Gay Patriot Header Image

Violent #OWS youth are fringe while fictional racist Tea Partiers are representative of movement

Seeing “videos of youths burning things in Oakland,” Victor Davis Hanson . . .

. . . was told that it “was a small minority” and atypical of the protest. Not long ago I saw no clips of anyone spitting at black congresspeople wading into the Tea-Party demonstration, but was told they did and that it was typical of tens of thousands of racialists on the Mall.

(Via Instapundit.) A Democratic president faults Republicans vying for his job because they failed to condemn an isolated boor at a candidates’ debate.  A self-important (and self-righteous) Democratic Congressman insists that his GOP colleagues need to “‘differentiate themselves’ from the hateful speech” of their supporters.  A lunatic with no apparent political agenda attacks a Congresswoman, murdering a number of people with her, and conservative rhetoric is held accountable.

Why is it that, in the eyes of Democratic politicians, liberal pundits and the mainstream media, a small, often fictional, fringe minority speaks for conservative/libertarian movements and the Republican Paty, but radical, often violent, extremists don’t speak for liberal/left-wing movements or the Democratic Party?

UPDATE:  Over at Reason, A. Barton Hinkle builds on this point:

So consider the disparity in coverage of OWS and the Tea Party. A single (still unsubstantiated) allegation that someone in the crowd at a 2010 Tea Party rally in Washington hurled a racial slur at Rep. John Lewis sufficed to prove the entire movement a kissin’ cousin of the KKK. But that “Google Wall Street Jews” guy? A lone nut. As for the signs calling for the “death of capitalism” and telling Wall Street bankers to “Jump, you [expletives]” and declaring “capitalism can’t be fixed—we need revolution”? Unrepresentative, surely. Ditto the 5:30 Oakland seminar on Marxism 101, and the dude in the Lenin T-shirt, and. . . .

Don’t feel bad if you missed such tidbits on the nightly news. Every movement has its whack jobs, but those on the left get politely overlooked.

FROM THE COMMENTS: Budding Economist reminds us of how one Tea Party critic was treated by the #Occupy Movement.

“A single (still unsubstantiated) allegation that someone in the crowd at a 2010 Tea Party rally in Washington hurled a racial slur at Rep. John Lewis sufficed to prove the entire movement a kissin’ cousin of the KKK.”

And the entire General Assembly of Occupy Atlanta isn’t accused of anything when they refused to allow Rep. John Lewis to voice his solidarity.

UP-UPDATE: Allahapundit offers:

This can’t be repeated enough: With a few exceptions, foremost among them the New York Post, the coverage of OWS protests compared to the coverage of tea-party protests is the worst media double standard in recent history. Nothing compares, because nothing else involves this much distortion on both ends of the coverage. It’s not just that most press outlets (like the protesters themselves) look the other way at depravity happening inside Obamaville, it’s that for years they treated the tea-party movement as some sort of feral mob that was forever on the brink of rampaging through the streets — like, say, Occupy Oakland just did.

Via Instapundit.

Time to Give Newt a Second Look?

Alone among the contenders for the Republican presidential nomination Newt Gingrich, like Ronald Reagan in 1980 (and 1976 for that matter), has already made a significant contribution to the conservative movement.  As the Gipper helped articulate an upbeat conservative vision long before launching a bid for the White House, so did Gingrich make the 1994 mid-term elections turn, in large part on that small-government ideal, helping elect the first Republican Congress in forty years.

Not just that, he became in the 105th Congress the first Republican Speaker to serve consecutive terms since Theodore Roosevelt’s Cincinnati son-in-law relinquished the gavel to Democrat John Nance Garner in 1931.

Having once interned for Newt, I didn’t take him too seriously as a presidential candidate.  He seems more a man of ideas than a leader of men.  And more often than not, he’ll articulate any idea which pops into his head, even those to which he has given little thought.  He didn’t often seem to have the focus necesary to serve as chief executive.  He didn’t have a desk in office when I worked for him .  Sometimes, he seemed he couldn’t sit still.

Maybe age has mellowed him.

I haven’t been following the debates, but have read (in posts by bloggers and pundits I respect) that he has acquitted himself quite well.  Well, last night, as I was preparing to watch Captain America (should have seen it on the big screen), I caught the former Speaker on Greta van Susteren’s On the Record.  I found him so compelling, I delayed staring the movie.

True to what I’d read in the blogs, he didn’t attack his fellow competitors for the party’s nod, critiquing Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, to be sure, but praising the businessman for his boldness in penning such a proposal.  And he faulted Romney’s plan for not being bold enough.  (In fact, I’m pretty sure I heard him praise the quality of the debate he and his fellows were conducting, raising real issues of substance related to the current crisis.)

What impressed me the most was the same thing which impressed me when, as a college freshman, I first heard Newt speak.  Like the Gipper, this guy can see the big picture. (more…)