’s proper role for thirty years, but also has steadfastly held to them unwaveringly. That candidate is the only one Erick Erickson refuses to even mention – President Ron Paul. Erick Erickson espouses lip service support for fiscal responsibility and constitutional and free market values but in reality when the greatest opportunity to embrace such presents itself, Erick Erickson actively suppresses and works against such opportunity. What does that reveal about Erick Erickson?

Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl

Romney isn't conservative in any way.

Unfortunately for Erickson and his gang, they aren't conservative either.
They don't even know what "conservative" means.
They are all progressives, but running around telling each other how "conservative" they are.
They're idiots.

How is it

that you know what I am thinking all the time? Enjoy reading your comments.

*May the only ones to touch your junk, be the ones you want to touch your junk.*

Great minds think alike!

Ha-ha!

:^)

is erick erickson even half

is erick erickson even half serious? that cess pool pig is pathetic ... i can't stand even the thought or the sight of such stupidity

All paper money eventually returns to its real intrinsic value, zero. - Voltaire

Article is from November

And no mention of Ron Paul in the context of being a viable candidate.

I'd say this is DATED!!!

But I DO like the thread header!

=======
RON PAUL 2012

Yes it is from November of last year

I know alot of people who read redstate.com so I thought they might like to read it;)

LittleWing's picture

Romney will not beat Obama

Definition of Insanity (image)
http://www.davidicke.com/images/stories/January20126/390293_...

Obama Romney: Two wings of the same bird
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1302/1046937505_484ce3b38d.jpg

If Wars Can Be Started by Lies, They Can Be Stopped By Truth.