Erick Erickson, best known for being the Lord Grantham of conservative website RedState, is newly ensconced as an on-air contributor to the Fox News Network. It's a move that seems like destiny, delayed only by Erickson's brief tenure as one of the 479 talking-head pundits that CNN would deploy to blather its audiences into a comatose state.
I'll leave it up to you to decide whether you think of this as positively as Business Insider's Brett LoGiurato (who manages to simultaneously note the "more than a few controversial statements Erickson has made over the past few years that could get him into hot water at the network" and still call him a producer of "measured commentary"), but it's hard to quibble with what Fox News gains by adding Erickson, when weighed alongside some of the networks more celebrated recent departures.
Per LoGiurato: "It's a smart hire for Fox News, which appears to be trying to revamp its image by replacing the largely stale partisan commentary of contributors like Morris and the recently let-go Sarah Palin."
LoGiurato notes, accurately to my mind, that the network's audience spent the last year being "conned by conservatives like Morris," who helped erect the now famously derided alternative universe in which Mitt Romney was going to cruise to reelection and Nate Silver was a charlatan. Erickson, as LoGiurato points out, would have been a tonic for that condition -- he wrote rivetingly about Romney's lack of fitness to serve, and in general can be counted on to be reliably skeptical of what's brewing in the upper echelons of the establishment GOP.
Speaking of! Fox News has also elected to retain the services of Karl Rove, who also helped engineer that Fox News holodeck in which Romney was a shoo-in, battling up until election night with a reality that would not conform to his estimations. And, lo, here's Erickson's take on Rove's new "Conservative Victory Project":
American Crossroads is creating a new Super PAC to crush conservatives, destroy the tea party, and put a bunch of squishes in Republican leadership positions. Thank God they are behind this. In 2012, they spent hundreds of millions of rich donors’ money and had jack to show for it.
"I dare say any candidate who gets this group’s support should be targeted for destruction by the conservative movement," Erickson wrote, and this is probably why Rove's new outfit "will consist of a super PAC that discloses its donations, and ... a tax-exempt group that allows it to shield donors."
Ana Marie Cox has a piece up at the Guardian, in which she wonders, "Can Fox News break its fatal embrace with the Republican party?" The jury's still out, obviously, but her observation here is worth noting:
No matter who may be trying to end the marriage first, extricating themselves from the relationship won't be graceful: the habits of mental cohabitation are too difficult to break. Witness the coverage of Benghazi, where conservative outrage on the channel remains strident and forceful and in harmony with Republican officials, despite the willingness of most of the country to move on to matters closer to home. It's a positive feedback loop that spirals into irrevelance: Republicans pursue a conspiracy that only Fox viewers believe, based on reports only Fox airs, and new information gets hammered into a shape that fits the existing narrative.
Roger Ailes deserves credit for understanding that he could transform the traditional functions of a "news channel" -- you know, actually relating the events of the day to viewers -- into a cable network that took those events and hammered them into a frame through which viewers could tune in and just feel good about themselves. While CNN was having to contend with the fact that we don't have oracles and thus "news events" are unforseeable commodities, Ailes removed the uncertainty from the news business and just served up heaping helpings of Soma to conservative viewers who got to spend their evenings defending the (parts of) America they love along with Fox's celebrity presenters. Frankly, liberals got the same thing out of watching the network -- the chance to feel superior to the "enemy" and its addled arguments. (Roger Ailes should perhaps get credit for pioneering the whole "hate watching" trend.)
But license eventually leads to decadence and in 2012, Fox truly did become the "positive feedback loop that spiraled into irrelevance." Rove's on-air fussery with the network's polling team on election night can rightly be seen as the moment all that deliberately constructed pretense finally became unsustainable.
At the same time, though, maybe that riveting moment birthed a new idea. Now, Fox viewers will be treated to more cross-currents and, perhaps, an open on-air war between the architect of the Bush administration and a blog-maven who'd like to tear those works asunder and prevent new ones from being built. In this way, perhaps Fox is taking steps to break away from its well-worn past and trouble its normally serene waters with entertaining internecine tensions. This tactic is, conventionally speaking, "good television." But it's also, conventionally speaking, rather conventional.
[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not?]
Also on HuffPost:
'2nd Amendment Remedies'
During Nevada's 2010 Senate election, an <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/16/sharron-angle-floated-2nd_n_614003.html" target="_hplink">audio clip</a> surfaced of Sharron Angle <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/sharron_angle_floated_possibil.html" target="_hplink">raising</a> "Second Amendment remedies" as a viable solution to take when "government becomes out of control." The Tea Party-backed hopeful ultimately proved unsuccessful in her campaign to unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
'I Do Not Wear High Heels'
Ken Buck, a Tea Party-backed contender who ultimately fell short in his bid to unseat Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet in Colorado, made headlines in 2010 when he <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/21/ken-buck-vote-for-me-beca_n_654990.html" target="_hplink">quipped</a> that people should vote for him "because I do not wear high heels."
'I Am Not A Witch'
Christine O'Donnell <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/04/christine-odonnell-witch-ad_n_750140.html" target="_hplink">captured headlines</a> in 2010 with a now-infamous campaign ad in which she tells voters, "I'm not a witch." She says, "I'm nothing you've heard. I'm you." O'Donnell was defeated in her campaign for Senate in Delaware by Democratic Sen. Chris Coons.
Scientists For Creationism?
Rep. Michele Bachmann <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Damah0KH-Co&feature=player_embedded" target="_hplink">said</a> in October of 2006, "There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design."
Democrats = Communists?
HuffPost's Jen Bendery <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/allen-west-democrats-communist-party_n_1417279.html" target="_hplink">reported</a> in April of this year: <blockquote>As many as 80 House Democrats are communists, according to Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.). West warned constituents at a Tuesday town hall event that he's "heard" that dozens of his Democratic colleagues in the House are members of the Communist Party, the <em>Palm Beach Post</em> <a href=" http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/allen-west-hears-cheers-jeers-at-town-hall-2295766.html?cxtype=rss_news" target="_hplink">reported</a>. There are currently 190 House Democrats. West spokeswoman Angela Melvin later defended West's comments -- and clarified to whom West was referring. "The Congressman was referring to the 76 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The Communist Party has publicly referred to the Progressive Caucus as its allies. The Progressive Caucus speaks for itself. These individuals certainly aren't proponents of free markets or individual economic freedom," Melvin said in a statement to The Huffington Post.
Welfare Prison Dorms?
The AP <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/22/carl-paladino-backs-welfa_n_690284.html" target="_hplink">reported</a> in August of 2010 on then-New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino: <blockquote>Throughout his campaign, Paladino has criticized New York's rich menu of social service benefits, which he says encourages [undocumented] immigrants and needy people to live in the state. He has promised a 20 percent reduction in the state budget and a 10 percent income tax cut if elected. Asked at the meeting how he would achieve those savings, Paladino laid out several plans that included converting underused state prisons into centers that would house welfare recipients. There, they would do work for the state - "military service, in some cases park service, in other cases public works service," he said - while prison guards would be retrained to work as counselors. "Instead of handing out the welfare checks, we'll teach people how to earn their check. We'll teach them personal hygiene ... the personal things they don't get when they come from dysfunctional homes," Paladino said. ... Paladino told The Associated Press the dormitory living would be voluntary, not mandatory, and would give welfare recipients an opportunity to take public, state-sponsored jobs far from home. "These are beautiful properties with basketball courts, bathroom facilities, toilet facilities. Many young people would love to get the hell out of cities," Paladino he said. He also defended his hygiene remarks, saying he had trained inner-city troops in the Army and knows their needs. "You have to teach them basic things - taking care of themselves, physical fitness. In their dysfunctional environment, they never learned these things," he said.</blockquote>