Rhonda Graham titles her latest column "Tea Partyers too loyal to racist fringes." She begins:
I watch the news nightly in hopes of coverage of just one of those brave anti-health care reform protesters "calling out" one of their own for the clearly insulting references to the president's African heritage as unworthy of their movement.
But then one does:
"That [witch doctor] image is not representative at all of what this movement is about," said Joe Wierzbicki, a coordinator of the Tea Party Express.
But that's not enough for Ms. Graham! Wierzbicki is a "so-called" leader, and his claim above is "weak."
"The Tea Party combines the best elements of civic activism with some of the worst elements of fringe extremism," wrote John Feeher, who once worked for congressional Republicans. He admits that some activists are genuinely concerned about the future of the country. Others see conspiracies around every corner and use unacceptable rhetoric to communicate their displeasure with the president."
Those Jim Crow loyalists are rubbing their hands in glee that the first black president has stumbled so badly on reformatting the government and private sector's role in health care. It's not about co-pays or any phantom death panel for their sickly nana. It's about that "black boy's" presence in the highest office in the nation.
Now is Ms. Graham referring to all the Tea Partiers with that "Jim Crow loyalist" remark, or just the "others" Mr. Feeher talked about? It's not clear. But my guess is it's the former. Graham then defends Jimmy Carter's outrageous statements about opposition to Barack Obama being "racist," by saying that he's "not a racial segregationist" and basically has "grown up" as a man of the South. Of course, the first part is demonstrably false, and Graham ignores how Carter attempted to back-off from his insane comments shortly thereafter.
The remainder of Graham's column is pretty much just your typical, liberal, elitist newsperson's nonsense: Joe Wilson's "You lie!" exclamation at Barack Obama's healthcare speech "was similar to the ridicule of the first black congressman in 'The Birth of a Nation,' D.W. Griffith's seminal pro-Ku Klux Klan film of the 20th century." (Have we ever read a Graham column that blasted those Democrats who yelled at George W. Bush and called him virtually every name in the book?)
Other representatives and senators showed their "rude" behavior by "yawning and sending text messages." (Gosh! Heaven forbid! Democrats never have done that when a Republican president has given an address! Has Graham ever written about that disrespect?)
"Racial haters" are among the Tea Partiers and thus we should assume that the "regular" folks don't mind their company. (Ever read a Graham column that said we "should assume that all anti-war protesters are violent anarchists or communists or Maoists"?)
Lastly, we witness the ever-increasing lefty hatred of that nasty 'ol First Amendment. Graham writes "It's tolerable acceptance, they suggest, all in the name of free speech. Talk about First Amendment perversion." Many on the Left hate how that first of all Amendments allows hate speech (how's that for irony?) using, among other things, "critical race theory" as their basis. Astoundingly, they fail to grasp that that's precisely what the First Amendment is for: unpopular speech. So, on the contrary, Ms. Graham, it's far from a perversion of the First Amendment when idiots spew race hatred. After all, we wouldn't even need a First Amendment if everyone used "happy" and "popular" speech now, would we?
You'd think a someone who wrote for a state's major newspaper ought to know that, right?