Erickson’s ‘Anti-Semitic Screed’?

Posted on | October 27, 2011 | 70 Comments

Matters took an ugly turn yesterday when Erick Erickson of Red State accused Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post of being in the tank for Mitt Romney — and we’ll have to get back to that accusation in a minute. Because in the process of making that accusation, Erickson wrote:

A conservative friend says she’s best understood as ‘Likud’ rather than Republican or conservative. There’s nothing wrong with being Likud, but one ought to be honest about it.

Ummm . . . yeah. Well, Politico asked Rubin to react:

“You want a Washington Post journalist to comment on an anti-Semitic screed by some blogger?” Rubin asked. “My arms are not long enough to punch down that far.”

Whoa! I’d imagine Dan Riehl (who doesn’t care much for either Rubin or Erickson) must be laughing his ass off at this dust-up. On the one hand, Rubin seems a bit hasty to play the anti-Semite card. On the other hand, the folks at Eagle Publishing and CNN probably won’t be too pleased to see their guy throwing “Likudnik” jabs at Jewish conservatives.

Donald Douglas has further thoughts. But who is Erickson — having sponsored Rick Perry’s presidential announcement — to accuse Rubin or anyone else of being unfairly partial to a candidate? And does Erickson suppose that picking fights with “Likudniks” is going to help Perry?

HERMAN CAIN for PRESIDENT
He’s OK With Likud, IYKWIMAITYD

Category: Election 2012, Red State

Comments

70 Responses to “Erickson’s ‘Anti-Semitic Screed’?”

ECM
October 27th, 2011 @ 3:10 pm

I agree with most of your thoughts on Erickson and, as others have said, he’s real quick w/ shutting down speech when it suits him as, I’d wager, anyone that has frequented Red State is probably well familiar.
Anonymous
October 27th, 2011 @ 3:20 pm

I’m not really concerned to what extent a columnist/blogger for WashPo is a bonafide “conservative.” I just think that her analysis is often mediocre, yet she has a high profile gig and is labelled (used?) by the establishment left as an example of a right-wing intellectual.
Anonymous
October 27th, 2011 @ 3:21 pm

If you’re a Likudnik, then I’m an anarchist.
ThomasD
October 27th, 2011 @ 3:33 pm

Ah the three R’s of Appalachia – Readin’, ‘Ritin’, and Route 23 North…
ThomasD
October 27th, 2011 @ 3:36 pm

EE is a twerp of the first order. But that statement is a pretty decent example of how one stops digging, and starts climbing out.
Anonymous
October 27th, 2011 @ 3:57 pm

Oh, I’m definitely not a Likudnik. Likud was founded by a terrorist (Menachem Begin) on the basis of a set of beliefs (Revisionist Zionism) rooted in Mussolinism, and hasn’t really improved much since.

I was just accused of being a Likudnik. I’m not sure what party I’d be active in if I were involved in Israeli politics, but it almost certainly wouldn’t be Likud.
DaveO
October 27th, 2011 @ 4:02 pm

Blue on blue fratricide! My favorite!
Anonymous
October 27th, 2011 @ 4:19 pm

Moe? Moe Lane? You’re comparing Moe Lane with Charles Johnson? This tells me more about you than it does about Moe, to be honest.
Anonymous
October 27th, 2011 @ 4:21 pm

For what it’s worth, I think she’s not as far gone as Brooks or Frum, to say nothing of Peggy Noonan – who has no damn excuses for going squishy, considering that she writes for the free-market conservatives at the Wall Street Journal.
Anonymous
October 27th, 2011 @ 4:46 pm

But if you’re talking about the quality of writing and analysis, somewhat independent of ideological orientation (to whatever extent its possible to separate those two elements), then Brooks has his moments.

For example, stylistically and conceptually, Brooks often writes crisp, breezy material. He loves to divide the world into two competing archetypes, which leads to oversimplified, almost cartoonish, analysis – but at least it has some flair to it.

Ideologically, Rubin is much superior to Brooks, but how often does she inject original, interesting perspectives into whatever is the topic of the day? And does she really write all that well?
Anonymous
October 27th, 2011 @ 4:49 pm

I actually follow neither religiously so I’m essentially mocking the “blogfight” (as coined by scarymatt). However, Rubin, as I’ve noticed recently, seems to be promoting Romney (which is exactly what I’d expect from a WaPo representative) and looks to be having an induced Rorschach moment. She notes Erickson’s comment, who just happens to be Not-Romney in advocacy, and saw an opportunity to smear him with a false charge of anti-Semitism. It was she who manufactured the equivalency of a “racist” accusation either to create a mini-narrative to knock Erickson; or she is accidentally exposing the window of her worldview, a lens of a filter whereby life is examined through tests of Semitism first. Is she justifiably sensitive to the terminology? I dunno, but it looked more like a hyped overreaction – or should I say opportunity – to bash a political challenger… assuming, of course, a journalist ever mingles politics and analysis which is probably quite rare at WaPo.

I read Erickson’s comment as a convenient political label to summarize another – like calling someone a NeoCon. To attribute that to “anti-Semitism” is absurd, Erickson’s personality notwithstanding.
You reap what you sow
October 27th, 2011 @ 4:53 pm

[…] here, here, here, and […]
ThePaganTemple
October 27th, 2011 @ 5:23 pm

You’re right that might be the worst one of all. That’s tantamount to calling somebody a flat-out traitor.
edge of the sandbox
October 27th, 2011 @ 6:43 pm

In my youth I was pretty apolitical, but, I guess, on the left because that’s where my friends were. When the 2nd Intifada started I became a conservative. I’m going to take Ericson’s public outburst personal. Rubin is an interesting center-right commentator, and she’s on my blogroll. Whether or not Rubin is conservative enough is irrelevant to Ericson’s comment.
Anonymous
October 27th, 2011 @ 8:37 pm

I took it as a back-handed compliment. But I thought it strange that anyone would think the Israeli government would think the Libertarian Party was important enough to infiltrate 😉
ThePaganTemple
October 27th, 2011 @ 10:30 pm

That’s one reason a lot of people are attracted to third parties. Not necessarily because of Jews alone, just the idea they think the two major parties have been corrupted and infiltrated. It’s delusional perhaps, but once that idea becomes cemented in their minds its easy to see how they would start seeing boogie men of all stripes and persuasions around ever dark corner. And of course since they’re so “enlightened” as to be able to know all this, it would stand to reason the “enemy” would want to infiltrate them too so they could keep track of them, and find out everything they “know” about them.
Anonymous
October 27th, 2011 @ 10:51 pm

I don’t discount the idea of infiltration of the Libertarian Party entirely. There are plenty of open Republican co-option attempts going on at any given time, so it wouldn’t surprise me to see some that are less visible.

I just can’t for the life of me think what the Israelis would have to gain by infiltrating the LP. It’s fairly minor as opinion-making organizations go, and in the usual course of things not especially focused on Israel (although it would end foreign aid and military interventionism given the opportunity, which it will never will be).
David
October 28th, 2011 @ 2:10 am

Great line. Iran-Iraq reference, I mean. Poor Perry. If he weren’t endorsed by Erickson he’d be in better shape. Let’s hope Rubin has the same Midas touch. Although, I’m not that crazy about Cain, either. Okay, we’re screwed.
Israel Matzav on Erick Erickson's Anti-Semitic Attack on Jennifer Rubin - ScrollPost.com
October 28th, 2011 @ 11:20 am

[…] the link, and Erickson’s getting beaten up in the comments.Also, at The Other McCain, “Erickson’s ‘Anti-Semitic Screed’?“Related Posts27 October 2011 – Incitement &#187 US Middle East Opinion &#187 Jennifer Rubin […]
The Blogfire Of The Vanities » GOP Primaries 2012
November 2nd, 2011 @ 5:51 pm

[…] response to Stacy, who posts on it here – not really. When arrogance fights with ignorance, no one wins, most especially when […]