Mark Williams, the conservative radio host and chairman of the Tea Party Express, had a few choice words on his blog last Friday about a plan to build a mosque around Ground Zero (emphasis mine):
The monument would consist of a Mosque for the worship of the terrorists' monkey-god and a "cultural center" to propagandize for the extermination of all things not approved by their cult. It is a project of American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative, essentially the same group of apologists (but under 2 different names) for terrorists and the animals who use it. They cloak their evil with new age gibberish that suggests Islam is just misunderstood and the poor kid in the photo below should have just been more careful around knives.
(I won't be posting it here, but it's also worth mentioning that Williams's blog also includes artwork depicting a zombie-like Mohammed with a swastika above his head)
Besides the fact that the planned mosque is part of a proposed community center that will also include a "performance art center, gym, swimming pool and other public spaces" -- and we all know how much them terrorists just love their gyms and swimming pools! -- Williams's hate speech is yet another example of conservative bigotry that seeks to equate Islam with terrorism and dredge up fears among voters of the "other" (in this case, Muslims). Representative Peter King (R-NY) has made similar incendiary remarks -- several times. I'm skeptical that either of these two men would raise any objections if, say, a Christian church were erected near the site of an abortion clinic which had been bombed by Christian religious zealots -- because obviously, those extremists who bomb abortion clinics don't represent all of Christianity, much like how the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11 don't represent all of Islam. The construction of a religious building near the site of a crime does not equal support for those crimes, though that's a nuance that neither Williams nor King afford to Muslims.
But here's something else to consider: Williams's fellow Tea Party compatriot Joe Wierzbicki, the head of the conservative public relations firm Russo Marsh & Rogers, told TPMmuckraker the following about Williams's comments:
"It doesn't have anything to do with the Tea Party Express and the issues addressed by the tea party movement, and was written on Mr. Williams's personal blog, and not on any Tea Party Express website, blog or social networking page."
Let's assume for the moment that a Democratic Party chairman or high-ranking official said something equally inflammatory -- for instance, if either Tim Kaine or Howard Dean had written on Twitter or Facebook or their own personal blogs that Jesus or the Judeo-Christian God was a "Nazi," or even if they had made the same bigoted remarks about Muslims by comparing Allah to a "monkey" deity and labeling Islam as a "savage" religion. Is there any doubt that there would be national outrage all over the media and an endless stream of voters and prominent activists calling for them to resign? Do you think they'd be able to excuse such remarks by claiming that they were written on their own personal websites, and therefore the comments should have no bearing on their activism in the Democratic Party? I certainly don't think so. People have freedom of speech, of course, but there comes a point when they have to be held accountable for their words.
It goes without saying that Williams's comments do not represent the views of everyone in the Tea Party -- no more so than comments by Kaine or Dean represent the views of everyone in the Democratic Party -- and if a prominent Democratic Party activist or Democratic elected official had made such inflammatory and bigoted comments, it would be perfectly legitimate to call attention to them and denounce their words. Let's see if the mainstream media (or better yet, if the Tea Party itself) will hold high-ranking conservative activists to the same standard. I personally doubt they will.
(h/t to Zachary Roth at Talking Points Memo)