The Snub, Part III
BMG’s Charley writes in (with his permission to post):

If tea partiers are upset about being "caricatured" as fruitcakes, racists, and cranks, then they need to start by loudly and actively distancing themselves from people like Mark Williams. If they are afraid to do so, then they get what they deserve.

Compare to Obama's Jeremiah Wright situation: He had the choice of sticking with a guy who said some loony and offensive things, or cutting him loose and disavowing the craziness. Obama did the right thing (eventually). That was reassuring to a lot of people.

If guilt-by-association is unfair, then let's see some clear daylight between the sane folks and the crazy ones.

I agree that Mark Williams is a nut, and there should be clearer daylight between him and the sane Tea Party folks -- just as there should be clearer daylight between the crazy ones and sane folks at left-wing rallies where the sitting president of the United States is referred to as a Nazi, Reichstag-burning dictator, etc., etc.

Bert also throws down the rally-coverage gantlet:

Tell me you’ll attend (tomorrow’s) Teabagger rally and will do an in depth review/mockery, as you did with the anti-war rally. I’m hoping you’ll ignore their sincere intentions and focus on the “fringiness” of the crowd like you did in 2003. Please use that post as a guide.

For the record, I think Margery is largely right in her column and might have done a similar column in 2003 in regards to the sincere intent of the core folks staging the anti-war rally. I don’t have a problem with your 2003 post, just curious to see if you view/report today’s event with the same level of snark.

Hub Blog’s response: 1.) I was unemployed in March 2003. I now have a job. No time to cover the Tea Party rally tomorrow. But I'm sure there will be nut cases there. 2.) My 'snark' coverage of the 2003 rally was precisely to make the point that the fringes were NOT being covered by the MSM. I ranted against the biased coverage of anti-war rallies in general before the 2003 rally, the day of the 2003 rally, and the day after the 2003 rally. Notice in the local media's 2003 coverage how there were no mention of the very obvious leftist affiliations of most of the protesters, only mentions of “peace activists” and concerned citizens, blah, blah, blah. The coverage pulled political punches. But, whoa, when a right-wing group holds a rally on Boston Common, suddenly the political affiliations are clear, the fringe groups get mentioned, the Hitler references are cited, the wing-nut radicals spotlighted, etc. Kind of makes you wonder about biases, doesn’t it?  ¶ 8:12 PM