Hypocrisy on stilts

Democrats are screaming that the tea-partistas are ratcheting the rhetoric up to incendiary levels. This is, of course, just the usual liberal strategy of falsely attributing characteristics and motives to opponents in an effort to isolate them.

There is an utterly shameful hypocrisy to all of this, as David Gutmann points out in his article, “Blue Rage and Red Rage”, at the American Spectator. Gutmann takes us for a little stroll down memory lane, when Bush Derangement Syndrome had reached epidemic proportions.

Many Bush death-wishers chose not to hide behind their blogging pseudonyms, but marched -- presumably under the eyes of the police -- carrying placards that openly declared their violent sentiments. The producer of "Zombie-Time," who records left-wing marches around the country, has photographed a host of these provocative placards. Here are some of the most expressive examples of the genre:

"KILL TERRORISTS. BOMB THERE HOUSE (sic). KILL BUSH. BOMB HIS F---IN HOUSE"

"SAVE MOTHER EARTH. KILL BUSH"

"HANG BUSH FOR WAR CRIMES"

"BUSH IS THE DISEASE. DEATH IS THE CURE."

"I'M HERE TO KILL BUSH. (SHOOT ME.)"

"BUSH IS THE ONLY DOPE WORTH SHOOTING."

"DEATH TO EXTREMIST TERRORIST PIG-BUSH"

"THE WORLD NEEDS MORE PEOPLE LIKE YOU: KILL BUSH!"

A mobile guillotine was paraded with the sign, "BUSH WHACKER," hung over a basket containing the president's severed head.

The bloody-mindedness wasn’t by any means limited to the professional placard-bearers.

The following exchange in October 2006 took place on Bill Maher's Real Time. It suggests that John Kerry is, at the very least, a sore loser.

MAHER: You could have went [sic] to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone.

KERRY: Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.

Probably not, Lurch. You’d have flung a rock at the President and, most likely, it would have boomeranged off a pillar and parted your hair on the wrong side. Can’t risk that!

There is a groundswell of opposition to big government growing, and it naturally will focus on the most visible proponents of the nanny state: the president and congress. Given the fear and anger that the Democrats’ overreach has engendered among what appears to be a majority of voters, the rhetoric inevitably is going to be pitched kind of high from time to time. Since the liberals seemed to have no trouble at all with the extremist sloganeering against Bush and company, and since the tea-party crowds, though enthusiastic, have not come anywhere near the frenzy of hatred manifested by the left against W, I find the trembling alarm of Democratic shills like Frank Rich and Joe Klein to be comical if sincerely felt, and deeply dishonest if not (snort-worthy in either case). It will be interesting to see whether the Alinsky model can, indeed, be used to isolate and silence scores of millions of people. I suspect not, but I am nonetheless keeping my powder dry (for the benefit of any left-wing literalists out there who may have stumbled upon this site, that’s what’s known as a metaphor).