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”

Dianna Deeley
September 2nd, 2011 @ 2:50 am

Having read the original editorial Monday before last, all I can say is that, if the reactions from the Red State Gathering were as uniformly negative as what Erik quoted demonstrated, he has nothing to apologize for.

She evidently blew it badly. Sorry, but that’s what it looks like.

Erik owes her nothing.
Tennwriter
September 2nd, 2011 @ 3:05 am

Dianna,
But it wasn’t as uniformly negative, so your hypothetical is rejected by your own standards.
Jimmie
September 2nd, 2011 @ 3:12 am

Did you read the interview? Radtke says people at the event complemented her on her speech and asked how they could help her campaign. That’s not “uniformly negative”.

Of course, it’s possible she’s making that up, but remember that the quotes from Erik’s post were anonymous as well.

I have no idea who is wrong or right here but it’s obvious that the Politico did exactly what it wanted to do when it went to Erik for his comments.
PhilipJames
September 2nd, 2011 @ 3:17 am

I have read everything, and I mean everything, from Red State, Riehl and the other bloggers on this, including this site and the simple fact is this…
Erick Erickson smeared and trashed this woman because he was a wuss and would not admit he flip flopped to save his job.

And, if you are a Conservative, think of it this way… there was absolutely nothing on any web site about her speech and no one knew anything about it UNTIL days later, Erick posted a number of ANONYMOUS posts that accused her of being drunk and making a fool of herself. This whole accusation of smearing her would not have occurred if Erick would have just shut up. So, you have to ask yourself, why would a so-called conserative like Erick (“defending Conservatism with honor”) publicly trash another full blown Conservative – and she definitely is that – what motivation would he have for doing that when he didn’t have to?

This episode went on for several days and if you did not read all of it, then you don’t know enough about it to comment supporting Erick unless you are a Red State defender, Dianna. Just because Red State is conservative and Erick is conservative, that does not give either of them a pass on trashing another Conservative for no good reason. Simple.
McGehee
September 2nd, 2011 @ 3:23 am

Um, he accused her of being drunk at the podium, and you’re saying that’s okay because her speech didn’t go well?

Your comment is not well received, therefore I accuse you of being on methamphetamine when you typed it.

By your logic I owe you nothing.
Marybattis
September 2nd, 2011 @ 3:25 am

Where’s the video of the speech, so we can decide for ourselves?
Michael Krempasky
September 2nd, 2011 @ 3:35 am

Better idea: Jamie Radtke could stop obsessing about blog drama and actually go run a campaign to get elected. As a conservative R primary voter here in the Commonwealth, it’s embarrassing to watch how many cycles she’s burnt going back and forth about a freaking blog dispute.

I wasn’t in Charleston, but the lack of judgement Ms. Radtke has shown in this kerfluffle is proof positive that conservatives should support George Allen – philosophical disagreements notwithstanding. Ms. Radtke simply isn’t qualified nor has the temperament to hold elected office at this level.
Turbocohen
September 2nd, 2011 @ 3:49 am

A smart woman cleared the air on this with a red state post.. http://www.redstate.com/socrates/2011/08/29/the-power-of-the-dark-side/

Erickson has an emerging trend indicating either he or monied interests backing his empire are tough on conservative women. At some point it may become newsworthy. Ultimately is it a question of loyalty to country or party and in this case the social friends or an established career politician (Allen) that many young conservatives have had enough of.
Turbocohen
September 2nd, 2011 @ 3:53 am

Allen was a conservative Michael.. I voted for him 3 times for congress, governor and then senate.. until he voted for every debt limit increase, never against. Washington changed him, conservatives saw his voting record and conservatives voted against him. What in your mind is a conservative?
Christy Waters
September 2nd, 2011 @ 3:55 am

Oh Eh-wick, did you step in it again?
Anonymous
September 2nd, 2011 @ 3:55 am

Hold on there, hoss: You’re saying the Erickson can call a politician a DRUNKEN IDIOT in a post that is sent to 70,000 conservative subscribers to the Red State morning briefing and — when the politician’s attorney says that’s defamation — Erickson can just call it “blog drama” and walk awayas if nothing happened? And the politician he has defamed (according to her lawyer) cannot tell her side of the story without being accused of being “obsessed” with a “kerfuffle”?

Having spent 25 years in journalism, this is a loophole in libel law that no one ever bothered to tell me about.
Michael Krempasky
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:03 am

First off, “hoss” – I’m not characterizing anything Erick said, nor paraphrasing what he should say.

I am saying that Radtke’s actions and reactions have not been those of a quality candidate for office.

Do me a favor and put that 25 years worth of journalistic experience to good use and find me a few great examples of where the smart party in a dispute is the one who had a lawyer send a letter to a blogger.
Dianna Deeley
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:05 am

I am going by what I saw at Red State. I do not know if anyone else said good things – and I apologize if I did not read every single comment anywhere. From what I saw, she was regarded as incoherent, long-winded, and (quite possibly) drunk.

I am not certain how Erik, who was not present but did view the video with dismay (by his own account, still up at Red State) can be held liable for his observations, or quoting comments of those who were actually present.
Dianna Deeley
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:06 am

Have you read the comment thread? It’s not positive, to put it in the best possible light.

Read what Erik wrote.
Michael Krempasky
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:06 am

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to imply Allen wasn’t a conservative, or even a good candidate. Apologies for being unclear. Radtke and her supporters are clearly making a cornerstone of their campaign an appeal to conservatives that Allen is not sufficiently pure of heart or can’t be counted on when the going gets tough. Frankly, it’s an argument that is not without some merit.

All I meant to say was that based on Radtke’s keenly honed campaigned skills (or lack thereof), even if conservatives have objections to Allen, they ought to vote for him anyway.
Turbocohen
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:08 am

Dianna, show me a link to the video. Are you ready for me to call you out as an liar for establishment media?
Dianna Deeley
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:10 am

No, Erik did not. He quoted comments, and he remarked on his personal dismay on watching the video of her remarks.

I will not pretend that I was there – I was in California – and the candidate is irrelevant to my local concerns. I watched the linked video, and had to stop after less than two minutes; it was not one of the better political speeches I’ve watched.

It’s not clear to me how Erik’s post/editorial makes him liable, once one watches the video and reads the remarks posted within 24 hours.
CalMark
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:10 am

Oh, a “quality candidate for office” is just supposed to stand by when they think they’re smeared? (BTW, I have no dog in this fight.)

You must be sipping from the RINO Establishment cup, my friend.
ThePaganTemple
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:10 am

I just had this weird vision of Jim Webb morphing into Maxwell Smart mode, walking up to Harry Reid, putting an arm around his shoulder and saying, “Ehhhh, look Chief, about this me resigning thing?”
Michael Krempasky
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:12 am

Yeah, me. Establishment. Having done tours of duty with both Morton Blackwell and Richard Viguerie.

Like I said, I wasn’t in Charleston and I didn’t see the speech. I’m someone inclined to support someone like Radtke until she proved she can’t even navigate the simplest of communication crises without stepping in every pile of crap she could find on her way.
Lisa Graas
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:13 am

Radtke, 1 / Erickson, 0
Dianna Deeley
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:16 am

Go to Red State, and the videos from the Red State Gathering.

I’m not a commenter at Red State, and I do not have a dog in this fight, one way or another. I read Erik’s post/editorial, and I watched some of the video, until it became too painful.

Erik was not present for her speech, as he makes plain. He watched the video (read his post before you decide what he accused her of or didn’t), and found it troubling. He read the comments, and quoted some of them.

His post on the subject? If you really, truly want to call it “CYA”, I guess you can. I read it, and have no more opinion than that I read his post, watched the video, and didn’t think his reaction was particularly un-called-for.

YMMD.
Anonymous
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:17 am

But is Erick Erickson merely a blogger? He is managing editor of Red State, whose conference was the venue chosen by Rick Perry to announce his presidential candidacy. Erickson is a CNN commentator and talk-radio host and, as such is an influential figure within the conservative movement and the Republican Party. For him to denounce a GOP candidate for public office is a serious blow to that candidate’s chances, as Charlie Crist discovered to his chagrin.

Thus, you derogate Erickson’s influence by describing him merely as a “blogger.” This assertion that anyone can say anything about anyone on the Internet, and that the target of defamation then has no recourse, threatens rather a frightening debasement of public discourse.
CalMark
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:20 am

A guy is accused of defaming someone on the website where he writes, and you respond that he’s right in spirit, if not fact, and all the information anyone could possibly need to vindicate him is at…his website.

Seems to me you’re grinding an axe, if you fail to notice that laughable conflict of interest.

An analogy: leftist website smears the Tea Party (hard to imagine, I know), and the article writer’s supporters tell everyone that writer is morally correct–just go back to the same leftist website and read the comments…and it ain’t pretty.

P.S. I have no idea who Radtke is, but the accusations and follow-up don’t pass the smell test. RedState looks really bad to me here.
Michael Krempasky
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:22 am

Did you really just use the phrase “debasement of public discourse”?

“I was reading an interview with Keith Richards in a magazine and in the interview Keith Richards intimated that kids should not do drugs. Keith Richards! Says that kids should not do drugs! Keith, we can’t do any more drugs because you already f**king did them all, alright! There’s none left! We have to wait ’till you die and smoke your ashes! Jesus Christ! Talk about the pot and the f**kin’ kettle.” – Dennis Leary, No Cure for Cancer
Turbocohen
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:23 am

Michael, conservatives have objections to the issues.. expanding debt, more government than we need or want, out of control lending practices and so much more. Allen was thought to be the guy who would go up against the party bosses and bring “jeffersonian conservative values” to Dc yet he disapointed many conservatives who followed his votes in many cases. Conservatives have objections to losing the senate in 2006 and with regret Virginia lost that seat to a democrat who voted for less debt and less spending his forst years in office.. he too succumbed to DC spending disease. Jamie is not a career politician, she is a former aid to Allen who knows where he led conservatives astray. Meet Allen, look at his voting record. He has a lot of time in office and he knows what issues concern conservatives in spite of his voting record. Then look at Radtke’s successes with organizing tea party events and discussing the issues that are important. Allen will not as yet debate Radtke because A he is the presumed heir apparent and B he will get clobbered by his own voting record.

Allen is a good man, the problem is that he is like most politicians when it comes to party loyalty vs we the poeple loyalty. I wish him well but it is time for fresh ideas from people who are not beholden to the Washington DC establishment or the media that works hand in hand with it.
Anonymous
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:26 am

Fair enough. Like others, I have no dog in this fight. Do you?

It’s just that pols who’ve exceled at navigating, managing, massaging communication strategies have brought us to this state of affairs. Obviously, strong messaging is essential to winning elections, but I’m not convinced that it’s a key indicator of wise policy and leadership.

Besides, me heard that Allen might not always have “navigate[d] the simplest of communication crises,” himself.
Turbocohen
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:27 am

Dianna Deeley, Show us the video. If you are going to get caught in a lie, then keep on pretending that you saw a video that nobody else has seen. I call your bluff. Prove me wrong and apologies will come your way.
Anonymous
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:27 am

Many politicians went to DC as conservative and the started voting for bizarre spending. There is something in the water there. Once one of them gets something for his constituents mass hysteria sets in. It’s our fault actually. Spare the rod, the cat o nine, the written instructions on a 2×4 across the eyes, spoils the politician. They go on a binge and we return them to office anyway. They act responsibly and we act as if we don’t notice.
Turbocohen
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:29 am

There you go again Dianna, or whoever you really are. If you are say there is a video that even Red State says does not exist yet you refer to it, go find the link. Are you a liar or am I missing something?
CalMark
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:36 am

This is not some trivial accusation; this is a direct attack on someone’s moral character, falsely saying that a candidate for office was raving drunk at a political event.

It’s a very damaging thing to say about anyone. About 30 years ago, the National Enquirer libeled Carol Burnett the same way–and she won a huge defamation settlement, back when really big lawsuit awards were far less common. THAT is how serious a smear like this is.

Put it another way: you are asked to give an impromptu speech at a medium-sized industry conference, and someone writes in the company online update that you were drunk and raving. I think you’d be singing a different tune.
Dianna Deeley
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:37 am

I read his post; I watched some of the video, which was not good, because it made me cringe.

What do you want?

His post detailed his publisher’s requests; his post made clear he was not present; his post included a link to the video; his post included blog comments and a link to comments.

I’m not sure what we all want, here. Really. I write as someone with no dog in the fight. If you really think Erik was off the reservation, all right. But I read the post/editorial; I watched the video until it became too painful; I read the comments on the blog (Note: those posted within a day, none after that). None of the detailed reading/viewing seemed out of line to me (not a lawyer or journalist).

So, I repeat, what are we looking for, here? I’m mildly confused.
Anonymous
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:44 am

Is there a link to the video, which I assume you mean Radke’s introduction speech at the Red State event?
Turbocohen
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:45 am

99 coments on this topic.. http://www.bearingdrift.com/2011/08/24/the-rise-and-fall-and-rise-of-jamie-radtke/
CalMark
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:45 am

P.S. Disclaimer: the little scenario in my last post is not intended to imply that any person was drunk or raving in any situation–it is a hypothetical story as an analogy. I don’t want to get RSM in trouble. I have too much fun posting here.
Dianna Deeley
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:45 am

My apologies – I am notoriously bad at linkage. Let me try again.

AAAAnd – I get dead link; it’s been removed by the owner.

Let’s remove all my posts, because the link is dead.

My apologies. I am, evidently, an idiot. I found a video of reaction, and I found a cell-phone video that I cannot hear the audio of. Neither are the video I saw over a week ago.

Please remove my posts. I am wrong.
Anonymous
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:50 am

I’ve said before I’ve got nothing against George Allen. Smitty was the first to blog about Radtke here, and in writing in support of her campaign, I expressed the belief that Radtke’s candidacy represented an opportunity to carry forward the Tea Party momentum into 2012. That’s it.

So when this ugliness erupted, I didn’t at all view it as anything negative about George Allen. And I’ve written that I understand Erick’s situation with corporate ownership. Publishers tell editors what to publish (or not publish) all the time. That’s the publisher’s prerogative.

This controversy between Erick and Radtke stemmed from Ben Smith’s article. As I understand it, when Smith asked Erick about the situation, Erick said negative things about Radtke’s campaign, and when Smith then asked Radtke about it, Radtke then forwarded to Smith e-mails from Erick that contradicted what Erick had told Smith.

And I say that’s the story “as I understand it,” because I don’t presume to know everything that actually happened. I know what has been reported at Politico and at Red State. Radtke wanted a chance to tell her side of the story at length, and I was grateful to have a chance to get an exclusive interview.

BTW, as you see by the date of the interview (Aug. 26), it was conducted while the original story was still fresh, but other news stories and business matters crowded my schedule, so that I wasn’t able to find time to finish transcribing the 25-minute interview until Thursday. The delay in publication is my fault, not Radtke’s.
Anonymous
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:50 am

So, are you suggesting that the “video you saw over a week ago” was a good quality video of the speech under question, but that it’s since been scrubbed?
Dianna Deeley
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:50 am

Evidently, I am an idiot, and I apologized earlier.

I saw a video over a week ago; I went to the link I had then (I thought it was embedded in something else I read – I thought in Erik’s editorial, but that’s a reaction video) and it is dead – 404 error.

Again, I am notoriously bad at linkage; usually, I’m a bit better at keeping a log of what I’ve watched and read; this time, I’m clearly an idiot, and apologize, again.
Dianna Deeley
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:58 am

Request: Please remove my comments tonight – I have found that I am an idiot. I thought a video (removed) was of Radtke’s remarks. Evidently, not so.
Dianna Deeley
September 2nd, 2011 @ 4:59 am

To repeat: I’m an idiot. The link I thought was to said video returns a 404 error.

Evidently, it was no such thing.
Dianna Deeley
September 2nd, 2011 @ 5:13 am

Turbo, you can’t “call me out as a liar for establishment media”, because I’m not. The worst you can accuse me of is reading the Wall Street Journal and a whole lot of blogs – I’ll be happy to list them, if you like.

I’m not anything but me. Hell, google me. I’m not exactly hard to find. Write me. I swear, I’m 0ccasionally an idiot, but not malicious.
Adjoran
September 2nd, 2011 @ 5:59 am

I believe in the initial posts at RedState it was stated there was no video of Radtke’s remarks – they were added to the schedule late, as an intro to the film, and weren’t regarded as important by those doing the vids. Erickson wasn’t there, and said so, so those who were doing the taping for him might have taken the opportunity for a break.

But I never saw a video, or any indication that a video existed.

I’ve seen Erickson go off the deep end, way overboard against people he decided were RINO, but I don’t remember him ever accusing anyone of personal misconduct. It’s a pretty serious allegation both ways, isn’t it?

I also don’t remember seeing him EVER say she was drunk. He did say others told him she appeared or sounded drunk, was rambling and not completely coherent in a manner which led several present to believe she was. Those anonymous commenters, for the most part, were long-term RS members who were present.

So either they all spontaneously lied about it, or were organized to lie about it. Pretty serious allegation there.

So what makes more sense?

And why didn’t our shoe-leather guy ask the obvious question of how Politico got the story in the first place? Because it seems to me the most logical source – the only ones with anything to gain from the leak – was the Radtke camp.

Not that there is anything wrong with leaking stories to the press, if they aren’t classified, although it might give correspondents some pause, but when the resulting publicity yields your flagging campaign a lot more in free advertising than your entire fundraising total so far, and you are the one keeping the story alive . . .

My response to crap like this is: I have NEVER been sued by ANYONE who threatened to sue me, though many have over the years. Those who did sue me never threatened to, they just filed the damn papers. Don’t tell some reporter you are “considering” suing, it’s a sure sign you have no case at all.
Anonymous
September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:01 am

Erickson is a trashbag and RedStain, is the GOP’s piss stain. Even the folks at Hotair are seeing that Erickson is a joke. I am rooting for Jamie Radtke. Erickson thinks he is bigger than he is. The Conservative Blogosphere see this Erickson and RedStain for the piss stain that it is.
Anonymous
September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:05 am

Erickson is in the wrong here .
Anonymous
September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:10 am

The problem is Radtke is rolling in the mud with a pig like Erickson and that won’t help her. I know Erickson is a trashbag and RedStain is a Joke.
Anonymous
September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:11 am

Moe Lane is the only decent one at RedStain.
Anonymous
September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:26 am

I haven’t followed this closely, but something doesn’t pass the sniff test, for either Radtke or Erickson. There’s no video? Radtke gives a 20 min speech and her camp doesn’t video it? Is there no audio recording? This would be even stranger. How do reporters or bloggers write accurate quotes w/o some kind of recording mechanism?

Erickson called her a “drunk” (?) w/o any “recording” to back up the accusation? He relied only on what I assume are “trusted” sources, not prone to hyperbole? Any source that referred to her as “drunk”, I assume would have been quizzed with f/u questions, like “did you see her drinking?”? “Was she slurring her words?” “Was she “drunk” or just rambling and/or incoherent, as drunks often are?”

I suspect Erickson’s characterization of Radtke’s performance was inartful (had to get that Oblather term in there to rile “folks” up). “Drunk” is a serious accusation which I would assume means drinks to excess often (the proof?). If one were inebriated on one occasion, at best you could call them “drunk”, but not “a drunk”. Even for this, ie at best, you really should have a solid foundation for such an accusation.

I don’t know what happened, and none of us probably ever will. BUT I’m a believer in Reagan’s 11th commandment, at least as far as I understand it. You can attack them on the issues, but be honest, ie don’t be a Democrat. Tread carefully on “personal” issues, unless they will seriously impact your opponent’s ability to do their job AND be damn sure you’re standing on firm ground.

In short, I believe, Radtke is an amateur, but Erickson prewed the scooch. Journalistically. At least.
Anonymous
September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:48 am

Erickson’s a lawyer, which is why it’s so astonishing he would have published that stuff. The only explanation is that he doesn’t take the threat of a defamation suit seriously.
Anonymous
September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:56 am

At first blush, you’d think a lawyer would know better, but …… that’s the problem, they do. I commented on an earlier post that under our current libel and slander laws it’s damn near impossible to get a judgement against anyone. Triply so if you’re a “public figure”. The laws need to be changed.