Relative to my previous post, it is worth noting that Tea Party supporter A. J. Stata isn’t freaking about about the report (indeed, he dubs Malkin a “drama queeen” for her reaction):
Folks, there is no mention of Tea Parties in the DHS report…the DHS is not targeting Tea Parties – for heaven’s sake![...]
There is a lot of hemming and hawing on conservative blogs about a threat assessment out of the Homeland Security Department which discusses the threat of violent extremism from right wing groups. Somehow the bloggers, media heads, etc think this threat assessment is about them! A strange and egotistical conclusion to be sure.
He goes on to look at the actual text of the report (something others appear not to have done) and details examples of anti-abortion related violence and reminds us all of the horror that was April 19, 1995.
Likewise, Charles Johnson at LGF reacts to what he sees as “hyperventilation”.
In related news, Dave Weigel (he of libertarian leanings) writes over at the Washington Independent:
I struggle to find anything wrong in a close — not a willfully obtuse — reading of the report.
He also reminds us of the case of Richard Andrew Poplawski, who we may recall, shot and killed three police officers earlier this month. He fits the profile of some of the persons discussed in the DHS report. Read the following profiles if one wishes to garner more details: A portrait of contrasts emerges from those who knew Poplawski and Suspect in officers’ shooting was into conspiracy theories, both from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
And speaking of “willfully obtuse” readings, Ed Morrissey weighs in at Hot Air, going so far as to demand Janet Napolitano’s resignation.
In rounding out the discussion, Matthew Yglesias is worth noting:
I think it’d be great if some non-insane conservatives were to be a bit bothered by this. Legitimate concerns about security really can serve as a cover for abuses or misconduct. This was the problem with the surveillance organized by the Bush administration, and it’s a very real problem even with Barack Obama in the White House.
There is little doubt that as a public we should be vigilant about the government too vociferously watching us, especially in the realm of political views. By the same token, there is a legitimate role for the government to play in getting track of persons who have a high probability of doing harm. At this point in time, however, there is nothing in the DHS report that would suggest anything other than heightened awareness of potential problems.
April 15th, 2024 at 12:37 pm
I know it’s tangential, but isn’t it interesting that there have been far more stories about President Obama’s new dog than stories about the Tea Parties? I guess I’m not as good at determining what’s news as the editors deciding to run the Obama dog stories.
April 15th, 2024 at 1:29 pm
For some reason, presidential pet stories get a lot of coverage.
However, there is have been quite a bit of tea party stuff out today, based on what I have seen (although, granted, I have been pretty busy today).
April 15th, 2024 at 6:40 pm
The Tea Parties started long before today. It’s nice to see the media cover it, but it’s odd that even with the surge of reporting, the Obamas’ new dog (1) has more coverage by column inches, and (2) is more likely on the front page.
But, yes, Barney, Socks and others had enough coverage that I can remember their names easier than I can remember the names of cats we had when I was younger.
April 15th, 2024 at 8:29 pm
In comparing the dog and the April 15th Tea Parties, it is my experience that the Tea Parties have gotten more coverage. But, as I noted elsewhere, I have hardly done a systematic study, so my views are subjective.
April 16th, 2024 at 12:14 pm
I haven’t done a systematic study either. I just think it’s a fair bet, as roughly 90% of the Tea Party coverage ran yesterday, and there has been a steady stream of “wow, President Obama’s getting a dog, aren’t you so excited?” stories since November.
April 16th, 2024 at 12:50 pm
Regarding “Bo Obama”, I did get a kick out of Jon Stewart’s take on it by referring to him as our first “openly gay presidential pet.” It was a much-needed smile.
Back to the topic at hand, I’ve noticed a lack of outrage from these same folks regarding the DHS report from earlier this year regarding left wing-extremists. Unfortunately, the right just ain’t that special.
Apparently, the focus of the outrage is over the term “right-wing” with complete disregard to the term “extremists.” While the definitions are broader than I’d like them to be, there’s no denying that extremists do exist, and there are only two EXTREME sides to an issue– left and right. (I do find the idea of a “moderate extremist” a bit amusing, though.)
April 16th, 2024 at 5:03 pm
With my ability to tell what kind of stories would sell newspapers, I’d probably mismanage things so much that I’d need a government bailout.
April 17th, 2024 at 2:26 pm
[...] Want a reasonable response to the DHS report that was the focus of so much discussion earlier in the week (and that I blogged about here and here)? [...]