Radtke: Red State’s Erick Erickson Must ‘Set the Record Straight’ After Making ‘Reprehensible’ Accusations Against Her

Posted on | September 1, 2011 | 100 Comments

Conservative blogger Erick Erickson has “propagated a lie” against Virginia Senate candidate Jamie Radtke, she said, insisting that the Red State managing editor must make a “full retraction” and “set the record straight.”

“Erick Erickson has created this situation, where he’s called me a drunk and a liar,” Radtke told me in an exclusive interview, “and he has not done a retraction – a prominent, full retraction, admitting what he’s done and setting the record straight in an honorable way.”

Radtke’s attorney has threatened legal action against Red State, a division of Eagle Publishing, unless Erickson retracts charges that Radtke was “a drunk, rambling idiot” during a conference speech and also retracts unspecified “other false and defamatory statements” Erickson made about her.

A furious online controversy erupted last week when Erickson, in response to a critical article in Politico, lashed out at Radtke. He called her speech at last month’s Red State Gathering an “act of self destruction” and published anonymous accusations that Radtke – a Christian home-schooling mother of three – was drunk during the speech.

It was “absolutely repulsive” for Erickson to have published such accusations, Radtke said, when in fact her speech was well received and praised immediately afterwards. She cited complimentary remarks by the wife of Red State contributor Ben Howe and from documentary film producer Stephen K. Bannon, whom she introduced at the event. Radtke said she understood that some in the audience may not have expected her speech to last 20 minutes, but said that was the time Erickson told her to speak.

Erickson had endorsed Radtke in January but an Aug. 24 Politico column by Ben Smith reported that Erickson was pressured to back away from that endorsement by Eagle executives because of their friendships with Radtke’s GOP primary rival, former Sen. George Allen.

In the telephone interview (see transcript below), Radtke said she believes Erickson’s accusations against her were an attempt to divert attention from the substance of that article: “So I think the issue is that he was confronted by Politico about [backing away from his earlier endorsement] and he didn’t tell the truth and now this is a dodge game for him: ‘So I don’t have to deal with the real story, let’s totally defame Jamie and throw her under the bus and say complete lies about her so I don’t have to deal with the real situation.’ And it’s absolutely reprehensible.”

Because Erickson has failed to fully retract his accusations, Radtke said, “that story is not done, and I’m still waiting for him to make it right.”

PREVIOUSLY:

Aug. 24: Virginia Feud: Radtke vs. Red State
Aug. 25: Radtke, Red State and Riehl

* * * * *

Jamie Radtke Interview
(Conducted Friday, Aug. 26)

RSM: What happened?
RADTKE: I think what’s interesting is that the way it’s being reported is that I found out recently that Erick was going to have to back off [his endorsement] and therefore I retaliated. And that couldn’t be any further from the truth. We’ve known since January that Erick has had to back off, and I’ve been very sympathetic and understood his circumstance, and we’ve gone about our business and [have been] appreciative of what he’s been able to do.
So I think the issue is that he was confronted by Politico about it and he didn’t tell the truth and now this is a dodge game for him: ‘So I don’t have to deal with the real story, let’s totally defame Jamie and throw her under the bus and say complete lies about her so I don’t have to deal with the real situation.’ And it’s absolutely reprehensible.
This kind of politics, this stuff that goes on, really has got to stop. And there’s been a pattern over the last two to three years of this going on. It has to stop.
RSM: Well, let me ask, you were understanding of the fact that the corporate owners of Red State are friends of George Allen and so . . . you weren’t upset really . . . you didn’t take it personally?
RADTKE: I didn’t take it personally at all. Like I said, I’ve known since January and I was frustrated, but I’ve been in politics as a grassroots person for a long time. I know that’s how politics works and we’ve known this since January and I’ve done nothing with it. As a matter of fact, when people have asked me about it, I said, ‘Look, he’s doing what he can do, given the circumstances.’ Because they were like, ‘Why isn’t he doing more for you?’ . . .
When he had me speak at the Red State Gathering, I Tweeted and said, ‘Thank you so much for the opportunity to be here.’ They had asked me to speak for 20 minutes and that’s what I did. But I’ve been grateful for what he’s done, given the circumstance he was in and never begrudged him the circumstance he was in.
Now this – if I had wanted to make a hoo-haw over it, I’ve had eight months to do that, and the idea that I would make a deal out of it because I gave a bad speech that nobody knew about and therefore I wanted to pick a fight on him so that everybody would know about a supposed drunken rant, doesn’t even pass the logic test.
RSM: OK, well, so what happened was that Politico questioned [Erickson] about his backing away and he told a story that was at variance with the e-mails that he had sent to your campaign?
RADTKE: You know, Politico calls us and basically says, ‘Erick Erickson has said this about you and why he’s not involved in your campaign. Is it true?’ So I either affirm that Erick has said something negative about our campaign, or I take the novel approach and decide just to tell the truth. I mean, politicians and candidates get in more trouble by trying to not tell the truth, and he had basically said something that was very unflattering for our campaign, and they call us and say, ‘Is this true?’ And we say, ‘No it’s not,’ and we left it at that. And they go, ‘How do you know it’s not true?’ And we said, ‘Well, you know, he’s doing what he can do given the circumstances.’ . . .
The last thing my campaign would want is to pick a fight with anybody in the conservative movement. So the idea that this was manufactured by the Radtke campaign doesn’t really make sense.
RSM: Obviously you don’t want to get into an unnecessary confrontation, but y’all had to deal with Politico’s question to you, and they already had a story, apparently.
RADTKE: Right. They already had a story. They had already developed the story. They were coming to us. It was not going to be a friendly story. It was basically going to be – so, we get asked a question and we told the truth. But like I said, the idea that we would think, ‘You know what would be great for the campaign? Let’s pick a fight with Red State,’ that doesn’t even make sense.
RSM: No, it doesn’t. Now, let me ask about this speech at the Red State Gathering. It’s my understanding is that you were asked to introduce Stephen Bannon, and maybe you went on a little too long.
RADTKE: That’s not accurate. Or not entirely accurate, I should say. It’s always convenient [when] you can tell 10 percent of the story and then claim that’s the whole story. I had e-mailed Erick Erickson before I arrived at Red State. I told him I was coming and said, ‘I noticed you have other Senate candidates speaking,’ and I said, ‘Is there an opportunity for me to speak, to be introduced, to be recognized?’ He e-mailed me back and he said, you know, the agenda was full but he’d be happy to introduce me. And I e-mailed him back and I said, ‘Thank you very much. I appreciate whatever you can do.’ And I truly meant that. I appreciated what Erick could do.
And I got there and I met [Erickson] for the first time in person. He came up to me and said, ‘Hey, I was thinking, you could introduce Steve Bannon and the movie tomorrow night, and I could give you 20 minutes. You could talk about your campaign and why you’re running, and then you could introduce Steve Bannon and the movie.’ I said, ‘That’d be great and I would love that opportunity.’
[Erickson] said, ‘Well, let me know – let me know if you can do it.’ Because I wasn’t planning on staying that long, and I was going to have to stay an extra night in order to do that. So I said, ‘Well, let me check with my family and everything, to see if I can stay another night.’ . . . I texted him and said, ‘I can do it. How long do you want me to talk?’ and he texted me back and said 20 minutes. And that’s exactly what I did.
I got up and talked about my campaign and then segued to Steve Bannon and introducing the movie. If the segue wasn’t smooth or whatever – I mean, people can say that politicians ramble all the time. But I can guarantee you one thing: It was absolutely not a drunken speech and it wasn’t a ‘pitiful performance’ at all.
RSM: Let me interrupt to say that, is it possible that there was a difference in perception with the audience, who arrived expecting to hear Stephen Bannon introduce his movie, and then you got up and they thought, ‘Well, she’s going to introduce Bannon,’ and no one had told them that you were going to talk for 20 minutes about your Senate campaign?
RADTKE: That is absolutely possible. I don’t contest that at all. If it wasn’t an expectation [for] the audience that I was going to be speaking that long and they think I’m going to be up there for four or five minutes, and I go on for 20 minutes, and they think, ‘What is she doing?’
But I can tell you this, here are the things that are outrageous: Number one, all the things that were tweeted that night, including from [Red State contributor] Ben Howe’s wife, gave accolades to me being up there and giving that speech. Number two, I know for a fact that someone actually talked to Ben Howe after the event and that he and Ben Howe were talking about how great of a speech I gave. Number three, I had people talking to me for an hour and a half after the event – kept me there for an hour and a half – people coming up to me and talking about how great a speech it was and how could they be involved and how could they blog, and how could they be involved from Texas and from South Carolina and from Maryland.
So, no negative comments. I had Steve Bannon sending me a text message saying, ‘You nailed it’ or whatever – ‘Great speech.’ And what’s absolutely repulsive is that a Red State person would say that they were sitting next to my table and make a comment that ‘I only wish she had waited to start drinking until after her speech.’ So you have someone at the Red State table, in order to cover up Erick Erickson, absolutely lying through their teeth about me drinking . . . And now that they know that they’ve been caught in another lie, they’ve decided to try to tack that on and say, ‘Well, maybe she wasn’t drunk. Maybe she’s just an idiot.’
RSM: Which is not exactly fair.
RADTKE: Right. And so that sort of half-hearted, ‘Well, I sort of apologize,’ that stuff – that has got to stop. People do that to Sarah Palin, they’ve done that to Michelle Malkin, he did that when he talked about David Souter, calling him the things he did – and this is from what’s supposed to be conservative people. They have Red State people actually – and it’s in the comment field of the original story – this guy says he was at my table, next to me, and ‘I only wish she had waited to start drinking until after she got up [to speak].’
So now they have propagated a lie that has gone across the entire Internet and mainstream media, picked up in the Washington Post and everywhere else, it ran on WMAL [radio in Washington, D.C.], saying that I was drunk at an event. And to try to absolutely stop my campaign dead in its tracks because [Erickson] doesn’t like the fact that his situation got exposed, of which I had no intention or desire to expose it to begin with. I have been giving him the benefit of the doubt and trying to tell people he’s doing what he can for eight months, saying, ‘Look, the guy’s doing what he can, I appreciate what he’s doing.’ That’s politics, that’s how it’s played. . . .
RSM: So, in a sense — in a very large sense — you have been victimized, and yet when you say, ‘I’ve been victimized,’ they say, ‘Oh, she’s whining.’
RADTKE: Yeah, and that’s the thing. I don’t want to play the victim, but [Erickson] has absolutely played the leftist Saul Alinsky tactic that the Left always plays: If you’re guilty, then destroy the messenger. I frankly think that conservatives and Tea Party people should be outraged, that somebody can just throw out [an accusation] that you were drunk, and because of who it’s coming from, someone who’s influential in the movement and someone who’s respected in the movement, now everybody is supposed to believe that without any substantiated evidence whatsoever.
Think about it, Stacy. The thing that’s amazing is that there were 400 bloggers in the room. If my speech was that horrific – and nobody has any allegiance to me, they’ve never heard of me, they don’t know who I am – you don’t think one person would have written, like, ‘Good grief’? Tweeted ‘Good grief’? Put something on Facebook? Written a blog? I mean, the only thing that was actually published for public consumption very positive reports.
So [Erickson’s accusations of drunkenness] don’t pass the sniff test at all. Four hundred people and nothing? This comes out of nowhere because Politico runs a story on him and then so, in order to distract from the real story, they decided to absolutely try to destroy my campaign and my character. It’s not just my campaign, it’s my integrity as a Christian, as a mother, as a homeschooler, as a wife – and as a candidate. I mean, I have three children that I homeschool, and strong Christian beliefs, and now they’re being told and it’s all out on the Internet that their mother was a drunken raving idiot at an event. And this . . . has been done by conservatives, which is all the more appalling.
RSM: Now, to pivot away from that . . . How is your Senate campaign going? I mean, what are the metrics that you can talk about, in terms of how your campaign has been going? The last we saw . . . you had raised a quarter-million dollars, I believe it was, in the second quarter. What’s been going on in the past six weeks with your campaign?
RADTKE: We’ve been making good progress. We’ve got a couple of dynamics here. We’ve got every single [state and local official] up for re-election this year – every state senator, every House of Delegates member, every sheriff, every constitutional officer, every board of supervisors, every city council member – and so fund-raising for us is always going to be a challenge. But we’ve had a great response from the grassroots.
We’re getting our donations $100 at a time, so that doesn’t quickly turn into a million dollars. But I’m sitting here at a golf tournament today that we’re having . . . We’ve got sponsors for every hole, we’ve got 18 foursomes that are out here, we’ve got a course sponsorship. But for any campaign, the fund-raising is the biggest challenge, especially when you don’t have national prominence. It’s always going to be a challenge, but we’ve been making good progress on that. We’ve been making good progress on launching a bus tour to raise the visibility of the campaign . . . We hope to launch that in the next few weeks and get our campaign on the road.
We want to spend the next two months . . . focused on helping flip the state senate in Virginia, and so we’ll launch the bus and campaign, spend a lot of time focusing on helping Republicans take back the state senate in Virginia. That’s going to be our number one priority here for the next two months of the campaign.
RSM: So you’ll be campaigning for Republican state candidates in this year’s off-year election?
RADTKE: Yeah, we’re going to start, now that we’re past the primary. It’s summer, everybody’s been distracted and we had primaries going on. I’ve done a little bit of that, helping some people out in primaries. I got involved in some primary races that we won. . . . But we’re going to put a lot more focus and energy on helping the Republican Party and the conservatives all come together, and unite conservatives and Tea Party and Republicans in taking back the state senate this year. Because right now the Democrats control the state senate and they killed all the Tea Party legislation we had last year – they killed it all. So I want to make sure that we win the state senate so we can get that legislation through next year.

RSM: So right now, this is kind of ironic, considering what’s happened . . . right now, you’re engaged in a unity effort, being a team player for the GOP in Virginia?
RADTKE: Yeah . . . we were just waiting until after the primaries were over. . . . And then our campaign had said, after we get past the primaries and everybody’s back and the summer’s over, let’s focus our campaign effort and resources . . . to flip the state senate. And the Tea Party movement here in Virginia has been focused on ‘Seven Come Eleven,’ is what we’ve been calling it. . . . We want to try to grab seven [state senate] seats in 2011. That’s a high number, but we figure, we go for seven and only get three, we’ve done what we need to do.
And so yeah, you’re trying to unite the Republicans and the Tea Party and conservative to try to flip the state senate, and yet I’m being accused of just the opposite in the blogosphere. . . .
RSM: You’ve just gone through . . . a traumatic campaign experience and yet y’all are moving forward, you’re planning for the long run, you’re in it for the long haul, correct?
RADTKE: Oh, absolutely. . . . We want to get back to talking about the issues of spending and the debt and growing the economy. That’s what we want to talk about. We want to focus on uniting the conservative movement in Virginia and flipping the state senate here in Virginia.
But with all that being said, Erick Erickson has created this situation, where he’s called me a drunk and a liar, and he has not done a retraction – a prominent, full retraction, admitting what he’s done and setting the record straight in an honorable way. So that story is not done, and I’m still waiting for him to make it right. And it has to be made right, because I will not have that out there about me or about the campaign — or about all the supporters who have given money to my campaign and invested time and energy into this campaign – and have them do that to the thousands of people who have done that. We have thousands of people and they cannot do that. He’s got to set the record straight.

Category: Jamie Radtke, Red State, Virginia

Comments

100 Responses to “Radtke: Red State’s Erick Erickson Must ‘Set the Record Straight’ After Making ‘Reprehensible’ Accusations Against Her”

Anonymous
September 2nd, 2011 @ 7:38 am

I’ll tend to it after I get done with the morning linkagery.
Anonymous
September 2nd, 2011 @ 9:59 am

I’m not sure what the “Red” in “RedState” really means. Everytime I follow a link there, and take a look around, I feel like I’m watching the 6pm Fox News Discussion Panel in print.

I was stuck in a place for a week where the only thing on was MSNBC. All day long. I kept seeing Eric Ericsson on there, and he never seemed remotely “Conservative” in his ideas, and rarely seemed to fight against any of the usual lefty BS in the discussions he was in. It felt like watching David Brooks with a less effete pedigree.
Zilla of the Resistance
September 2nd, 2011 @ 11:23 am

If you truly were an idiot, you would not admit your mistake. So while you may have been mistaken, you are not an idiot in my book. 🙂
Turbocohen
September 2nd, 2011 @ 11:32 am

Poor Erick.. Erickson is in the wrong and the owners of Eagle publishing (Regnery) are in the tank with the gop establishment that led us down a rosy path to a cesspool of debt. Red “Rino”State has outed themselves as a tool for one of the key big government politicians (Allen) whose actions while in office were a MAJOR reason the Tea Party Movement came to be. Ask Tea Party leaders for yourself and no I am not referring to GOP phony Tea but real grass roots Tea.

The story behind the story is the men behind the curtain at Eagle publishing. They deserve to be made famous for putting Erickson in a corner for showing support for an unquestionably conservative Jamie Radtke who is not beholden to the Washington GOP establishment as a favor to their “social friend” George Allen who is good for their publishing business. Follow the money.
Zilla of the Resistance
September 2nd, 2011 @ 11:37 am

Although this is all about politics, as a mom, I am horrified by what Erickson has done. Not only can such vile accusations of drunkery cost Ms. Radke an election, such a thing could also cost someone custody of their children. When I was a little girl, some crackpot made stuff up about my parents, and I was nearly taken away from them. I had good parents, but the gooberment spent 8 years trying to take me away from them and it was hell. I don’t have a dog in this election fight, I am in upstate NY, but I hope Ms. Radke is successful in clearing her name and she has every right to defend herself against such vicious smears in any way that she needs to, including legal action if necessary. This has the potential to destroy a lot more than her political career.
Turbocohen
September 2nd, 2011 @ 11:40 am

I admire you for getting the facts and checking out the story before it goes online. Red State was knocked off the favorites list and The Other McCain is on because I can no longer trust what I read on Red State.
Turbocohen
September 2nd, 2011 @ 11:54 am

All along Radtke’s campaign has simply asked for a retraction and an apology. A real man would have taken responsibility and done the right thing. That did not happen. This is a new generation of new media propagandizing using a big lie to take out a friends political opponent, clearly not high standards of journalism and unbecoming of someone so widely read who claims the conservative mantra as his own..
Anonymous
September 2nd, 2011 @ 12:20 pm

Conservatives got stuck with the “red” label years ago when some ignorant schmuck in the press decided to divide a map between conservative states (red) and liberal states (blue). Anticommunists on the right have been grinding their teeth about this ever since.
Anonymous
September 2nd, 2011 @ 12:21 pm

So I guess the dextrosphere has finally caught up with the nutroots, unfortunately in the worst way.
kalilover
September 2nd, 2011 @ 1:07 pm

It’s hard to believe in today’s era of cell phone journalism that there aren’t any videos of this portion of the event. If a video were found I think it would go a long way towards settling the issue. Somehow, and this is just a hunch, I think Erickson has a video that supports his position. Otherwise his ignoring the threat of litigation makes no sense. OTOH, he may have nothing and is just bulling through…something we’ve seen from him before.
JCELEPHANT
September 2nd, 2011 @ 1:24 pm

She is not going to get the nomination by picking a fight with a blogger…she needs to hit the bricks and shake hands. Threatening legal action is a sure way to distract you from the campaign.
DaveO
September 2nd, 2011 @ 1:35 pm

Erickson is a good employee. His mind, intellectual property, and life belong to his bosses. IIRC this isn’t the first incident that Erickson’s bosses have changed his mind for him. That’s why I take whatever he creates while a dose of salt. Same goes from Frum, Will, and other folks who try to influence opinion, and have bosses.

Radtke should woman-up and understand that macaca does as macaca is, and Virginia voters are fickle and blood-lusty.
t-dahlgren
September 2nd, 2011 @ 2:17 pm

Characterizing defending yourself against defamation as “obsessing” over “blog drama” reveals your agenda and marks you as someone who is either fundamentally dishonest or who clearly “lacks judgement.”
t-dahlgren
September 2nd, 2011 @ 2:25 pm

You might also wonder how a lawyer, who was once a Radtke supporter himself, would so quickly accept such serious accusations against her without seeking some sort of further confirmation.

Unless of course, said lawyer had found himself in a pickle with his paymasters and was grasping for an easy way out.
carder
September 2nd, 2011 @ 2:29 pm

Thank you, Stacy, for taking the time out to get her side of the story, which is more than I can say for the Redstaters.

And that’s too bad; I read Redstate every day and would have thought this sort of thing anathema to their brand.

Perhaps revise the title to “Four Hundred People and Nothing?”
Anonymous
September 2nd, 2011 @ 3:19 pm

Erickson is a good employee. His mind, intellectual property, and life belong to his bosses.

Which is why they pay him the big bucks. But it’s rather shocking to discover that his bosses would be so blunt about it.
ThePaganTemple
September 2nd, 2011 @ 3:33 pm

The main thing a politician should be loyal to is the Constitution, and Bill of Rights. Sometimes “We The People” don’t know what the hell we’re doing either, though you are correct that it should come before party loyalty.
ThePaganTemple
September 2nd, 2011 @ 3:40 pm

Probably because liberals see red as the color of blood and war, so it was an obvious slam. No way a liberal would identify other liberals with the color red, cos of the commie connotations.
ThePaganTemple
September 2nd, 2011 @ 3:42 pm

Why doesn’t somebody just ask the damn director what happened? You know, the guy she introduced in the speech? Or has Eagle Press bought him off too?
Donald Douglas
September 2nd, 2011 @ 5:49 pm

Erick Erickson’s a dick.
Adjoran
September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:19 pm

Actually, they used to randomly assign red and blue to show the map on Election Nights. In fact, any given year might find one network with the Democrats red and the other with them blue. One year one network used yellow, but everyone complained about that.

Then, in the early ’80s I think, they started all using the present red/blue mix. Some said it was for consistency, others because the Democrats got very nervous being portrayed as red . . . it might start some voters thinking . . .
Adjoran
September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:21 pm

What if his account of the event is accurate? Why would he issue a retraction or apology?

Who is this Radtke that everyone just assumes she is telling the truth?
DaveO
September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:43 pm

Blunt, or refreshing honesty?

I think we’re going to start seeing more of that refreshing honesty as bloggers employed by others are reined in.
Bob Belvedere
September 2nd, 2011 @ 7:47 pm

Hear, hear.
Bob Belvedere
September 2nd, 2011 @ 7:53 pm

Blue actually fits the Left in America, as it is the color of the aristocracy.

Red, to me, means ‘red-blooded, meat-eating, 100%, Goddamn American’.
Bob Belvedere
September 2nd, 2011 @ 7:55 pm

Does anyone know if he’s a poker player?
Bob Belvedere
September 2nd, 2011 @ 7:58 pm

Mrs. Radtke did say to Stacy: I had Steve Bannon sending me a text message saying, ‘You nailed it’ or whatever – ‘Great speech.’

Is there any way of contacting him, Stacy?
Bob Belvedere
September 2nd, 2011 @ 7:59 pm

By the way, Comcast users: The Undefeated is now OnDemand for this month for $6.99.
Eric
September 2nd, 2011 @ 8:23 pm

The tea party people are not the same thing as the old republicans , Godbless their christian souls . The old establishment republicans are the guys that chickened out and gave Obama more money . Allowed the debts to increase again beyond the 14 trillion . That stupid speaker of the house has got to go . I don’t know your George Allen , but I’am willing to bet he’s the same kind of high classed duck .
Anonymous
September 2nd, 2011 @ 8:54 pm

Perhaps it’s a character flaw but I’ve never been able to tell the difference between speaking bluntly and speaking honestly.
um….now that I think on it that explains alot.( just thinking out loud)
Anonymous
September 2nd, 2011 @ 8:55 pm

That explains the tie.
Kimberly
September 2nd, 2011 @ 9:54 pm

I was in Charleston, and I heard the speech. I personally congratulated Jamie Radtke on her speech shortly after she left the podium, and at no time did I see see Ms. Radtke partaking in drinking, specifically not before or even after her introduction, which actually turned into a 20 minute speech. People were eating and no one at our table was taking video – but as someone who was there, who listened to the entire speech and spoke with Ms. Radtke immediately afterwards, I’m completely confused. We chatted for a few minutes at the back of the ballroom as I was headed towards the bar for a libation myself- the first of the evening for me – and she seemed perfectly normal to me. We swapped business cards, and I did offer to assist her in any way I could with her campaign. I don’t understand the “stepping in a pile of crap” comment and before you pounce, it’s a legitimate question. She was completely coherent and professional to a fault. She’s defending her reputation. I don’t see that as a “pile of crap”. But I also don’t have a dog in this fight either. But I was in that room, and I didn’t see her acting at all “drunk”. That is all.
Anonymous
September 2nd, 2011 @ 11:24 pm

Well, yeah, but my point was, given that “red”=Conservative, why call his place “RedState” when bluish-purple-state-with-some-pockets-of-red would be more accurate.
Zilla of the Resistance
September 2nd, 2011 @ 11:56 pm

Good point, but it is a serious allegation and she has a right to defend herself, and like I said earlier, something like that can ruin a lot more than a political campaign, it could destroy her life and the lives of her children.
Anonymous
September 3rd, 2011 @ 1:37 am

If his account is accurate why did he wait until after the politico story to make it. Why didn’t he even make those comments to politico.

She made a speech on August 13, 2011. Their were no negative comments at RedState or Twitter. Then Politico writes as story on August 24, 2011. After that story on August 24, 2011 Erick Erickson takes offer after Radtke.

His attack is not credible. If she was dreadful on August 13, 2011, his readers to deserve that fact since he had endorse her. He did not write anything negative until after the Politico story.

His attack did not link to or address any of the substance of the Politico story for his readers. It was an out of the blue broadside attack. He was distracting for the Politico story and damaging Radtke credibility intentionally.

I live in Virginia and I support Allen, but what Erick did was disgusting and it hurt both candidates.

His actions were self-serving, so they should be viewed as suspect.
Anonymous
September 3rd, 2011 @ 1:40 am

What threat of litigation? He retracted the drunk comment. He just left the other posters comments, and they just claim they thought she appeared drunk. They rolled back from libel to smear.
Mike Cessac
September 3rd, 2011 @ 4:34 am

Ellen, because in politics, you do not air your dirty laundry between people on the same side unless the other side puts it out there. As you pointed out, Erick didn’t do anything until Radtke started talking to a liberal blogger and started making all sorts of accusations based on what seems a falsehood to ‘stir the pot’. I’ve read a lot of people’s views and/or accounts on this issue.

There are quite a few accusations that are being thrown around even on here that I can’t find any basis in fact. To go from Erick quoting what his friend who WAS there, quoting what was said by the people in the front row, to “Erick SAID Radtke was drunk”, obviously has no basis in fact. I find making that jump as bad as the liberal journalistic malpractice that we have all come to know.

I read the “Power of the Dark Side” entry at Redstate, and found quite a few misinterpretations of events and claims of what certain people “meant” by actions and comments.

Here is my ‘opinion’ of the whole deal. And I only mean opinion folks. Radtke and her team made a big mistake with a liberal blogger who was looking to make trouble by getting her to air dirty laundry. Radtke fell for it hook, line and sinker. This pissed off Erick because Radtke broke the golden rule of politics, on top of denigrating someone who did support you at the beginning, and who holds a powerful position in the conservative press. If Radtke can’t handle media relations at this level, she won’t survive a US Senate run against a Democrat. In the end she is responsible. She could have just swept it aside and not talked about any of it, and it would have gone away with the noise of the campaign. But she screwed up by bringing in the lawyer. As a candidate, once you do that, you’ve lost.

McCain – I ask, did Erick himself, actually say the words being directly attributed to him, that Radtke acted drunk?

I checked the posts Erick made on this and not one posting had where he directly said that or the other mentions. You know as well as everyone else the game of being attributed a quote when you yourself never directly made it. Don’t play that game here. I respect you too much to see that happen.
t-dahlgren
September 3rd, 2011 @ 4:41 am

Honest: A different dress might suit you better.

Blunt: That dress makes your ass look huge.
Anonymous
September 3rd, 2011 @ 7:09 am

Blunt doesn’t equal stupid
Tennwriter
September 3rd, 2011 @ 4:48 pm

Adobe Walls,
Most definitely not a character flaw.
Jack Stone
September 4th, 2011 @ 3:06 am

Dianna isn’t that a pretty big “IF” ?

Erick Erickson is pretty famous for leading a gang of thugs who engage in “WILDING” on the pages of Red State.
Jack Stone
September 4th, 2011 @ 3:11 am

Red State specializes in trashing people. Sometimes they are trashing liberals or RINO’s, and we cheer. But they simply trash people indiscriminately. Erick Erickson is supposed to police the postings at Red State for decorum. READ THEIR RULES. But Erickson is the #1 violator of the rules posted at Red State. Erick Erickson has turned REd State into a gang of thugs. Extreme nastiness is the order of the day at Red State.

I am not surprised that Erick Erickson accused Radket of being drunk, because accusations that someone is crazy, off their meds, escaped from a mental hospital, etc. are the frequent, every day fare at Red State. That’s normal for the Red State culture.
Jack Stone
September 4th, 2011 @ 3:13 am

You could just shorten that to:

Erickson is in the wrong.
BrianC
September 4th, 2011 @ 4:23 am

Erick Erickson is a first class jerk – always has been one and always will be.
Anonymous
September 5th, 2011 @ 1:29 pm

No one disagrees that Erick put up anonymous quotes that implied she was drunk. He did it and he took it back.

You seem to think that her camp truthful explaining to Politico why Erick was not backing her campaign strongly is worse than what Erick Erickson did.

I think smearing someone with an untrue accusation is worse then truthfully explaining why Erick back off his support.

He has not denied that he backed off because his employers who support Allen wanted him too. Moveover there is nothing wrong with their request or his compliance.

What he did to Radtke was a disservice to his readers and to Radtke. I believe you are correct that he did it because he was angry, but that just showed a ridiculous level of immaturity for a grown man.

There is not way that I would except the permiss that Erick Erickson is not accountable for what he posted. He put up some anonymous quotes at least one of which claimed she appeared drunk. The commenters demanded to know who was calling her drunk, and someone posted that he was the source of the anonymous quote.

Still Erick Erickson is the editor of the RedState and that was his post. He decided to put-out those quotes. He did it in retailation. Excuse the behavior if you wish. Assign the responiblity to Radtke if you wish, but we will just have to agree to disagree.

I think Erick Erickson behavior was immature and disgusting. It was a deservice to Radtke, RedState readers, George Allen, his employers, and himself. As a Christian I would say it is clear violation of the Eight Command —

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

What does this mean? We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, nor defame our neighbor, but defend him, speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.

Luther’s Small Catechism with explanation.

Also you seem to think some “…in politics, you do not air your dirty laundry between people on the same side unless the other side puts it out there….” Is a higher standard then common decency. I feel sorry for you.
Anonymous
September 5th, 2011 @ 1:46 pm

wth — what the hell?

I mean I saw 2 14 year-olds cussing in the mall the other day. Hell I’ve seen 2 minutes of the view. — So what? Stupid people doing stupid things does that mean we have no standards in public discourse.

Keith Richards? You’ve got to be joking.

This thread is about the action of a major conservative blogger and a candidate for the Republican nomination for the US Senate in Virginia. That is different level of public discourse then some celebrity discussing drugs.
Anonymous
September 5th, 2011 @ 2:00 pm

“So either they all spontaneously lied about it, or were organized to lie about it. Pretty serious allegation there.So what makes more sense?”

Given the timing of his post who knows or cares. Perhaps they did tell him on the 13th that she appeared drunk. Perhaps they did think she was going to speak for 5 minutes, but went for 20.

Here’s Erick’s problem. He knew he told she could speak for 20 minutes. So his commenters think she gave a long rambling speech, but Erick knew the truth.

He used their confusion to smear Radtke. He gets to hide behind other people comments instead of being a man and admiting the what appeared in the Politico was true.

He is very small.

Facts are stubborn things, and EE backed of before August 13th, so he could not have back off because the speech. His comments about her speech were unnecessary and harmful. They were meant to distract from the charges in the Politico speak.

Believe what you want, but timing tells us everything. It tells us everything we need to know about Erick Erickson character, or lack there of.
Anonymous
September 6th, 2011 @ 1:12 am

“gang of thugs”? “wilding”?

That’s awfully strong language, one could even say defamatory, being used to attack someone you’re claiming was defaming the person in question.

Do you have any actual examples of said activity, or are you just spewing bullshit?
Anonymous
September 6th, 2011 @ 1:13 am

Give concrete examples, or you’re just spewing bullshit.
The Unbearable Lightheadedness of Being Leon H. Wolf | Palin's Posse
September 11th, 2011 @ 3:28 am

[…] nominal head of RedState Erick Erickson (the real rulers is Eagle Media, the site’s owner) viciously slandered Jamie Radtke, who’s running for a U.S. Senate seat in Virginia, while letting it slip his puppet masters […]