But That Was Another Country, and Besides That Party Is Dead

Me: Friends, Bloggers, Countrymen, lend me your ears.

Pinku-Sensei: What happened to the ears we lent you last week?

Me: Well I stuck them to my chariot.

Dinthebeast: But why?

Me: 'Cause they're chariot ears.

(much pummeling commences)

Fine, fine, I'll get serious here.

I come to bury the Republican Party, if to praise its worth before the madness struck in 1992 um 1980 okay 1968. It's at the point in our history now that with Trump sinking in the polls with no sign of recovery, and with growing likelihood that the Democrats regain the Senate and may even regain the House, we need to start wondering just what the hell the remnants of the GOP is going to do post-Election Day.

If I can hedge my bets, if Trump does indeed pull of an upset now - unlikely, not enough states will vote for him - the Party is still screwed because the twisted mindset Trump brings to the table would honestly bankrupt the party (and the nation).

If Hillary wins with a solid Republican Congress, the Party is still doomed because their ongoing obstructionist habits can't last (the demographics are finally turning against them).

And a big reason the Republicans are doomed happens because - for what I see of the party today - there is no sound or diverse leadership that can lead the party out of their blind obsessions. Whatever you think of Paul Ryan as Speaker, he's doomed. The same wingnut faction within his own House that ousted Boehner is going to want his scalp for "lack of fealty" to Trump and his failure to bring Obama (or Hillary) before them in handcuffs. And then things get nasty: Who can you picture among the elected leadership in the GOP taking control of this rampaging beast? Trey Gowdy?!

Don't take my word for it. Let's ask Bruce Bartlett at the Washington Post:

I was wrong. I now see that Trump’s candidacy has exacerbated the Republican Party’s weaknesses, alienating minorities, fracturing the base and stunting smart policy development. The party’s structural problems are so severe that reform is impossible. Even if Trump loses and the GOP races to forget him, the party is doomed. And very few of our leaders seem to care.

In the short run, it will be easy for Republicans to convince themselves that nothing needs to change. The establishment believes that Trump is an anomaly, an aberration. GOP leaders think the party’s next nominee will be a more typical politician who knows the issues, has well-developed debating skills and who will appeal to the elite and the Trumpkins. Someone like John Kasich or Marco Rubio...

You can already see the problem of leadership: Kasich and Rubio are NOT sound options for future leadership. Kasich doesn't appeal to the base (which is crazy because Kasich is a solid Right Winger) and Rubio's an empty-suit no-show at the job. And Trump is not an anomaly: He fit exactly what the Republican voting base wanted. You can't ignore that fact, not ever...

Back to Bartlett:

Many leaders also assume that Hillary Clinton is an automatic One-Termer. They think she’s incompetent, scandal-ridden and hell-bent on destroying the economy. They know, too, that neither party has held the White House for more than three terms in the post-World War II era.

Incompetent, no. Scandal-ridden, only because the GOP leadership made her so. And despite their differences in ideology, nothing Hillary promises will crash the economy the way the Republicans' Supply Side obsessions have done.

Let's take a serious look at history for a moment: the possibility of Hillary as a One-Termer. That is likely: Historically speaking there's been few back-to-back Two-Termers. However, those back-to-backs happened at a time - Jefferson, Madison, Monroe - when the two-party system died as the Federalists slid from power. And the Federalists died because - as the Republicans are finding out now - they failed to adapt and alienated a majority of voters outside of their regional power-base.

The Republicans came into this election cycle thinking that it was normal for parties to switch control of the White House like clockwork. It's not. Historically, parties retain control of the Presidency due to two things: 1) solid economic growth/stability or 2) terrible opposing parties. The Democrats stayed in control from Jefferson to Jackson thanks to the fall of the Federalists. The Whigs beat Van Buren because of the first major economic Panic caused by Jackson's bank-breaking. Republicans held onto the White House from 1860 to 1884 thanks to the Democrats being associated with treason (except for a stolen 1876 election, which still spoke to a weak Democratic Party unable to fight it out). Republicans retained the White House after Grover Cleveland's interruptions from McKinley to Taft due to the Yukon Gold Rush, Teddy's Progressive movement, and Taft's judicial sensibilities. The Democrats held on through an unheard-of four terms of FDR because the Great Depression was that huge an economic crisis and because of the Second World War, with Truman continuing that control on his own terms only getting kicked out because of a mismanaged Korean War and major recession at the time.

Basically, there's no predictable cycle of party control of the White House. For the Republicans to buy into that myth highlights part of their myopia.

Okay, enough side-track. Back to Bartlett:

But Clinton’s chances of being reelected in 2020 are better than Republicans think. Already, Democrats have a virtual lock on 18 states, giving them an almost automatic 242 electoral votes. States such as Virginia, Colorado and Florida routinely vote Democratic, too.

The Republicans wanted to fight their electoral battles using Demographics and Geography instead of the Issues. Well, now that's killing them. They've done such a wonderful job trying to sell their Southern Strategy to states that can't condone that kind of mindset that the Southern states are the only ones they might have left (and they're losing Georgia either this cycle or the next).

I've pointed out earlier that when it comes to guaranteed, lock-down states the Democratic Party (California, New York, Illinois with 104 EV) has a massive advantage over Republicans (Texas at 38 EV) that by the time you throw in the mid-sized states - Massachusetts (11), Pennsylvania (20), Maryland (10), Washington (12), Virginia (13) and Michigan (16) guaranteed for 72 additional EV to Democrats - that the next guaranteed state for the GOP with Tennessee (11 EV) doesn't help one bit.

There is currently no way for Republicans to break the strangleholds that the Democrats have on those Solid Blue states. The only way to do that is to change their messaging and ideology: The platform the GOP is selling now - anti-Immigrant, anti-women - gets them NOWHERE in California at all. (edit) Conversely, the Democrats can break the stranglehold Republicans have on Texas - their last main Electoral College anchor - simply by waiting for enough Latinos and women voters to ragequit the GOP over the Republicans' terrible ideology. And that can happen now or 2020. It's already just a matter of time...

Okay, just one more visit to Bartlett:

Eventually, of course, Democrats will become corrupt, will overreach or will bear the blame for things beyond their control, like a recession. They may foolishly nominate someone too far Left for the country, giving a Republican another shot at the White House. A strong leader could change the GOP’s trajectory, like Dwight Eisenhower did after five straight Republican presidential losses from 1932 to 1948. He put the party, as Conservative then as it is today (just read the 1952 platform) on a more Moderate, technocratic path that continued for a quarter-century through Richard Nixon (note: snerk) and Gerald Ford. A leader like Eisenhower might help right the GOP, attracting moderate voters and enhancing the party’s crossover appeal.

Wouldn't it be pretty to think so? That the Republicans could eventually lose their Far Right mindset and find another Eisenhower? If there is a GOP Savior to be had among the pandering Tax-Cut Slashers leading the party today (hint: there isn't)?

It's just not any time soon. Here's blogger PM Carpenter looking at how deluded the "rational" conservative leadership among the bloggers are going to be:

...What, then, is next for the GOP? Fortunate it is that Erick Erickson, formerly of RedState.com, troubles to offer a template. Most unfortunate, however, is that his articulated vision as a fresh model is damn near incomprehensible.

Erickson's vision for his erstwhile party? It's the old Get-Washington-out-of-our-lives trope. "Voters are being held hostage by hollow promises … [that] Washington power will make their lives better," he writes. Washington was never meant "to be the center of all solutions. Republicans need to focus less on Washington and more on fostering local community..."

There's a slight problem with that: The Republicans have been shilling this "End Washington Control" snake-oil for 40 years. There is nothing new here. It's the same bland marketing ploy without even a fresh coat of paint on it.

Okay, back to PM trout-slapping Erickson:

One point he's inarguably missing is that, prior to the federal government's being what it is today, neighbors and churches and communities found themselves abjectly incapable of providing needed help in tough times. Prior to minimum wages, prior to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the entire panoply of federal safety nets, local communities and state governments were far too strapped and overburdened to be of service to the acutely burdened themselves...

All this, Erickson dismisses, probably more from - I'll be charitable - willful blindness than innate fatuity...

Our former RedStater goes on to propose that a new Republicanism be "the party of religious liberty," as though religious Democrats and confirmed atheists aren't all for that...

And of course Erickson throws in the old Republican bugaboo of yet "lower taxes," which would of course would further gut the inarguable effectiveness of all the federal government does, which of course Erickson chooses not to see.

In short, little to none of what Erickson proposes is realistic. It's the same, old, unworkable model of reactionary smallness - the very refusal to cope with modern civilization that has plagued Republicanism for decades...

If Erickson's model for recovery is the only thing the Republicans have to work with, it's going to be the same damn mess that will fall apart again in 2020. No lessons learned, the same mistakes played over and over again expecting better outcomes. And most likely another con artist candidate trying to sell it all.

This is why I've called the Republican Party mad for years. And incompetent to boot.

Infidel753: Well, that wasn't much of a spectacle!

Batocchio: That wasn't even a monocle! Ho-ho-ho-ho!

That's Not How the Electoral College Works

That's not how The Force works! - Han Solo to rookie hero Finn in The Force Awakens

And remember kids, Han was the Skeptic in the original trilogy.

I'm just quoting this because one of the less sane proposals floating out there by the Far Right media hacks - currently terrified that a Trump candidacy will kill the GOP in the general election - is the idea that a Third Party campaign by a "more sincere movement conservative" would split enough votes between Trump, likely Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, and INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE that it would send the results into the House of Representatives for Congress to settle who wins.

That's how the election works, by the by. It's not by Popular count, it's by who wins which states, and the states send Electors depending on the number of Congresspersons (varies) and Senators (+2) they have. Wyoming sends 3 Electors, Florida sends 29, California sends 55. Whomever gets the majority of Electors (divide the total by two, then add 1, that's (538 / 2) = 269 +1 = 270, hence 270towin.com ) wins outright. If no one crosses 270 total, it goes to the House and the House chooses between the top three Electoral getters.

That means the third-party person HAS to win a state to get considered. That's something to bring up later.

You see, there's still that key point of "who wins each state." Because the people - like Erick Erickson, hello again - floating this third-party savior idea do not seem to understand how that is going to play out in a three-way race.

The Third Party Republican Rescue Squad (or TPRRS) seem to think that they can split the existing Red States between Trump and their INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE. And that somehow in the process they can take away enough Blue States from Hillary, even though she'll be campaigning most likely on Obama's legacy and HE won those states with majority counts.

(This is probably because Erickson and his ilk are convinced Trump will take away liberal/moderate voters from Hillary. After all, they're still convinced that Trump is No True Conservative.)

So, just to even start this conversation, we have to ignore the fact that Obama won a majority of states (29 of them) in 2012, and that he won them in head-to-head voter turnouts by getting more voters in each state to show for him instead of Romney. We have to ignore the fact that all Hillary (or Bernie) has to do to win in 2016 is win the same states Obama won in 2012 (which is likely) and it doesn't even matter if Trump and INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE splits the remaining Red States. We have to ignore the fact that Obama in 2012 got 332 Electoral votes, easily clearing the 270 hurdle and avoiding the House of Representatives altogether.

This is how insane Erickson and the TPRRS plan already is.

If we go in to examine the evidence a little closer, let's for example look at how Florida in 2012 voted. Obama got 4,235,000-plus votes: Romney got 4,162,000-plus votes. Let's assume that Hillary will get the same voters as Obama (4.2 million roughly), but here comes Trump and INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE fighting over the 4.1 million Romney got. Let's figure Trump gets the 45 percent of the Republican primary voters he got just now, so INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE get the 55 percent
(let's figure in the independent NPA voters who will vote Republican into this mix at 50-50 to keep things simple). Thing is, these two candidates will be fighting over a PERCENTAGE of the Romney vote, which in toto was STILL LESS than Obama's (and likely Hillary's). 55 percent of 4.1 million is 2.25 million voters for INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE and Trump gets the remaining 1.8 million.

Here's the thing: HILLARY STILL WINS FLORIDA with her 4.2 million votes over INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE's 2.25 million. And it's Winner-Take-All for Electoral College: Hillary gets all 29 Electors.

Now that's in the Blue States that Obama won. By this math, it's obvious that Hillary's going to win Obama's states. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE ELECTION RIGHT THERE. We don't even have to see what happens in the Red States. But just for sh-ts and giggles, let's take a look.

For example, North Carolina. It was a close race there with Romney getting 50 percent of the voters at 2.2 million and Obama getting 48 percent at 2.1 million. So Hillary can come in and get the same 2.1 million. But now here comes Trump and INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE splitting up Mitt's results. Trump got 40 percent of the primary voters, but considering this is a state with his voting base in force (poor White males lacking college education) so let's give him the Cruz vote (37 percent) for a 77 percent total... OF ROMNEY'S NUMBERS. That gives Trump 1.69 million... while Hillary gets that 2.1 million. Guess who wins ALL of North Carolina's Electors in this scenario? Two hints: It won't be Trump, and it won't be INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE. Hillary will actually increase her Electoral College win with this move.

Let's bring in Texas. This is the state that Erickson's pining his hopes on that the INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE can win and thus send the Electoral College into overtime at the House. In 2012 that was a huge win for Romney getting 57 percent turnout at 4.5 million-plus over Obama's 41 percent with 3.3 million. The GOP primary there this 2016 decisively went against Trump (who got 26 percent) while Ted Cruz (whom Erickson does not view as the GOP SAVIOR) got 43 percent. So let's keep Trump at 26 percent while INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE gets 74 percent of Romney's total. That's just over 3.4 million voters... which DOES clear the count that Hillary would get from Obama's voters at 3.3 million. The GOP SAVIOR wins Texas... but there's no guarantee he'll win the other Red States that had decisive Romney wins (anything over 55 percent of the total turnout), because Trump can garner half of those (like Tennessee and West Virginia and South Carolina).

And don't forget, Hillary's still winning all the Obama Blue States from 2012 in any three-way race like this. Which means this is STILL a moot point because she'll be pretty much winning the whole kit and caboodle. It won't matter if a Third Party candidate wins a state away from Trump, because as long as Hillary wins what Obama won this will never get to the House.

A three-way race is not going to guarantee the Electors get thrown to the House to resolve anything: the only way that happens is if Trump AND the INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE both take away the voting numbers from Hillary. But how likely is that?

If you can picture Trump taking away voters from the Democrats using his anti-Immigrant, anti-government stances, you're crazier than I am. If you can picture Trump taking away moderate voters from Democrats on the simple fact he's a Total Newb at politics, you're crazier than that. If you can picture Erick Erickson's GOP SAVIOR (the "movement conservative" whoever that will be) working that same twisted magic to win away the necessary votes, you're the Mayor of Crazytown.

As Steve at No More Mister Nice Blog points out - via Josh Marshall - there is no real difference between Trump and the projected INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE when it comes to the issues. As Marshall noted:

It would be one thing if there were a moderate or establishment independent bid (though it is a dubious proposition that the 'establishment' is really 'moderate', even in the context of the GOP politics). That would provide a very clear contrast with Trump. But if you run a 'movement conservative' against Trump, it gets pretty hard to see where you can find any real points of contrast on any significant issues.

So, hardline on illegal immigration? No real difference.
Hardline on terrorism, needing to say "Islamic terrorism", creeping Sharia or any of the rest. No real difference.
Huge, huge tax cut? Same.
Obamacare terrible? Same.
Generalized opposition to 'political correctness'? Check.
Abortion? Check.
Hating on Obama as feckless, exotic loser? Check...

Marshall notes only one major difference between Trump and the Republican Establishment, and that's on trade. Granted, there may be a significant number of Far Left Democrats who might - might! - switch to Trump on that issue alone. But Trump is so offensive on so many other issues that most self-respecting Progressive Dems will not take that risk (they certainly won't switch to a "movement conservative" whose trade positions are equal or worse than Hillary's).

Essentially, there's no sane reason ANYONE who voted for Obama will switch to either Trump or Erickson's unicorn "movement conservative". You'll get just Hillary standing there holding Obama's legacy while Trump and INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE fight over chicken bones. Those two will just be hammering each other into tiny little pieces.

This is essentially a rehash of the 1992 Election, when Bush the Elder running as the Establishment Republican candidate contended more with the upstart proto-Populist Right-leaning Ross Perot, and split votes with him while Bill Clinton (nowhere near 50 percent Popular vote) kept enough Democratic/Left votes to win enough states and the Electoral College.

Now, granted, we're basing this all on 2012 numbers and turnouts. For all we know, the numbers will be different this November. But the polling so far does not suggest any significant switches from Obama's 2012 states over to the Republicans' side. Given the way a three-way race works out - 1992, 1968, 1912 - the winner is going to be the one who stands on the sidelines and lets the two big bulls pummel each other into cow meat.

And the thing is, both bulls this 2016 cycle are not that big to begin with. Both Trump and INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE are both fighting over Second Place behind Hillary at this point. All that will be at stake in the end is who avoids being in Third.

And just what does Erickson think is going to happen if the miracle occurs, if he and his TPRRS people throw enough states to their Third Party INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE to force it to the House?

It's not going to be pretty.

The math currently points to the Democratic candidate getting the Popular vote, which may still happen in a contested Electoral College count. Trump's Popular vote will likely put him in Second Place in that scenario, with the INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE sitting at Third. If the GOP-lead House opts to put the Third Place guy over both Popular vote winners, it will be a huge insult to a vast majority of voters both Left and Right. Think Democrats are still sore about Dubya winning in 2000 with fewer Popular votes all because of a contested Electoral count for Florida? This will be a thousand times more sickening to them.

And that's not the biggest fallout from that possible move. The Republican Party will split forever (I normally won't argue that point as I believe our system favors two parties, but this is Serious Business).

The Trump faction will NEVER forgive the Republican Establishment for their betrayal. The Democrats will be pissed as well, but the end result is going to be brutal for the Republicans in 2018 when the midterms roll around. Trump's voters will clearly refuse to vote for ANY Republican candidate at any level - and may well run successful Third Party candidates of their own (did anyone hold onto Perot's Reform Party trademarks?).

It probably won't even be 2018 when the damage strikes. If Erickson and the Establishment prop up any third party challenger to Trump this summer, those voters will know right now that the Republican Party bigwigs are setting them up to fall. Betrayed right here and now, Trump's voters will have NO REASON to vote for ANY Republican candidate. Out of sheer spite, they could sit out the key Senate races and even refuse to vote for the Republican House candidates. If Erickson's TPRRS do pull off the House maneuver, it's going to be with a Lame-Duck Republican House in December 2016 that can likely go to the Democrats (even against the massive gerrymandering that favors the GOP right now) the following January 2017... meaning that Erickson's INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE is going to be sitting in the White House all alone against a Democratic-controlled Senate and House. And even though they are Democrats who believe in a working government, they are NOT going to be in a forgiving mood.

It's still a a Lose-Lose scenario for Erickson. Then again, that happens to him a lot for what I've seen how he works...

Man Shoots First Amendment to Prove Second Amendment Is Flawed

We've bumped into Erick Erickson before. The fear-monger threw a conniption back in 2010 over the "invasive" nature of the U.S. Census - despite the fact we're required to have one every ten years and that it's never destroyed lives before - and threatened back then to greet any Census taker with a loaded firearm.

So here he is this weekend throwing another conniption, this time over the New York Times' front-page editorial over gun safety laws. For the first time in over 90 years, the paper of record put an opinion piece on its front page, highlighting the seriousness of the matter: End the Gun Epidemic In America.

But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism...

...It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

So what is Erickson's response to this? A blistering counterpoint? A debate on the merits of the Times' position?

Nope. He shoots the newspaper itself as though he's Standing His Ground:

The paranoid gun fetishist seems to be one of the people who SHOULDN’T own a gun. He clearly does not operate it properly with only the righteous intent of protecting himself. Instead, he is using it to shoot up a newspaper, and in essence, trying to silence the freedom of the press and freedom of speech by use of deadly force. Wouldn’t that be considered a terrorist act? After all, terrorism is defined as “the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.”

This seems to be Erickson's standard response: in the face of a moral quandary or something that annoys his political sensibilities, pull out his phallic replacement and act like he's a manly man deploying the most gross exaggeration of manly American stereotype. "If I don't likes it, I shoots it."

In the process he proves Junius correct one more time, and proves himself an Imposter instead of an Honest Man:

An honest man, like the true religion, appeals to the understanding, or modestly confides in the internal evidence of his conscience. The imposter employs force instead of argument, imposes silence where he cannot convince, and propagates his character by the sword.

See how Erickson propagates his (lack of) character by the sword, going for the gun as his answer to every argument he CAN'T win. And look at his audience, the ones who eat this all up like his act is the sweetest of cupcakes instead of the poison to the Body Republic that it is.

This is a major problem out of many that our nation is facing heading into a winter of discontent and divisiveness. Actually, it's reflective of several: not only the need for gun safety laws in the face of increased mass shootings, but also the need to repair the public forum that's fallen into toxic posturing, bullying, outright lies, and epistemic closures.

And Erickson's act proves one other thing: the Second Amendment can no longer co-exist with the rights and protections established by the First Amendment. The NRA's obsession of turning the Second Amendment from "well-regulated militias" into a license to shoot anybody they don't like now conflicts with the First Amendment's protection for Americans to peaceably assemble in public. How can we, when angry (mostly) men are able to legally purchase weapons of war they can then use in our workplaces, our churches, our schools, our shops and movie theaters?

How can we uphold the First Amendment's protections of a free press - where public opinion and reporting can be published - when Erickson seeks to intimidate that free press by using it for target practice, with direct implication to threaten that action on the people expressing that opinion?

The United States is now caught between two constitutional interpretations. We as a nation need to uphold the one that best serves the public trust - our rights to be at peace with each other, to assemble as citizens, to speak our minds without threat - and we need to reform if not remove the second position that seeks to grant the angriest and most violent of ourselves the power to shoot us all.

And to Erick Erickson: your gun does not protect you from your own flaws and failures. Remember that as you cower in fear, because that's all you've proven this day.

Hypocrite of the Hour: Red State Erickson

Just to note, after the misogynistic things The Trumpster said about Megyn Kelly's hostile questioning of him during Thursday's debate, prominent Republican person Eric(k) Erickson decided to "disinvite" Trump from today's Red State Galloping Gertie Dance.

Conservative commentator Erick Erickson on Friday night disinvited GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump from speaking at an activist conference he is hosting here this weekend, citing disparaging remarks Trump made hours earlier on CNN about Fox News Channel anchor Megyn Kelly.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Erickson said Trump had been scheduled to speak at his RedState gathering on Saturday at the College Football Hall of Fame, but he told Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s campaign manager, about an hour before midnight that Trump was no longer welcome.

Trump’s campaign said in a statement that Erickson’s decision was “another example of weakness through being politically correct. For all the people who were looking forward to Mr. Trump coming, we will miss you. Blame Erick Erickson, your weak and pathetic leader. We’ll now be doing another campaign stop at another location.”

That is the same Erick Erickson responsible for saying such humane and compassionate things about women for years, right?  Via The Guardian:

Things Erickson has suggested include the notion that "Obama’s marxist harpy wife would go Lorena Bobbitt on him" – Bobbitt was a Virginia woman who in 1993 cut off her husband’s penis – "should he even think about it".  It, in this instance, was "shagging hookers behind the media’s back..."

Erickson has also suggested that there was nothing wrong with calling (state senator) Wendy Davis, who in 2013 mounted a 13-hour filibuster against a Texas abortion law, "Abortion Barbie..."

Also a reminder, how Erickson openly crowed on Twitter about the Hobby Lobby decision against workers' access to birth control:

It was a tough choice today.  Celebrate Hobby Lobby by going to Chick-Fil-A or making my wife make me a sandwich. #CFAFTW - 2:41 PM - 30 Jun 2014

Erickson does not have the strongest track record when standing up for women's dignity.  He only seems to do it when 1) it's a conservative woman doing a hit-job on a shared enemy, 2) there's no opportunity for him to insult liberals in the process.  When it's a woman on the opposite political spectrum, Erickson gleefully pulls out the Patriarchal Hat of Snideness and lets fly with the insults.

There is only this difference between Trump and Erickson: when Trump insults a woman it's because he's cluelessly offended by the woman's very existence.  When Erickson insults a woman it's for political gain and self-smug satisfaction.

Either way, both of them are perfect representatives of a Republican party that just finished their Thursday night national debate by pledging to push a ban on abortion with no exceptions, even if the woman's life is at risk.  The entire Republican party has a problem respecting women, period.

A question to Erick Erickson

Far Right commentator Erick Erickson (why he gets hired with CNN while honest journalism grads like me stay unemployed, I'll never understand) made recent comments about the It's-That-Time-of-The-Decade federal Census:

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.

Seeing as how the Commerce Dept. is going to hire me later this month to work part-time as a Census Enumerator, I have a personal question and request for Mr. Erickson:

If it turns out I have to be the little (6-foot-1-inch tall, 300 lb) ACS twerp (I think of myself more as a smartass, actually) knocking at your door, can I go ahead and make arrangements with you to have you shoot me in a non-lethal location?  Say, with me standing in Yeehaw Junction FL and you standing in the Colorado Supermax for taking shots at a federal employee?

I know, I sound like a smartass over here, but seriously these Far Right wingnuts are totally going off the cliff here.  They're all getting paranoid and talking smack about a perfectly legal government function that's been done every decade since this nation was formed under the aegis of the Constitution.  They're all working themselves up into a froth all because this year for some godforsaken reason they're convinced that ZOMG OBAMA ZOMBIE SOCIALISTS ARE GONNA USE THE CENSUS TO EAT OUR BRAINS.

I figure part of the reason the wingnuts are acting up is that in their zeal to hate the federal government they're picking on what have been normal nearly every-day functions of the government.  They rant about service at the DMV (those are state-level functions, and they're actually pretty good in most states).  They rant about the Postal Service (again, the USPS does okay but its problems are that they are losing money as letter-writing gets replaced by emailing and faxing).  They rant about the massive waste and fraud in the national defense budget.   They rant about ANYTHING having to do with the federal government because because because.  Because any effective government program makes their "Government is BAD" meme look foolish or worse a pack of lies.

But this year this term of office, the Far Right are - as I mentioned earlier - going completely over the cliffs.  And a lot of that has to do with their paranoid hatred of Obama.  His being in the White House amps everything up to 11.  Considering they honestly don't HAVE anything on Obama the way they did with Clinton (the previous "questionable" Democrat who dared interrupt the Glorious GOP Revolution that began under Reagan), it just somehow makes it worse because they have to fabricate outrage over everything that doesn't deserve it.

I'm serious here.  Where were these paranoid freaks back in the last census ten years ago?  Was Michelle Bachmann ranting against the Census when she was in the Minnesota State Senate in 2000?  We've had roughly 21 different Census takings over 220 years this nation has existed.  How many complaints were there about the 1990 Census?  My dad was working as an Enumerator back then, did he do anything wrong with your statistics, Mr. Erickson?

Now I admit there was a slight problem with the Census in 1980, but that was quietly resolved with a side order of fava beans and a nice Chianti.  After that, of course...

There was a Census back in 1860: I guarantee you it had nothing to do with the following Civil War (which was fought over slaves no wait States' Rights to be total jerkasses no wait the future peanut industry).  There was a Census after the Civil War ended in 1870: did the Southern states complain about how they were counting people (well, maybe in South Carolina...)?  And there was nothing wrong about the Census back then either: hell, the Census in 1870 was epic because a census taker in San Francisco officially labeled Joshua Norton with the career of Emperor on his tally sheet (click link, scroll 2/3 of the way down, under the pg. 81 spreadsheet).  That was totally awesome!  I can't wait to enumerate, I wonder how many Emperors I'll run into when I do.

Oh, and Mr. Erickson?  I'm really not afraid of you, so I *will* knock on your door if I have to.  And I have to, it'll be my job.  And you'll HAVE to answer the very legal requirements of the Census, per the US Code Title 13, Sections 141, 193, and 221.  Come at me with your wife's skirt shotgun and I'll just list it as a dependent.