The Left already enjoys a reputation for being whack-a-doodles. One only needs to visit Zombietime to see how leftists, or what is now being called neo-liberals, roll. Since conservatives don’t really protest, generally, watching the Teaparty movement unfold is fascinating.
For all the talk of violent mobs, crazies, Nazis, terrorists and the rest of the nasty rhetoric, TeaPartiers are a rather benign bunch. Oh yes, there’s an errant sign here or there, but perspective is in order. When you get over a million folks together, there’s bound to be a crazy. The key is to exert peer pressure to keep the crazy in check. Conservatives have been wise to exert that pressure.
The only people it serves if some deluded individual goes nutty is the neo-liberal left. They would love nothing more to point to one nutter and paint the whole movement with those actions while they enjoy a positive agitating reputation even with real terrorists in their midst. Yes, the hypocrisy is galling.
.. While I would never suggest such a thing, logic seems to dictate that if Panetta believes Cheney’s warnings mean he is “wishing” for a terrorist attack, then Pelosi’s warnings might also mean she is “wishing” for violence. After all, it is reasonable to assume that Democrats would benefit from her being proven right. (Again, this according to Panetta’s logic — not mine).
The truth is that if anyone has incentive to avoid political violence — particularly anything specifically aimed at the president — it is conservatives. As Glenn Beck recently said, “just one lunatic, like Timothy McVeigh, could ruin everything that everyone has worked so hard for, because these people in Washington won’t pass up the use of an emergency. “
Ace wrote a thought-provoking piece last week and I’ve been ruminating on it since. He says:
Nancy Pelosi is being utterly hypocritical here, as she encouraged and cheered the rhetoric of incitement when Bush was President. Win-win for her, I guess she thought — such rhetoric keeps the crazies in a constant state of agitation, and if one should happen to kill Bush… well, bonus, eh?
But her hypocrisy cannot push us away from what we know to be right: Some kind of rhetoric really is fairly dangerous, and, while it won’t put any evil thoughts (or more likely — reinforce evil thoughts already long-present) in the minds of most, it does have the possibility in doing that in a few.
And it’s that few we worry about.
So, although she is a disgusting hypocrite, the definition of a hypocrite is one who takes one position when it’s convenient for her and another when it’s not so convenient, but every hypocrite then does speak for both sides of the issue.
In this particular case — at least regarding the general claim she’s making — she’s right. Extremist rhetoric which has the likelihood of encouraging someone a bit off his trolley to commit an extreme act should be avoided.
Of course, this is self-evident. I agree.
What I wonder is this: What is “extremist rhetoric”? Ironically, almost anything Glenn Beck says is viewed as “extremist rhetoric”. In fact, anyone who disagrees with neo-liberal orthodoxy is considered an extremist.
Carrie Prejean? Extremist gay hater.
Glenn Beck? Extremist Obama hater.
Rush Limbaugh? Extremist race baiting hater.
Mark Steyn? Extremist Muslim hater.
Ann Coulter? Extremist self and women-hating hater.
Michelle Malkin? Extremist illegal alien hater.
Glenn Reynolds? Extremist Tea-Party loving hater.
When center-left Obama-voting Democrats like Ann Althouse are accused of hating, really who isn’t a hater?
I’m sick of the p.c. rhetoric police. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, and all the whacked out lefty pundits can say anything. The word is a tool and a sword. They wield it with impunity and want the conservatives to stay muzzled.
So, somewhere between psychotic, crazy loud-mouth libs and meek muzzled, passive, submissive conservatives there’s a balance. Incite violence? No. Stir to positive action, yes.
Yes, violence serves the Left. So does a silent majority. They’ve had it both ways for too long.