Liberals To Tea Party Activists “Drop Dead”

Bookmark and Share   One week after highly demonized former Republican Vice Presidential nominee, Sarah Palin was featured at a Tea Party rally in Harry Reid’s backyard, the politically ailing Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, has begun to kick his Nevada reelection campaign into high gear. But the two events had very different moods. Despite the lefts desire to paint Palin as an unpopular and undesirable figure, at her rally there was an enthusiasm and energy that emanated from the approximately 10,000 anti-Reid protestors in attendance. Yet in one of Reid’s first rallies, there was a sense of desperation from the near 100 hundred people in attendance.

Such small and unenthusiastic turnouts are the best that one can expect when they possess a nationwide approval rating that CBS reports stands at 8%. That’s 3% behind Speaker Nancy Pelosi! Nancy Pelosi……3% behind her! Imagine that. So the small turnout for Reid’s campaign event is no surprise and it is also indicative of his own state polls which have him behind all of his possible Senate opponents by anywhere from 7% to as much as 15%.

These numbers are a reflection of Reid, his leadership, his policies and the process which, as the leader of the Senate, he has manipulated. People are not pleased by any of it and so the polls show it. And in Reid’s case, they are more than dissatisfied, they are angry. All except for the handful of Reid’s loyal supporters.

These supporters are a dedicated portion of the liberal-Democrat base.

These are people who are devout liberals, believe that the federal government is a service industry and rely heavily on the government for their survival. They are people who believe that we need more government, not less. They are largely Democrat forced union voters and they are essentially those liberals who vote the Party line no matter who is on the ballot.

But they are something else too.

These liberal Reid-supporting Democrats are also angry, and they are dangerous, violent, extremists.

How does one reach this conclusion?

Well, at Harry Reid’s campaign event, he began his remarks by referencing Sarah Palin and the anti-Reid crowd in attendance at the rally the week before. As he began those remarks in a way that was meant to belittle them, one of the loyal Reid supporters yelled out “let them drop dead.”

Clearly such a contemptuous outcry from Reid’s followers reflects a deep hatred for those who oppose them and their beliefs. One could say that it is similar to the terrorists of radical Islam. They too harbor the same feeling as the liberal Reid voter who called for those who think differently than her to “drop dead”.

Or is that in and of itself an extreme characterization of all liberals like those who support Harry Reid?

Personally, I think it is extreme. But by the standards of Democrats, it is not.

Last summer when lawmakers went home to their districts and met with constituents who were truly angry with the liberal agenda and how Democrats were ramming it through Congress, Nancy Pelosi stood before the Washington press corps and said that the anger out their worries her and in a reference to the assassination of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California and San Franciso Mayor George Moscone in 1978, claimed that she fears reliving such a climate again.

Then of course you have people like scandal embroiled Congressman Charlie Rangel who claimed that those protesting the government healthcare takeover reminded him of those who protested against civil rights in the 60’s. There is also Bawny Fwanks, who claimed that the people opposing the healthcare scheme spit at him because he is gay. Where he came up with that one bugs the hell out of me because I for one know that given the opportunity, I would not spit on Bawny because he is gay. I would spit on him because he is a disgrace to gays and a despicably corrupt, socialist member of Congress.

But between Pelosi, Rangel, Fwanks and Democrats et al, and those sectors of the media that is biased in their favor, all these conspiratorial concoctions are invented and exaggerated in a way that makes for great theater and is meant to marginalize those who disagree with their agenda.

But when is enough, enough?

If the media maintained any semblance of objectivity, they would have been reporting on the Reid supporter who interrupted the Senator at his campaign event to yell out “let them drop dead” and they would have done so with the same vim and vigor that they display whenever Democrats try to depict conservatives or Tea Party members as violent racists.

The truth is that, from the sound of it, the women who yelled out her crude remark at the Reid event, was an elderly women. Granted, she was probably not your typical blue haired, church going grandmother or Mayberry’s “Aunt Bea”, but she was a relatively harmless senior citizen who is not likely to be running with a bat in hand and breaking skulls and windows. But she did call for those who disagree with her to “drop dead”.

That said, should that woman’s remark be swept under the rug as Democrats and the media have done? Had they not tried to falsely paint conservatives and Tea Party protestors as dangerous radicals, I would say “yes”. It should be ignored. However, unless one supports double standards, the remark can’t be ignored.

To apply the left’s standard to this situation, one would have to suggest that Reid voters and the liberal base that make up those supporters are “calling for violence”. You could say they are full of hate and contempt and that they are dangerous extremist who must be stopped.

Furthermore; should we ignore the fact that as the leader of the senate, Reid failed to put an end to that type of conduct and language?

There is no denying the fact that Reid heard the old biddies raspy and shaky voice as she yelled her uncalled for remark. So why did not this leading figure of the Democrat Party pause to say something like, “Now, now. There will be none of that. These are fellow Americans who simply disagree with us and such uncivil and untoward language has no place in political discourse”?

But no, not Harry. In fact you could say that his negative remarks about Sarah Palin and the people in attendance at the protest rally she spoke at, incited the aggressive reaction that he got from the bitter, decrepit spinster who wants all of those who disagree with her to “drop dead”.

The outrageous remarks of some bored old lady who was enticed to come to a Harry Reid campaign event because of free coffee and cookies, should not change the political landscape. It should not have a bearing on how much more debt our nation accumulates, how many I.R.S. agents it should take to implement healthcare or how we can prevent sworn enemies from obtaining the nuclear capacity to wipe sections of society off of the map. And the same should hold true of a handful of malcontents who may infiltrate a crowd of 50,000 or more people who come together to oppose some of the most transformative pieces of legislation we have ever known.

If this cycle of demonizing one another is to ever stop, perhaps liberals should stop printing labels and stop trying to pit white against black, rich against poor, men versus women, gay versus straight and all the other division that they pin their hopes for future success on. And perhaps it is time for them to live by one standard, not a double one. For if you think about, do you really think that a remark for the opposition to drop dread coming from an audience gathered to hear Dick Cheney would have gone unnoticed? Imagine for a moment, how many days such a remark would have grabbed the headlines if it was yelled out at an event featuring Michele Bachmann or Newt Gingrich?

The remark spoken to Harry Reid at a campaign event is less a statement than how it was handled. The fact that the right is not labeling the left as vicious and dangerous because of it, says something pretty decent of them but the fact that the media hasn’t hung it around the left’s neck like they do with Republicans and that Harry Reid did not denounce the remark says volumes of substantially negative political nuances.

Bookmark and Share
Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s