A Rant on Media, Evidence, and Cowardice (Updated)

The attack on Allee Bautsch and Joe Brown demonstrates the contrast between the right and the left in American political discourse — it shows why conservatives lose.

Anyone who actually reads Scott’s primary post on the topic can reasonably deduce that they were attacked because they were leaving a GOP fundraiser.  If you can’t figure it out from that, then Scott spells it out for you here and connects the dots.  Does anyone really think that a gang of young, white men just randomly followed Bautsch and Brown for several blocks and then severely beat them for no apparent reason?  Really?  Even with all the violence in New Orleans, most crimes still seem to have a motive — something that this lacks if it wasn’t a political attack.

And yet, as Scott pointed out, most conservative websites and blogs are avoiding this topic like the plague.  Why?  Because they are afraid.  Liberals scream “racism” without the slightest shred of evidence and the mainstream media scream with them, but conservatives are afraid to speak the truth even when faced with clear and convincing evidence.  They are cowards.

This is not a court of law and the Iron Rail Gang isn’t on trial (yet), but the conservative media have acted as though Iron Rail must be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt before they can say a word on the topic.  It’s no coincidence that the only major conservative media outlet to have accurately covered the story belongs to Andrew Breitbart, because he actually has some guts.  The rest of the conservative media still seem to be afraid that the MSM is going to say something bad about them.  That’s why the Tea Parties have been so refreshing.  In contrast to the 2008 election, when millions of milquetoast Americans voted for Barach Obama so that their neighbors wouldn’t think they were racists, people like Rick Santelli decided to start speaking the truth regardless of the consequences.

Even Scott, in his efforts to prevent people from accusing him of being some kind of wild-eyed crazyman, has tried to be balanced and has suggested that the attack was political but not partisan.  Hogwash.  Who do you think the attackers voted for in 2008?  The irony of the Iron Rail Gang is that they are anarchists and yet you know they all voted for big government in the person of Barack Obama.  How is the attack not partisan if the victims were attacked solely because they were Republicans?  Would the Iron Rail Gang have attacked a DNC fundraiser?

This pathetic fear of speaking the obvious truth has afflicted conservatives in another issue that I have covered in great detail — that of Michael Steele.  With word yesterday that Steele’s RNC appears to have given money to Al Sharpton, he has taken my party to a new low, far lower than spending money at the Voyeur club.  Despite his atrocious acts as RNC Chairman, only two RNC members have been brave enough to call on Steele to resign, and only one GOP member of Congress.  As I have extensively documented here and here, Steele has been and will continue to be a total disaster for the Republican Party, yet everyone is too chicken to say so, because they are afraid that someone will call them racists.  I ruled out ever supporting Sarah Palin for anything when she said last week that Steele is “doing a great job,” a comment that reveals her to be either a complete idiot or a liar.

Go ahead and call me a racist for attacking Michael Steele.  I’ll call you one back for supporting Michael Steele just because he’s black.  Say that I’m rushing to judgment on the Iron Rail Gang.  I’ll challenge you to come up with any other theory of the crime that makes sense.

I will not censor the truth.  I am not afraid of what people will say about me.


UPDATE: 4/18/2010, 12:45 PM — Scott’s comments below are direct, and I want to address them here in the body of this rant.

We can start with the fact that 68% of voters 18-24 nationwide voted for Obama. Then we can add the fact that the one guy we have a description of is dirty with a ponytail and beard — yes, let’s stereotype.

Then let’s take the fact that these guys are violent thugs who committed a felony. Though I can’t find any statistics on 2008, we know that Bill Clinton got an overwheming 86% of the felon vote in 1996 and 93% in 1996. A Washington State study in 2005 found that, even after adjusted for all demographic factors, felons were 37% more likely to vote Democrat.  There is a reason that the ACLU and the NAACP ran a nationwide campaign in 2008 to persuade state legislatures to give felons the right to vote.  So from a point of view of statistics and reason, we can say that it is extremely likely that the attackers voted for Barack Obama, even before we factor in the fact that the target of the attack was a GOP fundraiser leaving a political function at which many liberals were protesting.  (The MSM regularly refers to Tea Party members as potentially violent protesters, and we conservatives don’t say anything about the fact that almost all violent felons in the country are liberal Democrats.)

No, I don’t have any proof that these particular thugs voted for Obama, and I haven’t pretended that I do.  I can’t even prove to you that I ate lunch today, because I ate by myself and there were no witnesses — but you would have to admit that it’s extremely likely that I did, in fact, eat.

When word emerged from the Ft. Hood shootings that the attacker was named Nidal Malik Hasan and he was shouting “Allah Akbar” as he killed people, there was no proof that he was connected to Al Queda or that he was motivated by terrorism — but it was a damned good presumption.  So why wouldn’t the media discuss that likelihood?

All I’m saying is that if something looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, there is nothing wrong with saying so.  The left does this all the time.  While we conservatives wait for DNA testing to prove that it is, in fact, a duck, the left has already roasted it and eaten it for dinner.


Update 4/19/10:  Despite being listed as an official sponsor of the Sharpton convention, the RNC is denying it gave them any money.  If true, then I apologize for suggesting that they did.  I still want to know how the RNC was a “sponsor” of the event.  The RNC’s name should not be in any way associated with Al Sharpton.  That doesn’t mean that Steele was wrong to speak, though he certainly was wrong to say that African-Americans don’t have fair access to housing, credit markets, or “voting machines that work.”

Update 4/19/10:  Powerline and Instapundit are now covering the story.  It’s good to see the truth getting out.



Interested in more national news? We've got you covered! See More National News
Previous Article
Next Article

Trending on The Hayride