Posted by
John Caile on Friday, April 16, 2010 5:09:33 PM
With former President Bill Clinton disgustingly attempting to totally mis-label the peaceful Tea Party attendees as somehow akin to "Timothy McVeigh" wannabes, it is instructive to try and imagine the uproar if a movie about the fictional assassination of Barak Obama were to be produced and released today.
The New York Times editorial staff would likely appropriate the entire front page for a diatribe against "right wing rage" - everyone from FOX news to Talk Radio to Tea Party participants would be in the Times' cross-hairs (pun intended).
MSNBC's sexually transposed anchors, Rachael Maddow and Keith Olbermann (Keith is the one in the woman's underwear) would surely be apoplectic with hysterical calls for boycotts, lawsuits - perhaps even demands for criminal prosecution of the films producers for "inciting violence" against the President.
CNN's anchors would be aghast at the very thought than anyone would even consider such a topic - complete with the most serious of expressions, along with the now mandatory somber head-shaking when "reporting" even imaginary threats to any Democrat, let alone the President.
Hollywood types (who make millions from movies depicting egregiously violent acts) would appear on late night shows like David Letterman, and express their outrage at such an "over the top" and "totally indefensible" topic.
But wait a minute! In 2006, a movie called "Death of a President" actually was produced - with one minor difference. The "President" killed in that film was, you guessed it, George W. Bush. It was released on September 11, 2006 - that's right, the 5-year anniversary of the Islamo-Fascist attack on the World Trade Center. So much for respectful timing.
And the reaction to that tasteless (and rather amateurish) piece of left-wing propaganda? Well, it is a testament to the American public that it bombed at the box office. In it's (mercifully) short run, the attendance figures showed that many theaters had fewer than a dozen people in the audience. The film never even recovered its production expenses, let alone turn a profit.
But the reaction of the overwhelmingly left-leaning news and entertainment media was another matter altogether. Less than 5 days after it's release, "Death of President" received an award at the Toronto Film Festival. OK, that was Canada. But vitriolic hatred against George Bush, and even outright exhortations to violence, are nothing new.
On the ultra-left-wing Air America, talk show host Randi Rhodes once recommended doing to Bush what
Michael Corleone, in "The Godfather, Part II," does to his brother. "Like
Fredo," she said, "somebody ought to take him out fishing and
phuw!"
-- then imitated the sound of a gunshot.
In the British daily, the Guardian, columnist Charlie Brooker issued a plea: "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey
Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. -- where are you now that we need you?"
The Washington Post yawningly reported that "Death of a President" was perhaps controversial, but still couldn't keep from reporting that "Rod Liddle, a newspaper and magazine columnist who also makes documentaries
for Channel 4, said he thought the Bush film gave voice to a common sentiment in
Britain. You will never, ever be able to overestimate the degree to which the British
people loathe George Bush," Liddle said. "It will be a free round of drinks in
every pub for the person who plays the assassin."
At least one columnist, Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe, did have the integrity to ask in his review of the movie, "Six years into the Bush administration, are there any new lows to which the
Bush-haters can sink?"
But he was the exception. On the whole, the reaction was, if not outright support for the movie, a kind of "wink-and-a-nod" to the film's premise. There were no "panel discussions" to discuss "the larger ramifications" of such an inflammatory piece. No "concern" over its potential for "promoting violence."
So, Mr. Clinton, rather than spouting your phony "concerns" over violence from everyday Americans, if might be better if you were to keep an eye on your own house - after all, from the Weather Underground to the WTO protesters, it is those on "your side" who have a much longer and darker record of violence than any of the Tea Party folks.
Because, Mr. Clinton, unless you and the rest of the Democrats cease and desist from unfairly demonizing those who simply disagree
with your socialist policies, then you and your cronies may very well be sowing the seeds of violence yourselves. And it won't come from our side - history shows that it will come from yours.
And that would be a terrible thing...for all Americans.