Erick Erickson goes nuclear against Rand (nasty attack piece!)

Foreigner

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
423
I did NOT expect this from Erick Erickson. I had respect for him being willing to take on Trump. I don't have any respect left for him now. This is a really a vicious and mean-spirited op-ed from him. Don't read this if you're having a nice day.

I'm not posting the link, but I copied the op-ed below:


Rand Paul, It Is Time to Take Your Campaign Out Back and Shoot It

By: Erick Erickson | October 15th, 2015 at 04:30 AM

“Go home to Kentucky, Senator, and save your Senate seat before Kentucky’s voters take the incompetence of your Presidential campaign as a reflection on you and your Senate campaign.”

What is the most endearing moment of Rand Paul’s Presidential campaign is also the most embarrassing. The senator live streamed his entire day yesterday and took questions from people online. At one point, he referred to it as a “dumb ass live stream.”

It was, as the press called it, “a stunt" — a desperate cry for attention. What is worse is that Rand Paul did not even like it. “I’ve been saying, I don’t want to do this, I don’t want to do this. And now we’re doing this,” Paul told a reporter.

Then he read mean tweets about himself. This was preceded by an August attempt to take on Donald Trump that made such little buzz that I actually did not even realize it. About the only thing that happened was Rand became a punching bag for Donald Trump in the debates.

The reality TV star, no doubt, will next bring up Rand Paul’s stint as an second rate internet star.

The whole thing is embarrassing.

One of Rand Paul’s Super PAC’s has already closed up shop. Paul himself raised $2.5 million, outraised by Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and others. In fact, Paul had raised only $6.9 million in the prior quarter and “the Paul campaign insist[ed] its financials [were] healthy and on an upward trajectory and that the Kentucky senator is ‘in it for the long haul.'”

Paul’s “upward trajectory” is only upward in an upside down world. For two consecutive quarters, Ben Carson has individually beaten Rand Paul and his Super PACs combined.

Paul has taken to bashing Ted Cruz for daring to challenge Washington and has otherwise stood shoulder to shoulder with the Washington insiders the rest of the party is fighting. He has been hampered by a group of Republicans who think he is the second coming of his father and hampered by a separate group of Republicans who realize he is not the second coming of his father.

Paul’s strategic choices have been muddled and have all the hallmarks of a candidate micromanaging a campaign staff that will neither stand up to him, nor guide him, but can apparently bully him into a “dumb ass live stream.” When other candidates went to Iowa, Rand went to Alaska and Wyoming. He has marched to the beat of not just his own drummer, but a drummer no one else can hear.

It is rumored in D.C. that his campaign has serious turmoil between staffers who do not get along and it appears Paul either has too much conflicting advice or is ignoring competent advice all while paying out big bucks to consultants who, at this point, appear to be profiting from a reality TV star making a fool of himself. His campaign has all the hallmarks of a profit motivated staff or a micro-managerial candidate unwilling to take advice.

Rand Paul should be a candidate reflecting on serious issues within the Republican Party. Though I do not necessarily agree with him on all of his core issues, Paul has been a critical voice on the scope of national security surveillance of Americans, the role of government in civil rights, and federalism. But he has failed to get traction on any of those issues, has failed to stand out on any debate stage except to look stoned or serve as plaything for Donald Trump, and has failed to raise a competitive amount of money.

The Paul campaign has about $2 million cash on hand, according to [Paul’s spokesman]. Given that the campaign finished the previous quarter with $4.1 million cash on hand, that suggests the campaign spent more than it took in these past three months. Having spent $4.6 million and taken in $2.5 million, the Paul campaign spent at almost double the rate it earned these past three months.

Rand Paul, on God only knows whose advice, made an early disastrous error by fighting against the Washington GOP in his 2010 election only to go to DC and try not just to work with them, but to do so at the expense of Ted Cruz and Mike Lee. Paul became the Republican “outsider” who his Kentucky colleague Mitch McConnell relied on to throw Cruz and Mike Lee under the bus. That alienated Paul with tea party voters. His failure to aggressively pick up his father’s platform alienated Paul to more hardcore libertarian Ron Paul voters. And Paul has never been able to find a new base of support, having burned bridges will his past coalition.

At this point, if Paul stays in, he is staying in as a candidate to subsidize political consultants, which is something Paul ran against in 2010. He is, in short, becoming the very sort of candidate he fought against in 2010. It is still not clear if he will get on stage in Boulder, CO, at the end of this month given his anemic polling.

About the only thing Rand Paul is now doing in the race is serving as a future George Washington University campaign management class hypothetical in how not to run a Presidential campaign. A man who should be setting the agenda of a new GOP reform path is now, at best, an asterisk, headed toward being a polling asterisk.

And in other news, the head of the Rand Paul Super PAC that has not thrown in the towel already is under indictment.

Rand Paul, this was an interesting run and I am a fan of yours. But your campaign is a bloody embarrassment that needs to be taken out back and put out of its misery. Go home to Kentucky, Senator, and save your Senate seat before Kentucky’s voters take the incompetence of your Presidential campaign as a reflection on you and your Senate campaign.
 
He's clearly ready for the field to narrow so that Cruz and Rubio can battle it out. Those are his predicted final two. I think he wants them on a ticket as well.

He also had a piece out today criticizing Jindal on the filibuster.
 
I heard a local, but syndicated, "conservative" talk show host get a good laugh about this. Then he added that he thought the Rand Paul campaign would have more energy from the Ron Paul supporters. He said we weren't all over the internet and calling into talk radio like he expected. He said he thought that we might be turned off because Rand Paul was not an "isolationist" like his father. Yeah. Wanting to actually have dialog with "enemy" nations rather than wantonly bombing them is isolationism. *smh* I heard this same talk show host and his toady rag liberals for supporting the wars in Libya and Syria. (I agree with them there). But then he tried to distinguish the Iraq war by saying we "had to go in there" because Saddam "wouldn't let the inspectors in." *smhsm" (smack my head some more). Earth to pinhead talk show host. The inspectors were let back in and said they couldn't find anything. So we overthrew Saddam, turned Iraq into a hell-hole that Christians fled by the hundreds of thousands, only for our own inspectors to say they couldn't find anything either. The good news is that (some) Republicans are turning to Ron Paul's supposed "isolationism" even if they are too stupid or proud to admit it.

Edit: And isn't it funny how it's always our fault? If we raise hell it's "Those vocal Ron Paul supporters are hurting the campaign by pissing off the teocons Rand needs to win." So we shut up. "Those vocal Ron Paul supporters are hurting Rand because it looks like he doesn't have any support." I thought we weren't necessary? I beez confused. :confused:
 
Last edited:
Where is article telling Christie, Fiorina, Gilmore, Graham, Huckabee, Jindal, Kasich, Pataki, or Santorum the same thing? Rand is 5% in one of the most recent polls, well within the margin of error of all these candidates. Eric Erickson can stuff it where the sun don't shine.
 
Sad, this guy's actually going to Atlanta Reformed Theological Seminary right now, has been for about a year.

I expect much, much better of him. This is repugnant. My opinion of him just took a huge nosedive.
 
Just actually read the article and found this interesting.


Rand Paul, on God only knows whose advice, made an early disastrous error by fighting against the Washington GOP in his 2010 election only to go to DC and try not just to work with them, but to do so at the expense of Ted Cruz and Mike Lee. Paul became the Republican “outsider” who his Kentucky colleague Mitch McConnell relied on to throw Cruz and Mike Lee under the bus. That alienated Paul with tea party voters. His failure to aggressively pick up his father’s platform alienated Paul to more hardcore libertarian Ron Paul voters. And Paul has never been able to find a new base of support, having burned bridges will his past coalition.


Okay. We need to be honest. A lot has happened to turn off much of the Ron Paul base starting with Jesse Benton sending Peter Schiff a text telling him not to go to PaulFest because he would be around "undesirables" and continuing with the way Rand packaged his talking points to be appealing to teocons. That's just the truth. I was given the impression that "we" didn't matter because Rand had all these teocon supporters and there are much more of them then there are of us. But did Rand really piss off the teocons by feuding with Ted Cruz and not working with Mike Lee? I ask because I honestly don't know. We can be pissed at Erick Erickson, who I never liked in the first place, or we can see if there is any truth to what he's saying and if there is any way to fix the damage. And no. I don't take any solace from the fact that there are a lot of other candidates in single digits along with Rand. Rand was a frontrunner at one time. This wasn't supposed to be the "Let's have faith and not belief the polls and moneybomb our way to victory" campaign of 2008 and 2012. This was supposed to be a Randslide as people joined on the Randwaggon. Sorry but when it comes to the "Don't believe the media hype...we are really winning" arguments, been there, done that. Mike Lee's not running for president right? (I honestly haven't watched any of the GOP debates this time.) Can the Paul campaign reach out to him and mend fences if it's not already too late?
 
Geez, if only Rand we're micromanaging his campaign. That's not the problem and Erickson's blogpost is just a rant, throwing out whatever he wants to spew about Paul, rather than constructive criticism.

Good riddance to another Conservative INC. toady.
 
Any time my political enemies speak negatively of me, I consider it a complement.

Now if this were someone who's opinion I gave a shit about, I'd be concerned.

So thanks Eric, whoever the hell you are, for all of the kind words.
 
'When the newspapers knock a man, there's bound to be a lot of good in him.'--Will Rogers
 
saw the header title and was hoping to see him looking like a mushroom cloud.....oh well.
 
Fuck these clowns, we will weather this false narrative shit storm.

IOWA OR BUST!

at this point it seems like a matter of pride for these wanna be tyrants. the fact that Paul will not leave the race is a slap in their faces.
 
Just actually read the article and found this interesting.


Rand Paul, on God only knows whose advice, made an early disastrous error by fighting against the Washington GOP in his 2010 election only to go to DC and try not just to work with them, but to do so at the expense of Ted Cruz and Mike Lee. Paul became the Republican “outsider” who his Kentucky colleague Mitch McConnell relied on to throw Cruz and Mike Lee under the bus. That alienated Paul with tea party voters. His failure to aggressively pick up his father’s platform alienated Paul to more hardcore libertarian Ron Paul voters. And Paul has never been able to find a new base of support, having burned bridges will his past coalition.


Okay. We need to be honest. A lot has happened to turn off much of the Ron Paul base starting with Jesse Benton sending Peter Schiff a text telling him not to go to PaulFest because he would be around "undesirables" and continuing with the way Rand packaged his talking points to be appealing to teocons. That's just the truth. I was given the impression that "we" didn't matter because Rand had all these teocon supporters and there are much more of them then there are of us. But did Rand really piss off the teocons by feuding with Ted Cruz and not working with Mike Lee? I ask because I honestly don't know. We can be pissed at Erick Erickson, who I never liked in the first place, or we can see if there is any truth to what he's saying and if there is any way to fix the damage. And no. I don't take any solace from the fact that there are a lot of other candidates in single digits along with Rand. Rand was a frontrunner at one time. This wasn't supposed to be the "Let's have faith and not belief the polls and moneybomb our way to victory" campaign of 2008 and 2012. This was supposed to be a Randslide as people joined on the Randwaggon. Sorry but when it comes to the "Don't believe the media hype...we are really winning" arguments, been there, done that. Mike Lee's not running for president right? (I honestly haven't watched any of the GOP debates this time.) Can the Paul campaign reach out to him and mend fences if it's not already too late?

Is anybody going to address ^this? Did Rand really piss off the teocons by not working more closely with Cruz and Lee? If no then how is he going to fix the narrative? If yes than how does he undo the damage? This isn't 2008 and 2012 where all of these people just hated us no matter what. And if it is 2008 and 2012 all over again, please let me know now.
 
Is anybody going to address ^this? Did Rand really piss off the teocons by not working more closely with Cruz and Lee? If no then how is he going to fix the narrative? If yes than how does he undo the damage? This isn't 2008 and 2012 where all of these people just hated us no matter what. And if it is 2008 and 2012 all over again, please let me know now.

Randal never threw them under the bus; he disagreed with their strategy but publically supported their efforts. Its a false narrative.
 
Erikson, as shown previously in the Trump episode, is establishment at crunch time. Real or alleged Rand campaign problems aside, when commanded, he was going to attack Rand whether he was near the top of the primary heap, or near the bottom. In a field where most of the traditional politicians are trailing, Ericson's focus on Rand simply underscores he has joined a selective narrative to only talk Rand down and out of the race, considering there is no equivalent drumbeat of editorials on Huck, Christie, Kasich, etc to get out on the same basis.
 
Randal never threw them under the bus; he disagreed with their strategy but publically supported their efforts. Its a false narrative.

Great. So what is Rand going to do to fix it? Joint press conference with Mike Lee? Press release that he thinks Mitch McConnell should follow John Boener into retirement?

Erikson, as shown previously in the Trump episode, is establishment at crunch time. Real or alleged Rand campaign problems aside, when commanded, he was going to attack Rand whether he was near the top of the primary heap, or near the bottom. In a field where most of the traditional politicians are trailing, Ericson's focus on Rand simply underscores he has joined a selective narrative to only talk Rand down and out of the race, considering there is no equivalent drumbeat of editorials on Huck, Christie, Kasich, etc to get out on the same basis.

Yeah Eric Ericson sucks. That said Huck, Kasich and Christie were never the front runners that Rand once was. Rand shouldn't drop out. But he needs to look at something beyond "live streaming" to breath life into the campaign. The Benton strategy of marginalizing the "crazy" Ron Paul supporters and court the teocons worked as long as the teocons were on board. Now that's not the case even though more and more teocons are accepting his dad's non-interventionist foreign policy while not being willing to admit it. (And only because Obama has put a liberal democratic face on interventionism.)
 
Back
Top