Part of the reason I never embraced them even at the start is because, while we may share some policy goals, those not simply on a hippie holiday strike me as the unruly extremist sort prone to violence. What I took exception to in Cannolis comments was this:


Considering cases like this one: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20001259-504083.html

or the below linked one, the real question is not why Occupiers get arrested for setting empty buildings on fire or brawling in the streets, but why Tea Partiers attacking opponents property or persons do NOT. Much as I despise John Boehner, I must respect him for his statement at the end of the above article:

"Threats and violence should not be part of a political debate."

Perhaps it is only a difference of opinion; I had a similar disagreement here a few months ago when Hoffa urged a rally to "take these SOBs out" (a rather stunning comment given even he does not know where his father is.) Some suggested that was just strong "free speech," but I disagree; language urging violence or easily understood to do so is incitement to riot, not free speech, and the law is very clear that no one has any such "right."

Disrupting a speech is just that, rightly subject to arrest and prosecution. Cannoli also claims Tea Partiers do not do that, as if Rep. Joe Wilson never shouted, "YOU LIE!" from the House floor during Obamas State of the Union address. However, absent incendiary language, that is not DANGEROUS to lives, health or property.

It bothers and worries me when conservatives deny the Tea Party engages in that, or pretend Occupy Wall Street or anyone else somehow excuses it. Again, there is a reason I do not endorse OWS: Despite sympathizing with many of their greivances I deplore much of their "activism." Bottom line: Just as former GOP district chairman Miller did not want to take a bullet, I do not want blood on my hands. I wish more on the far right felt the same, rather than defending extremist political allies.