The dem brick got reported more because it was part of a much larger reaction of violence after the healthcare vote.
From the
above link:
- Former Bush adviser Karl Rove was targeted last week by handcuff-toting Code Pink members who tried to carry out a citizen's arrest during a book signing in Beverly Hills. As the attempt failed, one protester shouted to Rove that "the only comfort I take is that ... you're going to rot in hell."
Thousands of extreme critics weren't content to wait until Bush administration figures reached perdition — many made open death threats, though they got little press coverage.
And somewhere here at RKMBs I wrote about a group of lefties in Ithaca who threw actual human blood on a soldier and a recruiting center as part of an antiwar protest.
So, basically, there was violence from the antiwar left during the Bush years but it didn't get the coverage that one or two incidents from the tea partiers are getting now.
We also have examples of liberal environmental groups, freaked out by Al Gore's promise of global warming, engaging in acts of violence and eco-terror. However, as doc pointed out, very few of the Palin and talk radio bashers saw fit to try and blame Gore for the torching of SUVs and the spiking of trees.
And, of course, there are the union thugs who attack people openly in order to quell opposition to this or that union-friendly (typically democrat) politician.
At some point, it comes down to a "tree falling in the forest" kind of thing. If the media plays up violence on side (the right) and downplays it on the other (the left) it will seem as if one side was worse than the other. In fact, it would be very difficult, if the media downplayed left-wing violence, to even find the examples to show that the left did it.
Finally, I would remiss if I didn't point out that representatives of one side being violent is not excused by past bad acts from the other sides. A crime is a crime, if it occurred.
The issue I'm addressing is whether the media (and some people such as yourself) aren't being much quicker to publicize and generalize the bad apples on one side after doing their/your level best to cover-up (for lack of a better term) the bad apples on the other side.
Oh, and I guess this confirms that you are admitting defeat on the Palin/target/DNC/crosshairs argument, insofar as you're still trying to talk about other stuff now.
