Today’s installment of the Media Research Center’s “Best Notable Quotables of 2013,” as selected by our 42 expert judges: “The Tea Party Terrorists Award.” The establishment media have been hostile to the Tea Party from the moment it appeared on the scene in 2009, impugning participants as racists, “tea baggers” and terrorists ready to blow up the political system.
“Winning” this category in 2011, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman falsely suggested Tea Party complicity in the grievous wounding of Democratic congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, announcing in a blog post written just two hours after news broke of her shooting: “We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was....It’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers.” (This year’s winners and videos below the jump.)
Colbert I. King
Are PUMAs racist? Colbert I. King seems to think so. In his WaPo column of today, A Suicidal Choice for Clinton Supporters, King delivers a laundry list of reasons why, in his opinion, it makes no sense for Hillary fans to support McCain. Since he brooks no rational justification for good Dems to desert Obama, by process of elimination, King apparently sees racism as the explanation.
Here's King's punch line [emphasis added]:
So what's drawing Hillary Clinton's die-hard fans to John McCain? Is the attraction only skin-deep?
In an election pitting McCain against the first major-party African-American presidential candidate in history,
<p><img src="http://conservablogs.com/publiusforum/wp-content/themes/art/animatedc.i.... align="right" border="0" hspace="10" vspace="10" />It didn't take long for the Washington Post to weigh in on the wrong side of the Second Amendment issue, did it? The Post's Colbert I. King could not contain the disgust he feels for at least one part of the Constitution more <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR200806... his response</a> to the Supreme Court's Second Amendment ruling today. He flipped his top and went so far off the deep end that he seemed to imagine that Justice Scalia just gave the nod for citizens to get "machine guns" to indulge their newly affirmed ability to indiscriminately fire their loaded guns "at will" in D.C. In fact in this op ed, King was so unhinged that he seemed to utterly dispense with logic as he penned his newest ode to the wild-eyed phobia that is his inordinate fear of guns (yet, curiously, not of criminals).</p>
![http://conservablogs.com/publiusforum/wp-content/themes/art/animatedc.i....](http://conservablogs.com/publiusforum/wp-content/themes/art/animatedc.i.king.gif"){kind=link}
<p>King's very first few paragraphs seem to be written without the slightest bit of reflection of how illogical his position on the concept of gun laws is because it looks as though he imagines that criminals might obey a draconian anti-gun law, or any gun law for that matter if only it is enforced. One wonders why Mr. King thinks criminals are <i>called</i> criminals if laws would prevent them from doing anything? Worse, King can't seem to tell the difference between a law abiding citizen using a gun in self-defense and a criminal using it for evil. It seems as if to King criminals and citizens are indistinguishable.</p>