It’s become common among some on the left to make fun of the Tea Party, using all sorts of sexual innuendo to de-legitimize the very legitimate aims of the movement. I personally don’t agree with the entire agenda (which I suppose is normal, because it’s a rather amorphous group of people who are more libertarian in their approach to issues than socially conservative) but I admire their grass-roots initiative.
I certainly don’t agree with those who would call it racist, sexist or anarchic.
So I’ll refrain from using the same disrespectful language employed by liberal media types (Rachel Maddow comes to mind, that oh-so-simpering Rhodes gal) to describe the Wall Street “Occupiers” even though their tactics are significantly more offensive than those of the Tea Partiers.
For example, as Ann Coulter aptly points out, the Tea Partiers have not caused a public nuisance under cover of the First Amendment. They haven’t blocked traffic, worn ski masks to prevent their identities from being revealed, haven’t urinated in public, haven’t acted like banshees, and also haven’t gotten favorable coverage on the front page of the Daily News which, the other day, tried to make a rather irate woman look like Joan of Arc.
The image I remember of the Tea Party is one of polite and yet informed engagement. When I spoke at one gathering several years ago, I was struck by the respectful nature of the group, and the absence of any signs equating our current administration with Nazis, Fascists or other unsavory types.
The Wall Street “Occupiers,” on the other hand, seem a bit more-shall we say-agitated. They've also co-opted some immigration groups, and groups that are in favor of drug legalization (talk about a big tent.)
That's not to say there aren't legitimate gripes about Wall Street, which cannot and should not be minimized by conservatives. The folks in Manhattan deserve every bit of the criticism they’re getting, and calling them out for their crimes is not class warfare. It’s common sense.
And yet, while the message is valid, the messengers-at least the ones who think civil disobedience means relieving yourself in public-is not.
Maybe they should lay off on the tea.