Try to imagine a Law and Order episode where a gun-loving, Sarah Palin supporter is revealed to be a Tea Party member on the stand, in a trial where a radical Left attorney is using a charge of racial bias to sue the police for wrongful prosecution.
What are the odds that character would be the most heroic recurring character on Law and Order?
But that’s still not good enough for Newsbusters, which slammed the excellent CBS drama The Good Wife, for even allowing the antagonist on the show to make the charge– even though it was effectively shown to be false!
In an article entitled, “Prime Time CBS Drama ‘The Good Wife’ Impugns Tea Party as ‘Racist Organization,” the usually reliable Bret Baker “impugns” the show’s writers– and his charge is false.
I know there is a segment of conservatism that would rather read that Hollywood is out to get us than read that there is finally a show out there that deals with partisan politics and you cannot spot the good guys and bad guys by seeing who is the most liberal or the most conservative and that appealing to them may be good for fundraising– but there are enough real examples out there that there is no excuse for this.
Reading the text of the article, you would suppose that it is Christine Baranski’s character that is attacking the Tea Party, not the rather slimy Leftist lawyer pressing the bogus race-baiting lawsuit. Baker includes this bit of the dialogue after Gary Cole’s defense of the Tea Party as “It’s a political movement made up of conservatives and libertarians intended to apply pressure to the government to reduce spending.”
LOCKHART: Isn’t the Tea Party primarily anti-Obama?
LOCKHART: Then why wasn’t it formed under George W. Bush?
McVEIGH: There was hope President Bush would cut spending.
McVEIGH: I would acknowledge that it was a slim hope and a thwarted hope, but the Tea Party is not about Obama. It’s about putting pressure on both parties to reduce.
But Diane Lockhart, the show’s liberal who is constantly confronted with the illiberal forces of the extreme left in her role as a one-time activist, was defending McVeigh and giving him a chance to explain– something the article leaves very unclear.
Unforgivably, the column also leaves out the following leading question by Lockhart:
Are there racists and extremist in the Democratic Party?
As McVeigh answers that there are in every party, the left-wing lawyer immediately jumps to his feet and objects, while the sleeping judge awakes just long enough to sustain the objection.
What Baker has done would be like taking a quote from “twig boy” and pretending it makes King of the Hill a shill for liberalism while leaving out Hank Hill’s smackdown.
Without giving too much away (and even this is a bit of a SPOILER) the whole thrust of the episode tore a new one in the idea of race-based lawsuits based purely on numbers and quotas, and gave those who bring them an, excuse the expression, a black eye.