Apparently this blogger called Erickson and asked him about the Souter comment. This is how he replied:
I called Erickson about this an he was unapologetic, though he said he shouldn't have said it. He said he doesn't really believe Justice Souter is a child molester or into beastiality.
"I shouldn't have (written it)," he said. "I was just creatively expressing my disdain for a guy that hates America. ... I was expressing my opinion of the man. I don't think anyone took it as fact."
Asked if it was appropriate for an elected official and nationally known political figure to call a retiring Supreme Court justice a goat ****er, Erickson replied:
"Probably not. In hindsight I shouldn't have said it. I felt good at the time saying it."
If any of you ever wonder why we can't get things done in Macon, it's partly because we spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with things like this.
Ignoring the fact that he didn't really apologize at all, I want to ask this: What exactly does he mean by Souter hates America? Is this the way that far-right folks like him refer to anyone who disagrees with them? "So-and-so disagrees with my view about the marginal tax rate on upper incomes -- THUS THEY HATE AMERICA!"
I have disagreements with people all the time, but I've never told someone they hated the entire country because they had a different vision of it than I did. And I'm certainly not arrogant enough to say that my point of view and personal philosophy represents America, and that if you don't agree with me you don't agree with the country as a whole and must hate it. That's not only arrogant, it's paranoid beyond belief.
Heck, if Eric doesn't notice, the vast majority of America just threw his party out people with his beliefs everywhere. Could it be possible that most of America hates America?
Wait, what the hell does that even mean? Maybe this whole line of idiotic reasoning should go to the dumps, and if the pundits and bloggers who use it won't stop, so should they.
0 comments:
Post a Comment