Debate:Are "racist" Tea Party attendees liberal plants?

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is something I've come to wonder more and more as coverage of the Tea Party increases. At first, I was willing to simply acknowledge that any large gathering will attract a few individuals of questionable judgment and character, people who don't speak for the large majority of attendees; however, I'm beginning to wonder whether that's really the case.


1. The Tea Party events I personally experienced were invariably positive events characterized by enthusiasm and a sense that, yes, you can fight the system. Others to whom I have spoken have reported the same; in general, those attending are average Americans who are simply unwilling to be silent anymore. Now, these events all had a few things in common: one, they were relatively small, and as such didn't attract a lot of media attention, and, two, the "angry racists" were conspicuous by their absence.

2. On the other hand, at large events where the liberal media IS in attendance, the "angry racists" invariably seem to show up...and they invariably seem to show up in exactly the right spot to be captured on camera. Doesn't that seem just a bit serendipitous? BIg Tea Party rallies have a LOT of people attending them; the odds of any one person making it onto camera as anything other than part of a very large group shot are slim. Yet, these supposed "racist conservatives" always manage to make it on camera, even if nobody else does. On the other hand, when less-liberal media sources...say, Fox News...cover such an event, the same racists who are so easy for CNN to find are suddenly scarce on the ground.

That could be a coincidence...but I wonder.

3. Following these events, nobody seems to be able to say exactly who these "angry racists" were or where they came from. Again, isn't that a little weird? These folks don't seem shy about their views; one would think they'd be glad to take credit. If not, well, people usually don't go to these events alone, and it would seem likely that, at some point, someone ELSE at the rally would say, "Oh, that's just Crazy Bob, don't worry about him...he got hit in the head with a waffle iron when he was nine." If they were part of a group--a church group, say, or an organized political group--you'd expect that their group would take action, simply to prevent their antics from giving the group a bad name.

But no--after the event, the "racists" melt back into the woodwork.

4. Now, again, this could all be coincidence, but the principle of cui bono comes up--who benefits? Clearly, the Tea Party is a threat to numerous entrenched political interests, particularly liberal interests. Discrediting the Tea Party would be of huge benefit to the Democratic Party. Just as clearly, having "controversy" at such events is of benefit to the liberal media, in the form of increased ratings.

Taking all of these points in concert, I pose the question: are the "angry conservatives" shouting racial slurs at these events anything of the sort? It would hardly be the first time in history that canny operators have put plants in a crowd. A hundred years ago, it was snake-oil salesmen doing it; could we be seeing a similar tactic by a different group, this one peddling political snake-oil? --Benp 16:55, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

Yes, probably

Making the accusation of racism is usually enough to try, convict and sentence someone in one breath. And that's why media are no longer trusted in this country, because they want to make the news instead of just reporting it. Who recalls the trumped up claims of black church arsons during the Clinton era? It turns out to have been all hype, as Michael Fumento explains. [1] --Ed Poor Talk 14:51, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

Liberals Are Attempting To Infiltrate And Destroy The Tea Party


I think it's probably safe to say that the observations I made before were valid; the "racists" at Tea Party rallies are, in fact, liberal plants. The only question that remains, then, is whether the mainstream media is cooperating with these cut-rate agents provocateurs--which would explain why they always seem to have their cameras pointed in the right direction to catch them on film.

--Benp 16:26, 12 April 2010 (EDT)