Over at Hot Air, Doctor Zero brought up an interesting point -- one I've thought of several times, but never quite so thoroughly. It occurred to him that so many of the left's attacks against Sarah Palin -- once you strip them down to the core -- not only apply to President Obama, but far, far more accurately. The good doctor's theory -- and I can't really dispute it -- is that a lot of Obama supporters are disappointed in their guy, but they can't bring themselves to say it directly -- so they look for other places where they see those disappointing traits and lash out at them.
That got me thinking. (Always a dangerous thing.) That also seems to pretty well encapsulate how the mainstream media is treating the Tea Party movement -- and its backlash, the "Coffee party" movement.
The tea parties, you'll recall, were repeatedly denounced as "astroturf" (not real "grass roots") and the bought-and-paid-for shills of big financial interests. And it was against this sham movement that the Coffee Parties started forming.
But once you got past the surface, it became clear that the accusations against the Tea Parties fit far, far more comfortably against the Coffee Partiers. The leading organizers are renowned liberal activists and party apparatchiks, and the whole thing got a healthy financial boost from George Soros' Open Society Institute.
I dare anyone to find such solid links to "astroturfing" in the Tea Party movement.
None of that, of course, will be told to you by the mainstream media. They've got their own narrative to sell.
That said narrative is about 180 degrees from reality is what they don't like to hear called "an inconvenient truth."