UPDATE:
Timothy Dalrymple has the 3rd part of his series on this question posted here.
***********************
In the most mealy-mouthed sort of unattributed criticism, the Christian science monitor tells us about the upcoming NAACP resolution on alleged tea party racism
The tea party movement has been criticized before for allegedly harboring racist attitudes toward President Obama. Now the NAACP is set to vote on a resolution condemning supporters of the tea party for displaying “signs and posters intended to degrade people of color generally and President Barack Obama specifically.” It calls “the racist elements” within the movement “a threat to progress.”
This kind of “passive voice” language (“has been criticized”) is really just passive aggressive. Who, exactly, has criticized the tea party movement for “racism”? Well… Democratic activists, radicals and politicians with an axe to grind, from the congressional black caucus. What evidence have they been able to bring to light?
Absolutely none.
There is no film, no audio, no photography, showing racist commentary or alleged actions like those debunked here.
I have come to the conclusion that when liberals, progressives and/or socialists call conservatives or libertarians racist, merely because they are conservatives or libertarians, it is the moral equivalent of the name callers holding their fingers in their ears and crying, “I’m not gonna listen! I’m not gonna listen!” In other words, it’s childish, intellectually bankrupt, and like some children can be, more than a little vicious.
Calling someone a racist, without evidence, merely because you don’t like their positions on the issues, is the last refuge of rhetorical scoundrels. When you hear the charge leveled, without evidence, you know all you need to know about the name-caller.
The word “racist” should never be used without explicit, specific evidence in hand, publicly available.
