Remembering Those Other Violent, Angry Protesters

August 12th, 2009 By: Arvak | Tags:

protestThe dominant meme in the blogosphere the last couple of weeks has been to say that protests about health care reform are a unique and frightening development in American political discourse. It’s never been anything like this bad before! Or so we are told.

Unfortunately, not all memories are so short. FoxNews details a protest at a Bush event even way back in 2002 (long before the war in Iraq collapsed into unpopularity) where the far left exceeded even the worst antics that they now claim to be outraged about:

When Bush visited Portland, Ore., for a fundraiser, protesters stalked his motorcade, assailed his limousine and stoned a car containing his advisers. Chanting “Bush is a terrorist!”, the demonstrators bullied passers-by, including gay softball players and a wheelchair-bound grandfather with multiple sclerosis.

One protester even brandished a sign that seemed to advocate Bush’s assassination. The man held a large photo of Bush that had been doctored to show a gun barrel pressed against his temple.

“BUSH: WANTED, DEAD OR ALIVE,” read the placard, which had an X over the word “ALIVE.”

Another poster showed Bush’s face with the words: “F— YOU, MOTHERF—ER!”

A third sign urged motorists to “HONK IF YOU HATE BUSH.” A fourth declared: “CHRISTIAN FASCISM,” with a swastika in place of the letter S in each word.

Protesters slashed the tires of several state patrol cruisers and leapt onto an occupied police car, slamming the hood and blocking the windshield with placards. A female police officer was knocked to the street by advancing protesters, badly injuring her wrist.

The angry protest grew so violent that the Secret Service was forced to take the highly unusual step of using a backup route for Bush’s motorcade because the primary route had been compromised by protesters, one of whom pounded his fist on the president’s moving limousine.

All the while, angry demonstrators brandished signs with incendiary rhetoric, such as “9/11 – YOU LET IT HAPPEN, SHRUB,” and “BUSH: BASTARD CHILD OF THE SUPREME COURT.” One sign read: “IMPEACH THE COURT-APPOINTED JUNTA AND THE FASCIST, EGOMANIACAL, BLOOD-SWILLING BEAST!”

Of course, since the source is FoxNews, some on the left will claim that this is an example of news bias. But can’t the same be said about the left-leaning sources that are hyping up the faux rage about “teabaggers” and “birthers” and “astroturfing”? Rage and violence are features of both extremes, they aren’t some scary new monsters cooked up by the far right like some of the same folks who eagerly participated in anti-Bush extremism pretend them to be.

UPDATE: It looks like even some of the “Nazis” in the current protests might be left-wing plants. That would mean even part of the right-wing extremism is coming from the same left wing that invented the whole genre in the 1960s. :)

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. c3
    August 13th, 2009 at 19:52
    Reply | Quote | #1

    In a related item, I found this piece supremely ironic. So a key backer of a new major push to strengthen public support for the Democratic plan is….wait for it: Big Pharma.

    Separately, a coalition of groups backing Obama’s proposals launched a $12 million TV ad campaign Thursday, pitching health insurance reform in states where conservative Democratic House members or senators with conservative constituents are under pressure over the issue…The coalition distributing the ads, called Americans for Stable Quality Care, is funded largely by the pharmaceutical industry and includes the American Medical Association, FamiliesUSA and the Federation of American Hospitals, as well as Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the lobby known as PhRMA

    I thought it was the angry protesters that were backed by lobbyists. I thought Big Pharma was one of the “bad guys”. Isn’t that why we were trying to buy meds from Canada.

    I’m confused, this is getting like Major League Baseball: “Well yeah, Johnny Damon was a Red Sox player but now he’s on the Yankees”

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.