Conservative activist and radio host Erick Erickson, distraught at Republican voters choosing Donald Trump as their nominee, wants the GOP to officially apologize to former president Bill Clinton.
In a Friday blog post, Erickson accused Republicans of hypocrisy for having impeached Clinton in the 1990s for his conduct toward women, while now backing a “womanizer” in their own party.
“Republicans owe Bill Clinton an apology for impeaching him over lies and affairs while now embracing a pathological liar and womanizer,” said Erickson. “That apology will not be forthcoming. In fact, for years Republicans have accused the Democrats of gutter politics and shamelessness. Now the Republicans themselves have lost their sense of shame.”
Erickson has long been a Trump critic and recently admitted that he will not support the presumptive GOP nominee, nor will he support Hillary Clinton, who is likely to win the Democratic nomination.
“On the campaign trail, Trump was more a pathological liar than Bill Clinton ever was,” said Erickson. “He smeared his opponents, their wives, and their families. He embraced 9/11 trutherisms that George Bush was to blame for the attacks, he peddled malignant, false stories about Ted Cruz’s father, and few Republicans ever called on him to account. Many gave him passes on the lies they would never give to Bill Clinton.”
I absolutely agree with with Erick Erickson. (Gasp) How can anyone criticize any other politician for lying and morals if that person defends or supports Donald Trump. Hypocrisy is at an all time high in elephant-villa for those who criticize anyone other than Trump. If Erick Erickson thinks someone is sexist and repugnant, then geez, it must be true.
Isn’t he the guy who constantly demands that women get back to the kitchen and cook his dinner?
The world has turned upside down.
I’ve never heard of the guy.
Bill Clinton wasn’t impeached for having an affair. He was impeached for lying about having an affair, under oath, and for suborning perjury, both “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Let Trump lie about having an affair under oath, while president, and suborning perjury in an attempt to cover it up, and there would be grounds for impeachment.
@Steve Thomas
Right to the point.
Heheheh!
That Erickson chap certainly is a sore loser.
“The world has turned upside down.”
I can’t argue with this conclusion. When the primary electorate is presenting two serial liars as our choices, and when I just watched the US AG give a press conference about how the Federal government will use extortion to compel a state to allow men to use women’s bathrooms, teen boys to be able to change and shower with teen girls, the world has turned upside down.
@Steve Thomas
A bit hyperbolic there, aren’t we, Steve? Did the federal government really say that a state must, under the law, allow teenage boys to change and shower with teenage girls? I confess that I hadn’t read that in any of the press accounts of the US action. I have not read the actual complaint filed by DOJ, but I doubt strongly that there’s a count or a prayer for relief asking that the Court so rule. I think you just made that up.
By the way, what’s with the “extortion” allegation? The US had brought suit under the Civil Rights Act. It’s an interesting threshold question as to whether “transgender-ism” or whatever this condition is properly called, is a classification worthy of protection under the Act. However, courts are the place to get those questions answered. Compelling compliance with federal law is seeing that the laws are faithfully executed, something we conservatives strongly favor. Calling it “extortion” seems a bit radical left-ish to me.
Republican primary voters utterly rejected conservative ideology
@Starryflights
I’d say that’s a bit of a stretch. First, the field started with several conservatives, and Cruz emerged to do pretty well. Of the final three, only Cruz, a conservative, had won more than one primary. Second, Trump took just enough conservative positions, to pull a portion of the conservative bloc votes. If any part of the GOP was rejected, it was the monied “establishment”, center-right of the party, represented by Jeb! .
I can’t believe how many people still fall for these diversionary tactics such as bathroom usage. What a non- issue! How many trans folks are out there? What’s the odds of EVER even seeing one in a bathroom?
As long as we let the politicians divert us from their lack of accomplishment on important issues such as entitlement reform, environmental protection, infrastructure investment, drug law reform, etc., we’ll continue to suffer the consequences.
Bravo!!!!
@middleman
Middleman,
While I agree that certain elements in society use IDG (Ignorance, Distraction, Guilt) to further their agenda, the “Trans-bathroom- issue” is a bit more complicated. The DOJ is threatening NC and other states with loss of Federal education and public-safety funds, if they don’t allow teenaged boys access to the girls locker rooms in public schools. I know this, because I heard it right from the lips of our Attorney General.
You are also putting spin on it. It isn’t that teenaged boys have access to the girls locker room. That is an overstatement.
@MoonHowler
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/transgender-student-wins-court-victory-in-bathroom-case/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-transgender-palatine-high-school-lawsuit-met-20160504-story.html
Go ahead Moon…keep repeating this isn’t happening, and I am just distorting the facts. Won’t change reality one bit…and the reality is, biological males are being granted access to the girls locker room, and biological females are being granted access to the boys locker rooms, and the Fed is using Title IX as the club to beat the states and localities down.
I never said that. Of course transgendered people are going into the bathroom of the gender with which they identify. This is what its all about. I said I didnt care. I questioned whether it would be used for nefarious purposes. (i.e. someone not transgendered pretending to be transgendered to gain access to the girls room. )
Let me ask another question–what do you do about the lesbian in the girls room. What are you going to do about that? Why would a transgendered person be any more or less of a threat?
@Steve Thomas
You are a liar
I listened to the same AG statement that Steve references, and I didn’t hear her say that teen boys had to be allowed access to girls’ locker rooms in public schools. I admit that I didnt hear the entire statement, but I think I heard the meat of it. If I were 14 years old again, I might have imagined such a thing, or dreamed it, but I doubt it really happened. I’m sure that Steve is much younger than I am (virtually everyone is), but I don’t think he’s that much younger.
We must have some kind of parallel universe thing going on here. And, Steve, in your part of that universe, why do you suppose the Attorney General of the United States devoted her attention to getting teen-aged boys into girls’ locker rooms, but chose to say nothing about getting teen-aged girls into the boys’ locker rooms? Is she some kind of neo-male chauvinist?
@Scout
Scout,
You are an attorney. I am sure that you can look up the bill, and understand all of the legal-lawyer-type language in there, and then you can read the AG’s remarks here:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-loretta-e-lynch-delivers-remarks-press-conference-announcing-complaint
I am also confident that you understand the concept of “Ipso facto”, being a lawschool grad and member of the bar.
If the NC law seeks to prevent members of the opposite sex from using public bathrooms, locker-rooms, including schools, and the AG is suing to block implementation of the law, as well as threatening to withhold Federal funds from the state (ie, threatening to keep that which NC taxpayers have paid), ipso facto she did ” … say that teen boys had to be allowed access to girls’ locker rooms in public schools”.
All the teen boy has to do is “identify” as a girl.
Not really. This isn’t something that you can switch off and on.
@MoonHowler
“Not really. This isn’t something that you can switch off and on.”
Uhm…Moon, you do realize that there was a recent court case, here in Virginia, where the judge ruled just as Cargo said, don’t you? You have admitted that you haven’t been following this very closely, but you also refuse to even entertain the possibility that this is in fact happening.
Better stick to fake gay Doritos and Republicans banning gay colors stories.
So where is the boy who went into the girls bathroom and it was ok because of a recent court case.
By closely, I mean I am not delving into it. Was it I who brought it up?
I am familiar with the Glouchester case. The person in question is a transgendered boy going in the boys room at school. That isn’t quite what Cargo said.
I suspect the locker room/shower issue will come out a bit differently than the pissoir/crapper issue, ultimately. Steve, if you look at the AG’s statement that you linked, you will note that she said nothing about showers and locker rooms, despite your and Cargo’s wishing it so. The fourth Circuit case was pretty narrow both as to its rationale and the facts. I don’t think we need worry that that birth female, who believes herself to be a male, is going to rape Steve, Cargo, me or others of our anatomical persuasion as she skulks through the Men’s Rooms of Gloucester County.
Look, we’re in uncharted waters here. DOJ (and a panel of our Circuit, which covers Maryland and the Carolinas, in addition to Virginia) have taken the position that bathrooms should be accessible to those with dysphoria according to their internal gender identification. It strikes me that no great violence would be done to human liberty if they took the opposite position – that one uses the restroom that corresponds to the anatomical equipment one is attached to. But this will all get sorted out in the litigation process. I don’t know what the right answer is, because I’m not particularly conversant with Title IX and I don’t understand the medical and psychological clinical implications of trans-genderism. What I do know is that it’s about equally discomfiting for a man dressed as a woman to come into a men’s room as it is for a man dressed as a woman to come into a women’s room. A third, gender neutral option, many of which already as family or changing rooms, probably covers all the permutations and combinations. I guess I also know that a trans-gender person looking for a place to pee or poop is probably not about to commit sexual violence against the occupants of any given restroom, male or female. I don’t see the horribles that people are projecting.
But the underlying issue would have been well served by everyone simply chilling out on this. A trans-gender male or female going into a restroom shouldn’t cause apocalyptic premonitions for civilization. It’s an extremely rare event, probably far more rare than a Mom or Dad taking an opposite sex child into a restroom. This is really, really, small potatoes stuff. Let it play out. What’s causing the furor are low-grade, opportunistic pols trying to make an election issue out of it. In that regard, on a reductio ad absurdam level, it’s a bit like my party degrading itself in the mid-aught’s by trying to graffiti the venerable Virginia Constitution with a mandatory opposite sex marriage amendment in order to drive turn-out at the polls.
It is uncharted waters. How many of us even know a transgendered person?
I think a lot of imaginations are running wild. That boy in Gloucester absolutely should go to the boys room instead of the girls room, if you ask me.
We really have to take this further than what’s in a person’s pants.