Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The blogosphere has added another star to the mainstream media pundit list. Unfortunately, it's Erick Erickson of Red State, who has long history of saying truly vile things and is little more than a budding Michael Savage. And he's just been hired by CNN. Media Matters documents and links to some of those really vile things he's said. Like this:
At Red State, Erickson defended Glenn Beck's assertion that President Obama is a "racist." Erickson stated, "A while back, Glenn Beck called Barack Obama a 'racist.' Given all the terrorists, thugs, and racists Barack Obama has chosen as close personal friends (see e.g. Rev. Wright), it's not a stretch to say it." Erickson went on to call for a boycott of companies that have pulled out of Beck's show and are, according to Erickson, "kowtowing to Barack Obama's worshippers, brownshirts, goons, and thugs."
And this:
In a blog post headlined, "Is Obama Shagging Hookers Behind the Media's Back?" Erickson stated, "I assume not. I assume that Obama's marxist harpy wife would go Lorena Bobbit on him should he even think about it, but I ask the question to make one simple point: Barack Obama, like Elliott Spitzer, is a creation of the liberal media and, as a result, could be a serial killing transvestite and the media would turn a blind eye."
And this:
On his Twitter account, Erickson responded to Souter's retirement from the Supreme Court by stating, "The nation loses the only goat fucking child molester ever to serve on the Supreme Court."
Nice hire, CNN.
Politics
Comments
I love how the second quote shows that right-wing men are literally afraid of strong women cutting off their penises.
Posted by: penn | March 17, 2010 12:17 PM
Ummm...I'm not too hip on libel laws, but can't Erickson be sued for calling someone a goat fucking child molester? Or is there a famous incident involving Souter that I'm not aware of?
Posted by: Captain Mike | March 17, 2010 12:22 PM
Your liberal media.
Posted by: R. Sherman | March 17, 2010 12:22 PM
Sorry, I meant "successfully sued."
This isn't one of those things where Glenn Beck or a similar idiot "just asks questions." Erickson comes right out and says Souter has committed bestiality and molested kids.
Posted by: Captain Mike | March 17, 2010 12:24 PM
I can't stand it when these kinds of people are legimated by mainstream sources.
Recently, I was annoyed to find that an article in The Economist magazine and an article in Foreign Policy both cited Michelle Malkin referring to President Obama as the "groveller in chief". Malkin's just a shrill harpy who throws red meat to her fanboys. She is not a serious thinker or an expert on foreign policy. Same when Dunkin Donuts caved to her and her partners in crime when they made a stink about Rachel Ray wearing a scarf that they deemed looked suspiciously "pro-Palestinian" in an online commercial Ray did for them.
These peeople should be marginalized and ignored, not validated.
Posted by: Tommykey | March 17, 2010 12:24 PM
Stay classy, CNN. Stay classy.
Posted by: Orac | March 17, 2010 12:31 PM
This is like high school all over again. The "cool" kids get clothes that are, at best, ghastly so the others think they have to get clothes that are even worse in order to fit in. Fox News has people like Beck who is, at best, insane so CNN thinks they have to get someone who apparently comes to their baseness by nature.
Posted by: Jeremy Shaffer | March 17, 2010 12:35 PM
Captain Mike,
In this country, a prominent public figure is pretty much fair game for anyone to (verbally) abuse as much as they want. You and I might be able to sue, but not a SCOTUS justice.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | March 17, 2010 12:37 PM
In other news, has Erick Erickson every addressed internet rumors that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990?
Posted by: JohnV | March 17, 2010 12:40 PM
If you think this is bad, you should hear the (additional) anti-feminist comments Erikson has made.
Posted by: catgirl | March 17, 2010 12:44 PM
Yep, "Clinton News Network" indeed; seems CNN is a wee bit jealous of Fox' talent for courting the lowest common denominator. I love MSNBC, the BBC, and NPR so much right now.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 17, 2010 12:50 PM
Was that sarcasm R. Sherman? I'd like to think so, but can't be certain because, according to VRWC on the Huffpo thread, CNN is entirely liberal, biased, etc.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 17, 2010 1:01 PM
I would protest CNN's hiring of Erick Erickson, but I'm too busy in the kitchen shaving my legs.
Posted by: feminazi | March 17, 2010 1:03 PM
Didn't cnn give Beck his own show, no surprise!
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | March 17, 2010 1:04 PM
Apparently CNN felt the need for a cat-felching sibling-rapist on its staff.
Posted by: Dave | March 17, 2010 1:13 PM
Well it's about time! Now bring me my potpie!!!
[Joke w/Breakfast Club reference]
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 17, 2010 1:16 PM
I love how the second quote shows that right-wing men are literally afraid of strong women cutting off their penises.
Afraid...and yet, I suspect, irresistably attracted. I'm willing to bet these loonies have at least as much hots for Michelle Obama as they do for Bible Spice.
You and I might be able to sue, but not a SCOTUS justice.
Actually, a comment that hateful about Souter's private life just might be actionable, if Souter was able to show he was harmed by it.
I love MSNBC, the BBC, and NPR so much right now.
Al Jazeera's pretty good too.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 17, 2010 1:16 PM
No, I shouldn't. I just ate. However, I'd like a pot pie too, as long as they're free.
Posted by: Captain Mike | March 17, 2010 1:23 PM
Penn @ #1:
I'm not a right-wing man, but I want to assure you that I too am literally afraid of strong women cutting off my penis.
Not that I think it very likely, or that I spend a lot of time worrying about it, but if the possibility were to present itself, I assure you that I would be very very afraid. I think it's natural to be afraid of something like that.
Posted by: nickcan | March 17, 2010 1:29 PM
Of course it was sarcasm. What's the VRWC equivalent of Poe's law?
Posted by: R. Sherman | March 17, 2010 1:34 PM
I know someone they could hire to give some of that"balance" they love so much....
Posted by: DrugMonkey | March 17, 2010 1:43 PM
Captain Mike @4: Scott Hanley's response @8 is not quite correct. Yes, Souter is a public figure, which means that he (unlike ordinary people such as us) couldn't sue over a Beck-style "some say" allegation. But he can sue if it meets a much higher standard. He would have to be able to prove that (1) the statement was made with malice aforethought and (2) the defendant either knew (or should have known) that the statement was false, or made the statement with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false. (Point 2 is not provable for a "some say" allegation, because somebody--even if it's only the person making the "some say" allegation--might actually be saying it.) It's a difficult standard to meet, but I think it has been done at least once: Carol Burnett vs. the National Enquirer. I don't know whether Erickson has actually flat-out made the accusation, but if he has then Souter would have a chance (but by no means a certainty) of prevailing. Nonetheless, given the high bar to clear and Souter's modest means, I can understand if he decides not to go that route.
Posted by: Eric Lund | March 17, 2010 1:45 PM
Captain Mike Ummm...I'm not too hip on libel laws, but can't Erickson be sued for calling someone a goat fucking child molester? Or is there a famous incident involving Souter that I'm not aware of?
Even without the "public figure" issue, it's probably one of the same outs as in the Falwell v. Hustler case: if a reasonable person would not believe that the statements described actual facts, it can't be libel. So, unless Souter can present evidence that some particular and otherwise reasonable person believed it, and that actual harm to Souter resulted, it's just the wonder of Freedom of Speech.
You might want to re-watch "The People vs. Larry Flynt" on DVD. You might also want to ask a lawyer, because I-Am-Not-A-Lawyer.
Posted by: abb3w | March 17, 2010 1:56 PM
Got to be something related to claims of liberal media bias in the face of all contrary evidence to actual measurable bias. I think we may have actually reached that level of inanity. Almost every thread where conservatives argue/debate, you see some reference to liberal media bias followed (quite ironically) by a Faux "News" talking point, reference to a Faux "News" celebrity, or direct reference to fairness, balance, etc. The rate at which conservatives/Republicans blindly follow/trust Faux "News" while at the same time trashing the "liberal media" has, I believe, reached the level of Poe/Godwin status. We just have to figure out the actual rudiments of an internet law to go with it.
Something along the lines of "someone making a joking/sarcastic reference to liberal media bias is virtually indistinguishable from someone who honestly believes and asserts that all non Fox media is liberal and biased, while arguing that Fox is accurate and unbiased."
Something of a bias blind spot catch-22.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 17, 2010 2:21 PM
@Eric Lund: The actual tweet in question was this:
Erickson isn't making a "some say" allegation, he's coming right out and saying it. However, I think abb3w may have a point.
Posted by: Captain Mike | March 17, 2010 2:28 PM
The legal problem is that not only would Souter have to prove that the statement damaged him, but that it was false and Erickson both knew it was false and was simultaneously aware that this false statement would damage Souter.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 17, 2010 2:41 PM
abb3w is correct that you have to make a real accusation, rather than just engage in name-calling. Calling someone a mofo is understood to be a nasty name, but not a real description of sexual behavior, and wouldn't be libelous in the same way that "he has sex with his mother" would be.
Since "goat fucking child molester" is not any kind of standard insult, it treads pretty close to the line of being libelous. But it's also so over the top that the defense could plausibly argue that "no one believes I was really saying he does that."
Posted by: Scott Hanley | March 17, 2010 2:48 PM
"Apparently CNN felt the need for a cat-felching sibling-rapist on its staff.
Posted by: Dave | March 17, 2010 1:13 PM"
Dave - Lou Dobbs's position!
Posted by: VikingMoose | March 17, 2010 2:51 PM
I love how all the people on here are bashing this Red State guy for the stuff he says when equally vile things are said on this site all the time. If you are going to have scorn for foul-mouthed scumbags, maybe you can have it equally for all, including those with the same political persuasion as your own.
Posted by: mroberts | March 17, 2010 3:02 PM
Barack Obama, like Elliott Spitzer, is a creation of the liberal media and, as a result, could be a serial killing transvestite and the media would turn a blind eye.
Except the media did not turn a blind eye to Elliot Spitzer, or is Erickson's memory really that porous?
Posted by: Shay | March 17, 2010 3:08 PM
I love how all the people on here are bashing this Red State guy for the stuff he says when equally vile things are said on this site all the time.
I love how mroberts makes transparently false equivalency arguments and never provides a single example or other evidence to back any of it up. Actually, I'm lying there, I don't really love it, it's just plain boring and predictable...
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 17, 2010 3:23 PM
Way to miss the point, as usual, mrcatfuckingroberts. The people on this blog do not have multi-million dollar contracts with major news networks where they can spout their venom to an audience of millions. They are commentors on a blog - a popular blog, yes, but as popular as Ed may be, his blog does not have an audience the size of CNN, and the commentors DO NOT GET PAID.
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | March 17, 2010 3:25 PM
bybelknap,
Over at Orac's place I hear Big Pharma is handing out checks....
Posted by: MikeMa | March 17, 2010 4:00 PM
Way to avoid accountability Mikema. Put up evidence or shut up. And even if he was paid, there's still the mountain of carefully documented evidence and solid analysis to refute the onslaught of anti-vax claims.
And to stay OT, here's to hoping the Internet renders most TV and newspapers too costly to support themselves.
Posted by: IDM | March 17, 2010 5:37 PM
Clearly a case of Tourette's Syndrome mistaken for a common editorial.
Posted by: Jason Failes | March 17, 2010 11:17 PM
Well, he certainly can't be any worse than the vile and utterly despicable Nancy Grace, can he?
Posted by: peter | March 17, 2010 11:30 PM
I love how all the people on here are bashing this Red State guy for the stuff he says when equally vile things are said on this site all the time.
But Ed still lets you post here.
Posted by: gwangung | March 18, 2010 12:53 AM
Good work IDM. Time to recalibrate that sarcasm meter :P
Posted by: JohnV | March 18, 2010 9:16 AM
Mrroberts - (How's the leftorium going?)said "...love how all the people on here are bashing this Red State guy for the stuff he says when equally vile things are said on this site all the time."
And example of your claim is....? - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | March 18, 2010 9:23 AM
Has ANYONE pointed out in the media that along with Erickson, one of the co-founders of Redstate was a "Thomas Crown," who famously posted that liberals not only aren't patriotic Americans but also aren't even fully human but, rather, dog-like animals that had learned to walk upright and mimic human speech, and that he looked forward to the day when they were all dead and in Hell?
It's clear support and endorsement for domestic terrorism, WAY worse than anything Jeremiah Wright ever said. Why isn't Erickson having to answer for his business partnership with a man who hopes for about half of America to die? Why isn't this his Jeremiah Wright?
Posted by: TTT | March 18, 2010 1:50 PM