Guy Benson

You know who's growing weary of writing post after post about this appalling Left-wing narrative?  Your humble correspondent, that's who.  But as long as our non-terrorist friends on the Left continue to peddle these unrelenting slanders, we're going to keep writing about them.  After all, it's only a matter of time before the self-appointed liberal civility police decide to persecute some hapless conservative for some trumped up "crime" against their precious, one-sided "new tone."  In case you're just joining us, you may want to get up to speed by reading these pieces.  Now, onward.

The New York Times considers itself the nation's paper of record.  Liberal television producers use its contents to shape daily news coverage, and liberal politicians read it as if it's a daily devotional.  In the immediate aftermath the Tuscon massacre, the American Left decided to pin the blame on heated conservative political rhetoric -- all evidence to the contrary be damned.  The Times helped lead this charge with a house editorial that scolded the Right for encouraging the "gale of anger" that preceded the shootings.  In this same vein, one of the Times' most prominent opinion writers decried the "Climate of Hate" right-wingers had visited upon the country.  It was all a lie, but it didn't matter.  The Left was fixated on exploiting the unspeakable act of a deranged individual by faulting their political adversaries.  They were in high dudgeon, and there was no turning back; civility, we were told, was the only proper response.  In short, shut up.

Fast forward seven months to the just-resolved debt ceiling crisis.  The very same institutional Left that was grasping for smelling salts over conservative "incivility" in January has now decided that it's totally acceptable -- encouraged, even -- to brand conservatives as "terrorists."  It's been nearly a decade since 9/11, but that word still evokes piercing and ghastly images in the collective American pysche.  (This is what genuine terrorism looks like, liberals.  Not this). Being labeled a "terrorist" ranks right up there with "racist!" on the scale of opprobrium, and it's no accident that liberals employ both denigrations promiscuously.  Who, pray tell, is boldly blazing this defamatory path?  Our old friends at the New York Times.  No fewer than four "esteemed" Times columnists have drawn the conservatives/terrorism connection within the last two weeks: Nicholas Kristof, Thomas Friedman, Maureen Dowd, and today's addition from Joe Nocera (who?), whose piece is subtly entitled, "The Tea Party's War On America:"


You know what they say: Never negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages them. These last few months, much of the country has watched in horror as the Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people. Their intransigent demands for deep spending cuts, coupled with their almost gleeful willingness to destroy one of America’s most invaluable assets, its full faith and credit, were incredibly irresponsible. But they didn’t care. Their goal, they believed, was worth blowing up the country for, if that’s what it took.

For now, the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests. But rest assured: They’ll have them on again soon enough. After all, they’ve gotten so much encouragement.


Nocera fuses the originality of Bob Herbert with the cool-headed composure of Frank Rich -- and the writing ability of Levi Johnston.  Read the whole thing for an excruciating example of a paint-by-the-numbers left-wing diatribe.  And lest they miss the hate fest, America's liberal editorial cartoonists have gotten in on the action.  These highly nuanced visual commentaries require no further explanation:



I could carry on with this richly-deserved harague against the Left, its collaborators in the mainstream media establishment, and its shameless enforcement of double standards, but it would difficult to top what Jonah Goldberg has already written.  A righteous taste:
 

On the very day Gabby Giffords heroically returns to cast her first vote since that tragic attack seven months ago, the Vice President of the United States calls the Republican Party a bunch of terrorists.  No one cares. I hate the “if this were Bush” game so we’re in luck. Instead imagine if this was Dick Cheney calling the Progressive Caucus (or whatever they’re called) a “bunch of terrorists” on the day Giffords returned to the Congress. Would the mainstream media notice or care? Would Meet the Press debate whether this raises “troubling questions” about the White House’s sensitivity? Would Andrea Mitchell find some way to blame Sarah Palin for Dick Cheney’s viciousness? Would Keith Olberman explode like a mouse subjected to the Ramone’s music in “Rock and Roll High School?”  Something inside me hidden away shouts “Hell yes they would!”

The Today Show even had Debbie Wasserman Schultz on this morning for five minutes talking about Giffords. No one thought to ask her what she thought of Biden’s comments? It’s not like she’s the Democratic Party’s national spokesperson or anything. Oh, wait. She is! ...And yet you know the next time there’s the slightest, remotely exploitable tragedy or hint of violence, the same reporters, editors, producers and politicians are going to insist that blood was spilled because of the right wing’s rhetoric.  Well, go to Hell. All of you.
 

Careful, Jonah.  That sounds awfully uncivil.


UPDATE - White House spokesman Jay Carney has apparently dismissed the "terrorist" slur from Democrats as merely an element of the "emotional" and "passionate" debate.  Duly noted, White House.  Thanks for establishing the new standard.  We'll keep it in mind.


Guy Benson

Guy Benson is Townhall.com's Political Editor. Follow him on Twitter @guypbenson. He is co-authors with Mary Katharine Ham for their new book End of Discussion: How the Left's Outrage Industry Shuts Down Debate, Manipulates Voters, and Makes America Less Free (and Fun).

Author Photo credit: Jensen Sutta Photography