Eugene Kane and Tea Parties, Part II

Eugene Kane is still rambling about Wednesday's Tea Parties.

Last week, Kane channeled Paul Krugman in an effort to help spread the Left's propaganda to discredit the demonstrations.

Kane's latest article, "Tea parties proved little except right to protest," shows that his column has little to offer other than more Leftist tripe.

Kane writes:

Some observers - mainly on Fox News - described the various anti-tax rallies held across the nation last week in cities including Madison and Milwaukee as a significant turning point in American history. Others considered the coordinated events featuring conservative politicians and media stars as just the latest sign some people still refuse to accept the results of last year's presidential election.

Trying to silence dissent by citing the results of last year's presidential election is idiotic.

I've heard many Leftists make the argument that Obama's win means that we have to shut up.

Obama has made it himself. "I won," he told Republicans when he met with them. So much for being a healer and uniter, post-partisan and transcendent.

...I made it a point to watch coverage of the national tea parties Wednesday night on Fox News. It was interesting to see hosts like Sean Hannity whip the crowd into a frenzy by interviewing Joe the Plumber and even regurgitating leftover material from the 2008 campaign that involved the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and that tried to tie President Barack Obama to terrorists.

Why should Kane get bent out of shape about Sean Hannity participating at a rally?

Kane talks about Hannity regurgitating leftover material from the 2008 campaign. Democrats are the ultimate regurgitators. They kept saying that President Bush was "selected, not elected" even after he won his second term.

Furthermore, does Kane complain when Al Sharpton whips crowds into a frenzy? Does Kane moan about celebrities like Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn and Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte and Jane Fonda when they're foaming at the mouth at protests, whipping the crowd into a frenzy?

Without question, the strong turnout at some rallies was an example of democracy in action, as thousands of people decided to exercise their right to peacefully assemble to protest excessive government spending.

(Most of these public spaces used for the protests, by the way, were paid for by government spending of our tax money, as well as the expense of cleaning the spaces after the crowds dispersed.)

I don't hear Kane whine about using public spaces and costs when anti-war or other protests are staged by the Left.

By the way, where have all the anti-war protesters gone?

CODEPINK is still kicking, but I don't hear Hollywood and the lib media bitching about the war in Iraq or the escalation of the war in Afghanistan.

Suddenly, it's all good.

...From city to city, it seemed most people were having a pretty good time; they also booed most times Obama was mentioned.

An interesting sign in Atlanta: "We Came Unarmed . . . THIS time!" I don't think that represents the prevailing sentiment of people who attended the rallies, but it must be acknowledged some of these folks were not exactly filled with good cheer.

This is ridiculous.

Oooh. There was a big, bad sign in Atlanta. So what?

At every major anti-war rally during the Bush administration, there were signs that were offensive and threatening.

These were from the September 24, 2005, anti-war rallies.

Not all peace activists act as if they're peace-loving.

This photo is from the January 27, 2007 anti-war protest.

What a creepy bunch!

Obviously, not all the peace activists are filled with good cheer.

Kane is employing a double standard.

He shouldn't expect people to become alarmed about a sign he saw during the coverage of the Atlanta Tea Party, when he simply ignored the antics of Left-wing extremists, such as calling for the castration of Dick Cheney.

...After my Tuesday column, many readers told me that my sense of the origins of the tea party rallies was misguided. They claimed that it wasn't a partisan event, that it involved both Republicans and Democrats turned off by government spending. They also denied it was just about Obama. One reader told me the Wisconsin rally was really more about Gov. Jim Doyle's tax policies. When I reminded her most of the tea parties were taking place outside Wisconsin and thus couldn't possibly be tied to Doyle, she acknowledged some of it also had to do with Obama.

She confessed she really didn't like him.

The reader "confessed she really didn't like" Obama?

Close to half the country chose not to vote for him. A lot of us don't like what Obama is doing. No kidding. It's not something to "confess." It's obvious.

Leftists weren't shy about "confessing" that they hated Bush. They were rabid and relentless. They still hate him.

All those anti-war protests were really more like anti-Bush rallies.

If people are mad as hell about their taxes, they should feel free to criticize Obama and express their dissatisfaction. He's the president. The buck stops with him.

...Many in the crowds seemed convinced they were involved in a protest against higher taxes even though it appeared many fell into the category of middle-class Americans who will receive a tax cut under Obama's economic stimulus plan. Another inconsistent theme was the constant criticism of a multibillion-dollar spending package that was described as placing enormous debt on the future descendants of today's taxpayers.

This sentiment was expressed by the sight of numerous young children carrying signs - no doubt made by their parents - saying, "Don't rob my piggy bank" or "I'm only 15 and I owe $156,000!"

It was an effective visual sound bite until you looked at the logic more closely. Just as nobody is born with an expiration sticker, nobody in America is actually born with a debit sign on their foot.

If you want to extrapolate future debt for generations, it seems to me you also have to include the incredible future debt already incurred by the Bush administration for the war in Iraq. If Obama's spending plan is going to have to be paid by our great-grandchildren, the Iraq war debt is already on the backs of our grandchildren.

Seems to me, it's kind of silly to try to address contemporary fiscal problems with that kind of accounting.

Again, Kane is looking to silence the protesters and discredit their concerns, something he didn't do when the outrage was directed at President Bush and the policies of his administration. Protesters argued that billions of dollars were being wasted in Iraq. Why was that OK but protesting Obama's non-stimulus stimulus package and his massive spending plan is "silly"?

...The tea parties came and went. Even though Hannity and others seemed convinced it represented a bold new day in America, I think it basically just gave lots of people the chance to get something off their chest. Now that it's over, we would all be better served instructing our elected officials in Madison and Washington to take heed of the voices out there and work to make things better.

There's nothing wrong with throwing a tea party every now and then, but eventually you have to get back to business.

In the end, what does this column tell us? What do we learn by reading it?

The Tea Parties really, REALLY got under Kane's skin.

He's telling Americans that it was OK to blow off some steam and but now it's over. That was enough.

I think that's wishful thinking on Kane's part.