Left-wing blogs have made much of the death of Bill Sparkman, a Kentucky census worker found asphyxiated next to a tree (to which he was tied) in eastern Kentucky. Based on a ”unsubstantiated claim that ‘fed’ was ‘scrawled’ on his chest,” they’re convinced “every outspoken conservative activist and advocate for limited government” are responsible for “a murder that has yet to be determined a murder.”
Of course they are; they harbor fantasies of right-wing violence so we can fit the caricatures they’ve created of us, a caricature created without them every having studied our movement or considered our ideas. Just as they presume the person who murdered Sparkman (if indeed he was murdered) listened to Glenn Beck’s TV show and read Michelle Malkin’s blog, they presume we’re racists who engage in violence at our rallies.
The eagerness with which they rush to conclusions about Sparkman’s death provides a window into the worldview or the accusatory left-wingers:
What’s uniquely disgusting about stories like this is the eagerness, to borrow Ace’s perfectly apt description, to find an ideological motive with which to bludgeon one’s opponents. The human life involved is reduced to the crudest sort of political prop.
But, while they’re busy accusing us of supporting violence and promoting racism at our rallies, as if the violence alone made it incumbent upon them to decry the demonstrations, they don’t seem to get all that upset when self-styled anarchists protest capitalism at the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh. Some of those folks seem to have come dressed for violence, wearing “helmets and safety goggles.“
Don Surber reminds us that, in “Pittsburgh — as at every economic summit in the last 20 years — rocks are thrown and the riot police have to come out,” offering:
The same Fourth Estate that was wringing its hands over the harsh words of those tea-bagging pooopy pantsers takes violence by the left in stride.
Tigerhawk suspects “the mainstream media are completely in the tank for the Democrats, and want to help them push the talking point that the tea-partiers are both extremists and typical Republicans (neither of which is generally true).“ (via Instapundit).
I guess for them, reporting just doesn’t matter, their narrative suffices. I mean, why else would “right-leaning journalists” regularly get “rude and offensive emails from reporters in the mainstream media“?
NB: Due to some commentary about a double meaning hidden in the first sentence, I tweaked it a bit, adding a detail for clarification. ;-)
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.