Democrat Representative Mike Capuano of Massachusetts was speaking to a crowd of union supporters in Boston on Tuesday, at a rally to support public unions in their battle with Wisconsin taxpayers. He jazzed up the crowd with the following statement, reported in the New Hampshire Journal and practically nowhere else:
“I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.”
Has anyone passed this along to the editors of the New York Times? I realize they don’t like to report news that damages liberal causes, but I assume they can read the New Hampshire Journal. Do you think Paul Krugman will be penning a fevered editorial denouncing the climate of union and Democrat violence?
Of course, the lefty spin will be that Capuano was just talking about “getting bloody” in a metaphorical sense – a level of understanding that would never have been extended to a Tea Party activist saying such a thing, never mind a United States Congressman speaking at a Tea Party rally.
As the New Hampshire Journal points out, Capuano has a history of using lively rhetoric, including an interview where he mused that there was “nothing wrong with throwing a coffee cup at someone if you’re doing it for human rights.” A righteous agenda must be pursued by any means necessary, and if that means somebody gets a coffee cup upside the head… well, they shouldn’t have aligned themselves against Capuano’s noble constituents.
Unlike the Tea Party movement, which has serenely withstood years of liberals and their media allies desperately scrambling to find some hint of violence or inflammatory rhetoric, unions do have a long history of using violence to obtain their goals. They didn’t hesitate to deploy the most outrageous signs and slogans in Madison, as chronicled by the conservative sites that do most of the real reporting in America these days. The mainstream media studiously avoided pointing cameras at the sea of banners proclaiming Governor Scott Walker to be the love child of Hitler and Hosni Mubarak, let alone the even uglier signs praising John Wilkes Booth, or showing Walker dangling from a gibbet after losing a game of “Hangman.”
Nazi comparisons are more than just slightly overheated rhetoric, especially coming from teachers. The bloody lesson of the early twentieth century is that you can’t negotiate with Nazis, or make deals with them. They have no valid concerns or viewpoints. The only valid response to Nazis is to physically destroy them. If a bunch of them stand close together in a straight line, you can kill half a dozen with one bullet, just like Indiana Jones did.
The absolutism of public union rhetoric is also deeply troubling. Even the slightest restrictions on their benefits or collective bargaining privileges are denounced as attempts to deny education to children. What is the proportionate response to people whose real reason for punishing the sainted army of public employees is a simmering and evil desire to throw children out of classrooms?
The War on Taxpayers has spread to Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan, with rallies all across the country held to express support. The union movement is a tiny minority that seeks to impose its will across the majority of Americans, who have used their ballots to declare themselves opposed to the union agenda. They are facing an existential crisis, as the huge amounts of money they pour into Democrat Party coffers to purchase influence stands imperiled, and the Party itself might not be able to survive the loss. They know the stakes. That’s why the Hitler signs came out so quickly. Before this is over, there will be blood.