Willful ignorance about motives of Tea Party

Noemie Emery:

o hear the media tell it, the Tea Party movement is one of the most mysterious forces ever to surface in national life. Since February 2009, when CNBC's Rick Santelli urged his listeners to dump unfunded derivatives into Lake Michigan to protest the developing culture of bailouts, they have been nothing but open about their fears of insolvency, their discomfort with increasing size of the government and their terror of deficits.

The media listen closely to all these objections, and decide they must mean something else. They say they fear debt, and the media insist that they must fear Hispanics (why they hate Marco Rubio), that they fear blacks (why they hate Thomas Sowell), that they fear strong women (why they want Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin to be sent back to the kitchen in chains).

...

"An aggrieved elite," Dana Milbank sniffed. "Race is part of the picture," E.J. Dionne noted. "The Tea Partiers aren't standing up for the little guy; they're standing up TO the little guy," Peter Beinart complained. "The Tea Partiers favor the economically and racially privileged. ... What the Tea Partiers dislike about Barack Obama's economic policies is that they don't do enough for the rich."

What Tea Partiers dislike about Obama's policies is that they've tripled the national debt.

"Something unique happened in Obama's first year," Daniel Henninger wrote. "The veil was ripped from the true cost of government. This is a ghastly nightmare the Democrats have needed to keep locked in a crypt."

...

There is more.

One of the reasons that the left in the media seem so clueless is that they cannot comprehend why anyone would object to what Obama is doing so they have to project irrational motives when the obvious is right in front of them. As I have said often, it is about the debt.