Image 01 Image 03

Did RedState really purge anti-Trump authors?

Did RedState really purge anti-Trump authors?

It’s a brave new internet world out there.

This is tough.

The conservative blogging world is a small place, so I have good friends who were recently blindsided by the layoffs at RedState, and many who still have a job. My thoughts are with them all. Neither side of this situation is easy.

Friday, news broke that RedState, owned by Salem Media, the same outfit that owns sites like Townhall and HotAir, endured massive layoffs.

If you listen to the rumors, they’ll tell you only the vocal Trump critics were cut in favor of those more pro-Trump. There are a handful of staunch Trump critics remaining at RedState, enough to prove this supposition false.

But at CNN Money writes, the layoffs were likely about money more than anything else:

RedState writers work on contract and are paid based on the amount of traffic to their posts.

“Those who had been under a contract with a higher per-click rate were mostly all tossed, only keeping those who were pro-Trump even if their traffic was comparable,” another one of the sources said on condition of anonymity.

“Of those who make less under their contracts, they mostly tossed those who had been openly critical of the president,” the source said. “It seems to have been a cost saving measure, but the deciding factor between any two people seems to have been who liked the president and who didn’t.”

Salem had no immediate comment. But an internal memo obtained by CNNMoney confirmed the housecleaning.

“We had to make some tough changes to RedState today,” Townhall general manager Jonathan Garthwaite wrote in the memo. “While these changes are painful, they were necessary once we reached the conclusion that we could no longer support the entire roster of writers and editors.”

RedState, a 13-year-old blog that was founded by Erick Erickson, is one of several sites in Townhall Media’s portfolio. Townhall, in turn, is owned by Salem Media Group, a conservative media company that also operates radio stations and publishes books.

Erick Erickson, one of RedState’s founders, opened his new web home to RedState bloggers who got the ax Friday.

The site name will linger, but RedState is all but dead now. I have invited the fired writers here.

When RedState started in 2004, it was about collaborating between all sides of the GOP and, after I took over, had a real grassroots focus. Since the Salem purchase of Eagle Publishing, the grassroots focus went away as did the community building aspect in favor of clickbait with analysis.

Thankfully, Salem is retaining some very good writers who have long been at RedState, but today engaged in a mass purge of most of the writers.

My understanding from the writers is that there were two contracts, one more expensive than the other. Most of those on the expensive contracts were tossed, though some very good ones will stay. Of those under the cheaper contracts, it seems the dividing line was loyalty to the President. In fact, among those under the expensive contracts, I’m aware of some writers having near equal traffic generation, and those insufficiently loyal to the President were fired.

…It is unfortunate, but the reality is that Salem never had any idea what to do with RedState and it was very obvious. It is one of the many reasons I chose to retire from the site after a ten year run as editor. They’ve really stopped driving a conversation among conservatives in the past few years as they turned to clickbait and now will really just be a clickbait site it seems.

That is unfortunate. It is also one reason I wanted to start rebuilding a community here. Readers are welcome, and the RedState community is welcome. Anyone can create an account and start writing, and we hope our focus will be less on clickbait stories and more on a resurgent conservatism not tied to cults of personality.

RedState was unique in that anyone could start their own page under RedState’s umbrella. The community-focus made it a special spot in the conservative blogosphere. Those communities and grassroots coordination so important and prevalent in the Obama era have slowly fallen by the wayside. Social media has filled some of that gap. But the conservative blogosphere that blossomed and peaked during the Obama years is rapidly shrinking.

It’s a brave new internet world out there. The whole digital space, social media and all, is in the midst of a metamorphosis. I have no idea how the dice will land, but in the meantime, we will keep blogging, or feeding the blog beast as we like to say around here, and hope it doesn’t swallow us too.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



    Ratbert in reply to Wisewerds. | April 28, 2018 at 12:56 am

    I’m still not tired of winning!

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Wisewerds. | April 28, 2018 at 8:01 am

    In other words, Trump derangement syndrome caused them to become increasing unviable. I think that there are plenty of people on LS who are als tired of those who became unhinged when Trump won.

      Tom Servo in reply to JusticeDelivered. | April 28, 2018 at 8:23 am

      It’s even worse than that – Erick Erickson and the people he hired were never even close to being actual “conservatives”, they were simply acting like one because they felt like they could monetize that little part of the market.

      One of the best things to happen in the Age of Trump is that all the masks are coming off, and we are finding out just why everyone really is. And a lot of it isn’t pretty at all.

      If Erick Erickson was/is so “conservative”, then why is he now out there trying to push the idea of a “Christian Socialist” party in this country? That’s his theme lately, and it betrays what he and most of the (now-fired) Redstate writers really wanted – a party with the economic and immigration policies of Bernie Sanders, overlaid with a veneer of gay-bashing. He’s always used the social-con act to hide the fact that he’s a socialist, pretending to be a “conservative”.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Wisewerds. | April 28, 2018 at 3:54 pm

    Wisewerds, thanks for that link where I got a “HUGE” Laugh.


    From that article: “Redstate was the pulse of the conservative movement.”

    Could have fooled me and hundreds of millions of Americans too.

…It is unfortunate, but the reality is that Salem never had any idea what to do with RedState and it was very obvious.

I think that is right.

They’ve really stopped driving a conversation among conservatives in the past few years

Although never claiming to be a conservative, Trump has been the best thing to happen to political Conservatism in over a generation. The persistently anti-Trump types are therefore basically not Conservative in any politically useful way.

If RedState—which I know nothing about—is a den of anti-Trumpism, I have to wonder in which direction it may have been “driving” anything.

    Ragspierre in reply to tom_swift. | April 27, 2018 at 10:49 pm

    RedState has several very PRO-T=rump authors, just as does NRO. You should look in on them, and learn.

      RedState had mods that would litteraly ban anyone too Trump. That is why Salem had to cut costs and clean house, it was killing traffic.

        Ragspierre in reply to EBL. | April 28, 2018 at 3:44 am

        There are T-rump supporters on RedState, lying cow.

          JusticeDelivered in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 8:48 am

          Rags, “lying cow” and similar lame assertions do make an impression, about you. Grow up.

          Rags, there is always Patterico for you!

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 11:59 pm

          I’ll happily join Patterico, lying cow. A clear thinking constitutional conservative, successful attorney, and fine writer.

          I’ll leave you Duh Donald. Who you either CAN or CANNOT criticize when his conduct calls for it.

          That’s on you.

        Tom Servo in reply to EBL. | April 28, 2018 at 8:02 am

        RedState pushed the never-Trump line so hard that I quit them summer 2016 – looks like a whole lot of other former readers quit them too, or else why did they have such a revenue problem?

        Another salem site that’s dying due to killing off their readership base is Hot Air – most of us credit that to the decision they made to go to Facebook commenting, and they killed what had been a vibrant net community with that move.

        Looks like the Never Trump ghetto on the net is shrinking down to National Review and Erick Erickson’s sanctimonious little revenge blog.

        It was funny to see Patterico whining and crying yesterday about how unfairly he was treated. Well that’s what you get for being James Comey’s little fanboy – nobody wants to read that mess, and even your employers finally realized it.

          Hawkeye42 in reply to Tom Servo. | April 28, 2018 at 1:22 pm

          I am in the same position as you, was an avid reader but got sick of the constant Trump bashing and stopped reading them, did the same with Breitbart at the same time but because of the constant Trump praise. When I read I am just after the facts with as little of the writers opinion as possible so I can make up my own mind.

        hell, they would ban a member only due to that member saying if he did something banworthy he would not fight it.
        and that statement there is why I was banned.

          Tom Servo in reply to dmacleo. | April 28, 2018 at 3:45 pm

          An editor named Caleb Howe was the one behind that decision, and he’s one of the ones howling the most about being fired.

          Erickson is inviting the fired writers to post on his blog, but he’s also got a piece up admitting that his site doesn’t earn it’s way at all and he doesn’t have any major backers left. (and he doesn’t have any money to actually pay writers for putting up pieces on his site) He keeps it going out of spite, apparently. Great business model, Erick.

      VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 12:43 am

      Veni. Vidi. Repudiavi.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 8:14 am

      Rags, you need to stop focusing on rumps. The truth is that Trump is breathing new vigor into the Repub. party. He is also a factor in Dems increasing self destructiveness.

      Perhaps your mindset is similar to those who became expendable at RedState?

RedState fell into the same trap that so many other forums and umbrella sites fell into in the last 10 years. The founders SOLD it for a profit. It was bought, not by some altruistic ideologue, but by a business. The business wants to make money. So, those who are not making money for the business, or whose positions may seem antithetical to the business model, are simply let go or driven out.

What happened with the election of Donald Trump is that Conservatism, as an identity, disappeared. It fragmented into the anti-Establishment wing, which supports Trump most of the time, and the pro-Establishment wing, which opposes Trump most of the time and supports the Establishment status quo. In other words, the change and status quo factions. You see the same thing at every }conservative site, including this one. Salem has decided that they can make more money by adopting an anti-Establishment position and supporting Trump. And, that is what they are doing.

I will repeat this because it bears repeating. Conservatism, as a movement, has been dying for decades and is now dead. It has been replaced by an Establishment v Anti-Establishment political conflict. Conservatives are going to have to pick one side or the other and stop calling themselves Conservatives. RedState picked their side.

    Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | April 27, 2018 at 10:52 pm

    As usual, you show that you are an idiot with opinions.

    You don’t have a clue what you post about, but you state it in didactic terms, as from Olympus.

    Conservatives are the heirs of the Revolution…which you don’t really very much believe in, as as denier of natural law and all.

      Wisewerds in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 12:09 am

      Hmmm, pot, meet kettle

      Ratbert in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 12:52 am

      Hillary lover.

      Disagree if you want, but why make it personal, with no justification wahtsoever. It says a lot. You more closely resemble the progressive way of discussion.

      That’s funny rags, because you basically just described yourself in technicolor.

        Ragspierre in reply to rdm. | April 28, 2018 at 7:44 am

        Yah. I AM a conservative. Have been for decades. Guilty as charged.

        When…if…you want to test whether I have stuff to back up an opinion, just feel froggy.

        Some more astute readers here will note that I don’t express an opinion on quite a few subjects. I don’t know enough about them to have formed an informed opinion.

      Mac45 in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 11:38 am

      People who follow my post know that I like to put forward theories which can be used to gauge accuracy and veracity. One of those theories is that when rags, and others, know that they are wrong and have NO logical or factual argument to put forth, they resort to name calling and simply stating that those they agree with are wrong, without any counter argument.

      This fits that theory nicely.

      Mac45 in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 12:14 pm

      But, to elaborate on what I said. Conservatism began its death spiral in 1980.

      In that year, a former Democrat defeated the premier conservative, in the US, for the GOP nomination for President. That man later became the poster child for the Conservative movement. However, he was anything but a conservative. Hie policies on economics and foreign policy were actually on the conservative side of moderate and his social policies were on the liberal side of moderate. he was a centrist, not a conservative. His name was Ronald Reagan and the conservative who he displaced in the nomination for President was Barry Goldwater.

      From that point on, conservatives lost more and more power in the Republican Party. The Party paid lip service to conservative ideals, in order to gain the votes of the members of the conservative wing of the Party. But, it steadfastly refused to implement any of these ideals. Since then the GOP has given us G.H.W Bush, Bob Dole, G.W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney. None of these candidates can begin to be described as conservative.

      And, in order to keep the Conservative movement in line, Establishment representatives took control of the Conservative movement. With the exception of the short-lived Tea Party movement, which, in addition to being largely a single issue movement, only produced marginal results; conservatives were forced to support Establishment candidates or stay home on election day. There were almost NO viable conservative candidates put forward for elected positions. And, then, the Establishment doubled down by essentially buying off more conservative legislators once they were elected.

      So, we come to the 2016 Presidential race. The GOP runs a raft of candidates who run the gamut from mildly conservative to liberal wienies. But, all but one have one thing in common. They are all politicians who are members of, or closely allied with, the Elitist Establishment in this country. The one exception to that D.J.Trump. Trump, while ideologically a liberal moderate, is not a politician. And, he ran on a platform of promises which were strikingly at odds with the policies and aims of the Establishment in this country. And what happened? Trump won. And, he did not win just the conservative vote. He won the workingman’s vote. These people voted against the Establishment, not for conservative values.

      The new battleground is not conservative v liberal. It is the anti-Establishment v Establishment. New era, new alliances.

        elle in reply to Mac45. | April 28, 2018 at 2:00 pm

        Good points. Additionally, the levers of power became corrupted as the press lost its independence and became owned by a very few large corporate interests that, along with academia worked feverishly to put forth one narrative that allowed the powerful to prevent anyone with competing interests to access the system. Anyone straying from the narrative was singled out for Alinsky targeting (see Kanye West) than few can withstand. We also saw our voting power diminished by both fraud and the blatant use of importing the voters they did want.

        Donald Trump won for reasons that you noted, but also because the establishment thought he was an easy out and allowed him access to the system and helped him get the nomination. And he did not owe anyone, but the voters, anything once he won.

        My point is that I don’t think it is JUST establishment v/s anti-establishment (not to imply that you were saying that it was), but also global corruption of powerful interests versus the people. They want cheap labor and they don’t care how they get it.

        They came close. They corrupted all of the top levers of power and almost destroyed the mindset that makes America great. Then Trump shot them between the eyes with his slingshot. If he doesn’t clean up the corruption, we will be in the same boat in a few years.

          Mac45 in reply to elle. | April 28, 2018 at 5:11 pm

          Actually, today’s political conflict IS nothing more than the Establishment v anti-Establishment voters. The Establishment is largely controlled by Elitist, Globalist interests. Their personal interests are best served by open borders, free trade and increasing the dependence of the citizenry on government largess. Of course, these policies unduly harm the American Middle Class, which finds itself facing reduced resources and opportunities, while the working members of that class support a sizable non-working class.

          elle in reply to elle. | April 28, 2018 at 8:43 pm

          You are right that it boils down to establishment v/s anti-establishment. But sans the corruption, then the majority middle class would vote them out when they get too far out of line.

          By taking control of the press, entertainment and academia they successfully shut down dissent and by diluting the vote through fraud and immigration, the establishment was freed from accountability to the middle class.

          That’s why they are so hot for destroying the 1st and 2nd amendments. They reached peak control and that pesky bill of rights keeps getting in the way. If we weren’t armed, they would have wrapped this up years ago.

        Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | April 29, 2018 at 12:20 am

        What the HELL are you talking about? And you accuse Rags of being drunk?

        Reagan was a Goldwaterite conservative, and his victory was universally seen as a long-delayed victory by Goldwater.. Goldwater was never a candidate in 1980, gave no sign of even contemplating running, and in fact endorsed Reagan. Reagan had a long record as a conservative public intellectual, particularly on economics. The main candidates he defeated were George H W Bush and John Anderson, neither of whom were particularly conservative.

          Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | April 29, 2018 at 8:11 am

          I wonder why Mac.22 posts here, and what role he thinks he occupies.

          He’s avowedly anti-conservative. So why is he posting on a conservative legal blog? I mean, he’s welcome to, just like Yellowsnake, but he’s treated entirely differently, while he actually shares a lot with Yellowsnake in terms of his own, expressed, political views.

          It’s been demonstrated that he’s an ignoramus regarding economics, history, the law, and politics. He actually believes all kinds of pure crap, and he’s obdurate about clinging to it and re-stating it as if it’s gospel. He’s a Birther, denier of the existence of natural rights (so no friend of the Revolution), Malthusian, and general nutter.

          Some here give him loves because he IS a T=rump cultist. So maybe that’s why he’s treated so differently than Yellowsnake.

      Anonamom in reply to Ragspierre. | April 29, 2018 at 9:07 am

      “As usual, you show that you are an idiot with opinions.

      You don’t have a clue what you post about, but you state it in didactic terms, as from Olympus.”

    I see this as more of a cost cutting measure, Mac45…

    The same thing has happen to some liberal sites and to many regular magazines/newspapers…It’s become hard to make money with written content…soooo much free stuff is out there, plus many people are using ad blockers…

    Maybe the written content sites need to figure out a way to get money back from Google!!!!

    I find the E Erickson, “Rebuilding the community” statement amusing…”Come to my new site, register, and start writing”!!!
    What he leaves out is…”For free”.

    rdmdawg in reply to Mac45. | April 30, 2018 at 8:29 am

    “Conservatism, as an identity, disappeared.”

    That’s a bit much, friend. While not all Trump supporters are conservatives, I’d guess that a majority still hold to the values of smaller government, rule of law, sovereignty of the individual, etc, etc..

There were some toxic hateful mods at RedState. They ruined it for the rest.

    audax in reply to EBL. | April 28, 2018 at 5:26 am

    Caleb Howe banned me from RS last December, along with a lot of others. I’m not pro-tRump, and not anti-tRump either (though I did vote for the pothead).

    I went on Disqus to find what other sites commentators were visiting and found that most were one site wonders, commenting on RS only. This made me start searching for other conservative blog and web sites. So thanks Caleb!

    Noticed that after the mass bannings last year, RS numbers started to decline and have been going done ever since. Guess this is what happens when you ban your most devote readers and commentators. Streiff emailed me yesterday that I and a lot of others banned at RS are now re-instated. Maybe they want their clicks back!

      jakee308 in reply to audax. | April 28, 2018 at 7:29 am

      Did you? Hah. When they banned me. I harassed them for weeks to remove my user name and log in since I was banned what’s the point of having me on the user list? Oh Yeah cause they needed the user list numbers to help sell the site that’s why.

      I knew what they were doing so I made several emails saying that I would start trying to make their little game known wherever I could drop that stinker. They relented and took me off the user list. See they ban you but you can still log on but couldn’t post or comment. Hot Air did the same thing. Forced them to take my name off their user list too.

      Too many egos wrapped up with how many users they attracted then wondered why when they dissed their users their numbers went down. It’s kinda obvious ya know.

      I may start reading them again since Fat bloated Erick isn’t there and maybe they scourged a few a’hole mods too.

      Sometimes the right acts just like the left.

NRO sucked all the #nevertrump air out of the net? I mean, how many masks dropped. The Federalist, WFB, NRO, Redstate… all of ’em and more… they were SO principled they and their writers rathered a Hillary win than a loss to nutty Trump.

I’m only surprised it took them this long to start cleaning house.

I simply stopped going there about a year ago.

A couple of their writers were SERIOUSLY unhinged (Sarah Wright in particular), and I just got tired of wading through ridiculous Trump-bashing headlines trying to find stories actually worth reading.

Don’t get me wrong – you can of course make a career off critiquing Trump’s decisions.

But day after day after day of just unhinged rants about Trump with no substance and people just stop listening.

If you read nothing but somebody like Wright then you’d be convinced that Trump is a racist serial rapist that bought the election from Putin and was about to be arrested by the intrepid truth seekers that worked for Obama.

Running a ‘conservative’ website that bashes Trump 24/7 is a recipe for financial bankruptcy. Who’s the target audience?

RedState is finding that conservatives, as a group, support Trump, and liberals HATE conservatives, even if they find them useful while bashing Trump, they won’t keep you in business because they’d rather read liberals bashing Trump.

    Ragspierre in reply to Olinser. | April 27, 2018 at 11:07 pm

    Total bullshit. Look up “steiff”, who is quite prolific and generally PRO-T-rump.

    The authors there are well-balanced, and offer THINKING, instead of uniform GroupThink.

      Ratbert in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 12:54 am

      Then go to RedState to post you Hillary-loving comments and leave us alone.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ratbert. | April 28, 2018 at 2:47 am

        I’ll be here when you’re an unpleasant, stinking memory, ratshit.

          JusticeDelivered in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 9:58 am

          Rags, another lame and juvenile comment. I am thinking about tallying such comments posting that tally at the end of each discussion.

          I can see this: “Rags posted 47 stupid, lame or juvenile comments on this tread, and a total of 756 to date this month :)”

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 10:14 pm

          Fine with me, JustAssDelivered.

          I’ll reciprocate.

      stieff is still at RedState. But when it comes to how things were at RedState you have no idea. I was there. RS Moderator Neil Stevens was essentially like a love child between you and Little Green Football’s Charles Johnson, only more of an asshat and with banning powers. He was out of control.

    rdmdawg in reply to Olinser. | April 30, 2018 at 8:35 am

    The thing about this is, you can go *anywhere* else, in mainstream media, in most of the online ‘conservative’ media and find everyone mindlessly bashing on Trump. It was overload. There was never any new fresh take at Red State.

      Ragspierre in reply to rdmdawg. | April 30, 2018 at 10:11 am

      That’s simply bullshit.

      First, it IS “ad hominem” in the true sense. Instead of meeting the views of what you consider “Trump-bashers” head on, you clump them…falsely…into one heap with the MSM.

      This is like saying that the content of LI can be found elswere and hence has no value, and from a grossly myopic POV it can be. Yet, in the particulars of the analysis often available here, that simply is a lie.

      Just as a BTW, the FIRST report of the Syrian attack by whoever came from RedState, at least among the conservative media on my radar. Check out the time-lines.

This continues to show our power – when we choose to use it.

Erik Erickson is outted as about as ‘conservative’ as boehner – and about as reliable as mccain.


Look, regardless of what he says, Trump has been governing pretty darn conservatively. If you’re critical of that, do you really belong writing for a conservative site?

    Ragspierre in reply to Othniel. | April 28, 2018 at 3:49 am

    YES…!!! You sure as shit DO…!

    A “rightist Progressive” is NOT a “conservative”, and it’s no bad thing to point that out.

    Nor is it a bad thing…except to tribalists…to remind us all that we had principles that we willingly subvert to foster the tribe.

      jakee308 in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 7:38 am

      All the principles you want didn’t get us on the road to a unification of Korea, nor reduction in unemployment to pre ’70’s numbers, Or increase Black employment, Or reduction in taxes Or chances for renegotiating US crippling treaties Or tossing out treaties that are worthless or one sided (their’s) Or rolling back rules and regs that have crippled US industry Or money laundering schemes using the EPA and stopping a new one (BCFA) from getting a choke hold on the countries bank. and so on.

        Ragspierre in reply to jakee308. | April 28, 2018 at 8:16 am

        Well, you’d have to start with what principles you think I hold.

        But I would have to question everything you’ve said you think are directly attributable…and solely…to the greatness of T-rumpism, which you seem to admit is not conservatism.

        As he himself boasted, there’s been a decline in civil air deaths. Somehow, I doubt a cause–>effect relationship.

        I’ll also add that I have attributed to him some good things he’s done in office. Right on these threads.

      Mac45 in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 12:57 pm

      Ideals are never absolute. Compromises are made all of the time. AS I noted above, the Conservative movement embraced a former liberal Democrat as the poster child of the Conservative movement following his successful tenure as President.

      What you illustrate is the trauma some conservatives experience when the election of DJT proved that their “tribe”, Conservatism, was no longer relevant. I’m sorry, but, times have changed. Trump is currently delivering on all of the promises that self-identified “conservative” politicians have failed to deliver on for years, and are still failing to deliver on. Why? Because it has not been about conservative v liberal for the last 40 years.

      Now, this does not mean that you have to abandon your “ideals”. But, even a diehard conservation has to allow a wolf to be killed to protect the rest of society, sooner or later.

        Tom Servo in reply to Mac45. | April 28, 2018 at 3:54 pm

        Ace made some good points on this topic yesterday. His example was, say you were a New York Giants fan, and you interacted with other fans on some web site. How much of a fan would you actually be, if all you ever said was that Eli Manning sucks, that the Giants suck because they haven’t fired Eli Manning, and that all the other Giant fans who think Eli is really pretty good suck too? What if you then wished that the Giants would lose every game, so they would learn some lesson about keeping Eli Manning?
        And what if that is ALL you ever said about the Giants – how would you be any different than someone who just admits outright that they Hate the Giants and everything they do?

        If all you do ever day is write about how much you hate the main guy on the Giants, you sure as hell aren’t a Giants fan, and all the real fans know it. Same thing goes for saying you’re conservative.

          Mac45 in reply to Tom Servo. | April 28, 2018 at 5:27 pm

          This is actually more akin to the situation with Jackie Robinson and the Brooklyn Dodgers. The Dodgers had been in a 2 decades long “slump”, producing only mediocre stats. During the rebuilding of the late 1940s, the Dodgers took a chance on a middle-aged, extremely talented, black, minor league baseball player. His inclusion did not sit well with a large group of the club’s fan base, even though he was making great contributions to the team’s winning efforts. On the flip side, a whole new group of fans, African-Americans, began flocking to the games. Not only did Robinson produce, on the field, but he drew in an increased fan base. Through it all, he had to endure massive assaults, some physical, from the entrenched establishment, both on the field and off. But, both the Dodgers and baseball were the better for his performance and presence.

          Times change.

          elle in reply to Tom Servo. | April 29, 2018 at 3:58 pm

          Times do change. The Democrats suck. The started to suck around the time of Reagan, but liberals were high on their coolness then and still pretended to support liberal ideals.

          But now the Dems are such hypocrites that they reek of the same stench as Tammy’s Faye Baker’s acolytes.

          Yes. The times changed. Democrats just suck. No one likes them despite all of the establishment behind them, telling us how sweet they smell. Kayne just noted your emperor has no clothes. The tolerant non-racist libs will take him out to the woodshed and strip him of his house privileges to keep the rest of the plantation in line, but the era is over.

        Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | April 29, 2018 at 12:37 am

        Reagan was once a Democrat, but if he was ever a “liberal” it was before the mid-1950s, when he was using General Electric Theater to teach people conservative economics.

Like poor Jim Hoft, you’re just a cartoon of T-rump suckage.

No American worthy of the name would DREAM of writing “We are Trump and Trump is us”. Americans are not members of a cult of personality.

    jakee308 in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 7:40 am

    I vote you down because I know you take pride in each and every one. You’re what’s known as a contrarian. To each his own.

      Ragspierre in reply to jakee308. | April 28, 2018 at 7:54 am

      No. I’m totally indifferent to votes, up or down, except as they indicate cowardice and the echo-chamber of stupid that sometimes prevails here.

      I’ve said openly that I am a contrarian. It’s a very valuable thing to society that there be some of us. It is, for instance, what makes for good science. Or sound thinking, instead of what you’re vomiting on this thread.

        JusticeDelivered in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 10:02 am

        There are people who create things, and those who are naysayers. Which have the most social value?

          Ragspierre in reply to JusticeDelivered. | April 28, 2018 at 10:12 am

          That’s a false dichotomy. It’s also a false characterization of what being a contrarian is. Inquiry is not “nay-saying”. Testing is not being an enemy of the state. Questioning and critically thinking are not subversive.

          There are people who lie on the internet about being a genius. They are of negative value to society, JustAssDelivered.

          JusticeDelivered in reply to JusticeDelivered. | April 28, 2018 at 11:23 am

          Rags, I have seen no evidence that you are a critical thinker, and even less that you understand the scientific process.

          High IQ is as much a liability as it is an asset, something which you probably cannot understand, but people have no choice except to live with the lot nature deals. In many ways it was a curse, yet I would not willing give it up. To me the IQ issue is simply fact, yet I understand that some react to such the same way they would react to finding that someone is better endowed. I have known several people smarter than I am, I do not resent it in the least, and I submit that neither should you. You should accept whatever nature has given you, and be thankful for what you have.
          Perhaps my inability to develop friendships with people my own age, and my turning to older people (from 7th grade) for both friendship and mentors, was driven by my willingness to accept junior positions in my quest for knowledge?

          Ragspierre in reply to JusticeDelivered. | April 28, 2018 at 11:27 pm

          JustAssDelivered, I have seen no evidence that you are actually a thinker, and even less that you understand the scientific process.

          You’ve made self-aggrandizing claims of your IQ. These are both unsupported and unsupportable. So far, you’re just another lil’ prig on the interwebs with NOTHING to suggest you’re anything but average. Well, expect for the hints at psychopathy.

          Your claims are easily attributable to an effort to make yourself an “authority” to give a motor to the “resort to authority fallacy”, which is among the many you use.

          What I have seen here in the last few days is that you make (quite lamely) very free use of pseudo-science to buttress your misanthropy.

          I’ve known “scary smart” people who are literally incoherent in spoken English, and cannot drive a car. I doubt you have any trouble driving a car.

          Ragspierre’s First Law states that anyone of even high intelligence can make themselves “voluntary idiots” by the crap they embrace.

          You ring that bell.

        JusticeDelivered in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 10:40 am

        Perhaps a simpler explanation you can grasp, you come across as a sourpuss.

          Ragspierre in reply to JusticeDelivered. | April 28, 2018 at 11:39 pm

          You come across as a self-aggrandizing psychopath who got his butt kicked over the “science” of racism.

          Jes’ sayin…:-0

          JusticeDelivered in reply to JusticeDelivered. | April 29, 2018 at 11:09 am

          What does racism have to do with your bad attitude and foul comments attacking other posters?

          Are you saying that you are a minority who interprets negative reactions over the way you conduct yourself as racism?

          I have seen quite a bit of this in the workplace. People who carry a big racism chip on their shoulder, often lazy slackers, with bad attitude, people do not like them because of those traits, and they explain it as racism.

          They are just like Hillary, where nothing is their fault.

Another way of saying is that no pro-Trump bloggers were fired. And it wasn’t about the money because one of the anti-Trump bloggers generated 10% of the site’s traffic. This was an ideological purge that put pro-Trump writers in the majority.

The majority of the GOP supports Donald Trump. NeverTrumpers are not content to just bash Trump, they enthusiastically bash his supporters with the same elitist sneers we get from the Left.

If your business model depends on generating internet traffic, alienating the majority of the people you hope to attract is counterproductive.

    Ragspierre in reply to myiq2xu. | April 28, 2018 at 3:30 am

    “…not content to just bash Trump, they enthusiastically bash his supporters with the same elitist sneers we get from the Left.”

    That’s total bullshit.

    First, criticism of Duh Donald is NOT “bashing” him. It’s a really healthy all-American exercise to critique elitists…and he’s an elitist if ever there was one!

    I don’t know who you’re talking about on either end of this, and I cannot imagine to who you hand-wave. Who is “they”? And which subset of T-rump’s supports are sneered at by them, and in what way?

    The lie is told here constantly, for instance, that I “bash” T-rump voters. That’s nonsense. A LOT of T-rump voters are NOT T-rump supporters. They voted against Hellary, and I supported them in “voting their conscience”.

    I do identify and push back from T-rump cultists…and they are easily identified…but that has nothing to do with “sneers”. I’m quite specific. I call them out in the open for what they are.

      VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 3:46 am

      rags rote: The lie is told here constantly, for instance, that I “bash” T-rump voters. That’s nonsense. A LOT of T-rump voters are NOT T-rump supporters. They voted against Hellary, and I supported them in “voting their conscience”.

      You seem to be saying that only those who voted for Trump reluctantly deserve respect. Do you support those whose conscience led them to enthusiastically vote for Trump? If not, why not? Does their conscience matter any less?

        Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | April 28, 2018 at 3:51 am


          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 3:54 am

          If you support them, why do you call them T-rump suckers? That seems to indicate a lack of respect for them.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 3:59 am

          Because they are, and it should.

          Do you support abortion on demand? IF you do, I have no respect for your “conscience”. You’ve seared your conscience to get to that conclusion.

          If you worship in a cult of personality, I candidly deplore you as un-American.

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 5:13 am

          I don’t understand. You claim to support them, but call them un-american. That seems to be mutually exclusive. Can you explain it, please?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 5:18 am

          You can’t read, intentionally, you moronic T-rump suck liar.

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 5:52 am

          rags rote: If you worship in a cult of personality, I candidly deplore you as un-American.

          Haven’t you said that enthusiastic Trump supporters are members of the cult of personality surrounding Trump? Doesn’t that mean that you deplore them as un-American?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 7:02 am

          When you keep on asking stupid compound questions, you get any answer that I choose to provide to any of there several elements.

          You really are amazingly stupid and dishonest. You are driven by a pathological need to be vindicated. That will never happen.

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 7:16 am

          If the questions are too complex for you, I can try to use smaller words. If you have problems expressing your answer clearly to remove any misunderstanding, just refer to what part of my question you are answering. You can do it if you try.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 7:22 am

          A compound question is not a complex question.

          Two different things, you lying POS.

          I could clarify my answer if I wished. I don’t.

          When you ask a stupid, compound question, I get to chose.

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 7:28 am

          ragge rote: I could clarify my answer if I wished. I don’t.

          What are you trying to hide?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 7:37 am

          Not one damned thing.

          And it’s apparent what you are trying to lie about.

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 7:39 am

          If you think you have something worth saying, why not try for clarity?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 8:04 am

          I was conducting a demonstration.

          Thanks for all your help.

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | April 29, 2018 at 6:54 pm

          You’re welcome. Glad I could help. I think everyone now knows just how smart you are.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 10:11 am

      Rags, are you a wannabe elitist?

      rdmdawg in reply to Ragspierre. | April 30, 2018 at 9:24 am

      “they enthusiastically bash his supporters with the same elitist sneers we get from the Left.”

      Is absolutely the truth, you do it in just about every comment you make, you cannot possibly deny this. You call the blog an ‘echo chamber’ and sneer at anyone who supports Trumps policies, and call them ‘voluntary idiots’ and all manner of ad hominem slurs. To deny this represents a profound lack of self-awareness.

        Ragspierre in reply to rdmdawg. | April 30, 2018 at 10:00 am

        “You call the blog an ‘echo chamber’ and sneer at anyone who supports Trumps policies, and call them ‘voluntary idiots’ and all manner of ad hominem slurs.”

        That’s several lies.

        First, I have never called LI “an echo-chamber”, and for the simple reason that several of the authors here hold the same objective views on T-rump as I do. Oddly, nobody attacks them.

        I HAVE, DO, and WILL note that some of the comment threads are echo-chambers of objectively stupid, hateful, and false garbage.

        Second, ad hominem is a logical fallacy employed to deflect from, rather than meet, the merits of an argument. Noting that people elect to be fools is not an “ad hominem” fallacy. It’s a fact.

        Third, I support SOME of T-rump’s policies. What I find objectionable is that he apparently does NOT. And I say so.

        I certainly do NOT “sneer at anyone” supporting him. Sometimes I’m one, as with his attempts to limit immigration from dangerous regions of the world until careful vetting can be assured. Also, as with his authority to countermand the Baracula DACA mandates.

        I’m very clear on delineation between different groups of “supporters”. They vary GREATLY, and I’m aware of those variances.

        I’m also very clear on my condemnation of rank tribalism and cultish, slavish supporters (two different things, you’ll note). Calling people out who display those traits is not a “slur”. It IS an observation. Both tendencies are outright dangers in a republic, and they’ve been warned of since the Greeks, and certainly by our Founders.

Simplest way to identify nevertrumpers is to ask specifically what policies they disagree with and what they would do instead. And how the would get their policy accomplished.

    Ragspierre in reply to Petrushka. | April 28, 2018 at 3:41 am


    So there’s NO T-rumpian policy you oppose? But if you admitted to one, say, you’d be a “NeverTrumper”.


      Petrushka in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2018 at 7:24 am

      Just tell us which Trump policies you oppose. But limit it to actual policies implemented and not just bargaining positions.

        Ragspierre in reply to Petrushka. | April 28, 2018 at 7:35 am

        See, this is funny. It attempts to impose a filter or six.

        It also sets up a slew of arguments over what has been “implemented” by T-rump (like a tax bill that came out of Congress that he signed) and what are “bargaining positions” (like gun control measures or paid family leave).

        Can you name anything over which you criticize Duh Donald?

Scroll through the posts there. Explain…rationally…how the site fundamentally differs from LegalInsurrection.

Please. RedState (under Erickson)long had an ideological bent and a willingness to ban anyone who didn’t go along with the crowd.

When McCain was running and I made some disparaging remarks I got slapped down very quickly and I knew I’d get banned if I went further.

Later for other reasons. (mostly pointing out how right I had been during the almost banning incident) did get me banned.

Some very opinionated and close minded people were in charge there so I wouldn’t be surprised that that attitude carried through to new management.

And frankly being anti-Trump these days doesn’t seem to be much of a money maker/page view draw. OH maybe early on during the election itself and part way into ’17. But lately the Never Trumpers are still beating the same old drum while Trump is getting done a lot of what they used to clamor for and could somehow never make happen. (personally I believe that’s why they’re still NT’s; they’re jealous and envious and scared)

As for Erick’s opinion about how the site is now; that too is sour grapes possibly since he left. A withdrawal that was very wise of him and surprisingly perspicacious. He would not have lasted much longer for many reasons.

Reading through the comments leaves me with one thought…..sure does take a tough guy to curse and berate people from a keyboard. Wonder what your reality is like?

    jakee308 in reply to scooterjay. | April 28, 2018 at 7:47 am

    Occasionally when I think about it, I imagine they’re a hi IQ bed wetter of 12, an only who’s single mom is either picking on them or praising them all the time but always embarrassing them. No friends. Allergic so they can’t keep a pet. maybe a turtle or frog.

    They can’t do this to their school mates cause they’ll get arrested for bullying so they come here and do it cause they know we won’t call the cops.

    jakee308 in reply to scooterjay. | April 28, 2018 at 7:50 am

    Or were you talking about me? I didn’t curse anyone so I thought you were referring to Rags.

    If it’s me you’re referring to I don’t see where you get cursing and berating from in what I said. But whatevs.

Rags. Does the professor pay you by the post, or the number of replies to your posts.

    Ragspierre in reply to davod. | April 28, 2018 at 9:33 am


    Astute point, that only some will get.

    But no, I’m not rewarded for anything, and very rightfully so as respects the Prof. Any such arrangement would taint both of us.

      Why would anyone pay you per post, Ragspierre? When the subject is Trump you say the same thing over and over…

      What the conservative cultists (that’s you) and the liberal cultists don’t realize is…Both Sides Suck!!!!

        Ragspierre in reply to tgrondo. | April 28, 2018 at 11:50 pm

        Why? Because of what’s demonstrated here.

        AND, this thread was not about Duh Donald, but RedState.

        I supported the writers of RS, who provided a lot of very good, diverse thinking and writing. IF you were open-minded enough to follow the link I provided, you’d have found MOST posts had nothing to do with Duh Donald. But some did.

        The T=rumpian Stasi don’t like that, as you can see by reading the thread. It cannot be allowed, and they cannot read it.

        Do TRY to keep up with the adults…!!!

          I don’t know, Ragspierre…what IS being demonstrated here?

          I was mainly commenting on your response to davod….
          You DO get people riled up…but is that worth money? Maybe if your insults had more creative snark…

          AND….the subject of this thread? What difference does that make? In your 37 or so comments, you’ve referenced Trump at least 10 times…I figured you’d get back to Trump sooner or later….

          PLUS…The title of Kimberlee’s post is…
          Did RedState Really Purge Anti-Trump Authors???????

          I read Red State. (it’s in my bookmarks) I also visit several other conservative blogs…AND I read quite a few liberal sites…(do you?)

          I also enjoy a couple of climate-change denier sites, a mid-century modern furniture blog…a classic car forum…a home studio blog…a couple of random economic blogs…There’s a guy who served in Afghanistan and now is a cop. He has a blog I like to follow….I recently found a History of the Italian Western blog that’s pretty cool…
          Oh yeah…and there’s a “Little Known Pin-Up Girls of the 40’s” site that I like to look at…

          BUT…I never try to keep up with you “adults”. You guys are too boring…

    VaGentleman in reply to davod. | April 29, 2018 at 5:22 pm

    rags as click bait? OMG! LMAO!

“The founders SOLD it for a profit.” What is wrong about selling for a profit?

    JusticeDelivered in reply to davod. | April 28, 2018 at 10:25 am

    Nothing wrong with selling for profit, but doing so changes the character of the publication and discussions.
    After a sale,if some writers produce less revenue than it cost to host them, they will be axed. If their writing causes loss of revenue related to other writers, they will be axed with extreme prejudice.

    Mac45 in reply to davod. | April 28, 2018 at 12:23 pm

    Nothing. But, once the owners do that, they have NO further grounds to comment on how the site is run or on what the new owners do with it. If one wants to keep a site in the image in which they cast it, they have to maintain control. In this case, the owners sold out, but are being critical of the present ownership.

    The fact the founders sold Redstate for a profit means they found somebody…dumb enough to buy it!!!

    Making money with written content on the net is a hard hustle, especially in this age of ad block….

For what it’s worth – I had been a long time reader of RedState. Stopped going there about 6 months ago and deleted my bookmarks. Guess the only surprise here is learning that I wasn’t the only one.

    bour3 in reply to Same Same. | April 29, 2018 at 10:39 am

    What surprised me is how many people returned to discover they’ve been banned. I’m guessing now that I must have been banned because the last thing I said is how picayune, narrow minded and useless they’ve become, and their commenters all sounded like tired worn out dusty old bags.

    I’d have had to go back to know I’ve been banned. La la la. I don’t care.

There is a big beautiful world out there……take a break from the interwebs and go check it out, and listen to Nilsson.

When RedState started in 2004, it was about collaborating between all sides of the GOP
their mods turned into heavy handed demigods and drove a lot of traffic away well prior to the sale.

Haven’t visited Red State for quite some time so it being closed doesn’t pass the “so what” test for me. The mods/the site were too anal about their Trump hate.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | April 28, 2018 at 4:21 pm

Red State? That’s Communist China!!!!!

Heh, when a neverTrump website goes belly up, it sure brings out the LI nevertrumper to defend it.


    Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | April 28, 2018 at 10:44 pm

    Yeh. When conservatives come under attack, conservatives defend them.

    See Breitbart, Andrew. AND we use the same (sometimes rough) language. Eat it.

    Predictable as the Northern Star.

      Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | April 29, 2018 at 6:22 pm

      You ain’t no Breitbart, Redstate ain’t conservative.

      Breitbart would have supported Trump 100%

      And every nevertrumper is aligned with and supporting the progs just like you.

        Actually, Andrew Breitbart was a conservative who loathed Donald Trump and would not have supported him “100%.” We know this because he expressed his views on Trump in 2010 and in 2011: Andrew repeatedly stated that Trump is no conservative (one of the main reasons, I believe, that conservatives have been bashed and marginalized. We’re a threat to the Trump movement, even those of us who support Trump).

        Andrew wouldn’t like what has happened at his “big” sites (now just; he hated the alt-right and thought them on the same par as leftists (rightly so, I think). He also distrusted cults of personality, but he did know that politics had to change because he was tapped into the “forgotten man” years before that became a thing and predicted the rise of Trump (a television personality) in the vacuum of viable political solutions.

        That said, if Andrew had lived, we might not have had a second Obama term. Without that second term, we wouldn’t have ended up with Trump. Ultimately, then, we can’t really do much predicting about an America with Andrew Breitbart leading the conservative movement because had he lived, everything would be different.

        For nostalgia’s sake:

          Breitbart would have supported Trump 100% because he wanted the “conservative” movement to win, to roll back the overwhelming tide of communist progressives. No, he would not have been an early supporter, but once the primary’s were done, he would have been there. Breitbart believed in winning and being a never trumper is the opposite of that, just venality.

          The nevertrumpers are venal, they thought they could sell their opposition to anything Trump. No sale.

          Breitbart was smart, had real character, and wasn’t afraid of a fight.

          Redstate is nothing more than a con job. Always was. Just like the faux men of “character” that have none.

          Ragspierre in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | April 29, 2018 at 11:38 pm

          Ah, the blind faith of the true zealot.

          No heresy can be broached. “They are all VENAL…BURN THEM…!!!”

          Poor old lying, T-rump sucking nutter…

        Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | April 29, 2018 at 10:09 pm

        More of your obvious lies, the really stupid…as in why even try that crap…kind.

        RedState WAS conservative, and very like this site. They dealt with all kinds of issues, and from a diverse set of perspectives.

        What they were NOT was a homogenized T-rump suckery.

        You can see it reflected here; a lot of the “happy torch dancers” are NOT conservatives. They don’t have ideas, they have an idol.

        BTW, where does ANYONE think Duh Donald came by what slight rightest leanings he has if not FROM the conservative movement?

        Andrew had him pegged right…Mr. Establishment IS a New York Progressive lover of BIG GOVERNMENT. He just wants a few tweaks in his image.

I, like many others here, quit reading RedState when they, like Hillary, couldn’t get over the fact that Trump won. It was tedious and exhausting. If enough of us stopped reading you, Erick, you should have taken the hint instead of doubling down on your hatred of President Trump.

It contains a nice link to a Bach concerto.

It also contains some good, sound thinking. Be afraid, tribalists. Be VERY afraid…!!!