Yesterday on CNN, Jack Cafferty joined the chorus of his journalistic class in lamenting the barbarism of Republican rallies. Yesterday, he asked if Republican debate crowds were “bloodthirsty”. Wonder how many pundits ever asked the same question about Democratic rallies when say someone on stage with the politician called for taking out his political adversaries.
“What’s worse,” Cafferty intone in the highest of dudgeon, “is the candidates don’t at the time say, you know what? You don’t speak for anybody in this room, and just sit down and shut up, or get out of the hall. But nobody says a word.” Has Cafferty ever called upon Democratic politicians, to, borrowing an expression, “differentiate themselves” from nasty rhetoric at their events?
Going back to the 2008 campaign (at least), Cafferty and his colleagues, entirely in sync with the talking points of the Democratic Party, have made much of isolated and invented mean-spirited rhetoric at Republican rallies (while ignoring or otherwise downplaying such rhetoric at Democratic ones).
It might be fun to go and find examples of angry and hateful rhetoric at Democratic rallies and then see whether or not Cafferty chastised the candidate for not calling out the audience member for his mean-spirited language. Yet, for folks like Jack, an isolated, angry audience member defines a Republican audience, but is ignored at a Democratic event.
Look for the media to play such examples as a means to discredit the GOP. With the president facing “a titanic struggle” for reelection, his only path to victory may well lie in such efforts to discredit the opposition. And heck, some of his ideological allies may try to infiltrate the crowd, pretending to be conservative supporters so as yelling angry slogans or wave signs with hateful expressions. They’ve tried it before.