Back on December 15, 2002, I was the first journalist of any kind to go to an anti-Iraq War protest and come back with photos. A couple months later, Evan Coyne Maloney did the same, in his case with video. Both of us subsequently went to several other peace movement protests and shot pictures (me) and video (him) of the loopy signs and protesters.

Now, he offers "A Trip Down Memory Lane" (link) which is a stock whine: per him, the mainstream media went much easier on the peace protesters than they have on the tea parties. It includes a video ( peekURL.com/vs23cy6 ) showing far-lefties and their loopy signs at anti-Bush protests. And, all this is linked by Powerline (powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/03/025964.php) and by, of course, Glenn Reynolds (pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/96788).

And, all of this is basically a mistake:

1. The loopy signs about Bush from the peace protesters are the exact mirror image of the loopy signs about Obama carried proudly at tea party protests; those listed above might want to back away from that fact. On the same page with the video of peace protesters comparing George W Bush to Hitler, Powerline says: "How do they compare to the Tea Party protesters expressing their opposition to Barack Obama's program of national socialism?" And, no, they aren't being ironic.

2. There are many differences between the two protests, the most important one being that one was protesting against war and the other is protesting against their already low taxes. The first has involved tens of thousands of people losing their lives, the second has not. Those protesting Iraq were right about Bush lying, even if they went too far (e.g., all the "Reichstag fire" signs). They might have been right for the wrong reasons, but they were still right. Many of them would have allowed Saddam Hussein to continue to oppress the people of Iraq, but it's not like mouth-breathers like Glenn Reynolds and other Bush supporters were supporting effective alternatives to war.

3. Another difference is one of temperament. The first protests weren't exactly a hippie love-in and there were plenty of crazies; I got into a couple verbal altercations; I got some nasty looks; I even got into a shoving match with someone. However, for the most part the protesters were sane and civil, even those who staged loopy sit-ins. There were several black bloc types who tried to challenge the police, but they were a minority. The tea parties don't try to challenge the police and don't include the black bloc types of protesters. However, the "normal" ones are nearly as bad: their protests are filled with those who have unfocused, apoplectic rage and many who have absolutely no interest in being either sane or civil. The chance of getting into a civil intellectual argument with a tea partier is very, very low. I never saw anything approaching the brainless chanting on peekURL.com/vsi71xz at any of the peace protests.

4. A similarity between then and now is that the protests were organized by those with "interesting" agendas. The peace protests were organized by those on the hard left, such as ANSWER. The tea parties are organized ("facilitated" is their euphemism) by those deep inside the Beltway. The mainstream media shied away from mentioning ANSWER. The media has occasionally acknowledged that those pulling the strings on the tea parties are FreedomWorks and the like, but they haven't gone anywhere near as far as one would hope. For instance, I don't think the mainstream media has mentioned that Dick Armey supports illegal immigration and did stimulus bill-related lobbying. They've mostly called the tea partiers names instead of doing what would be devastatingly effective: call them on the fact that they have absolutely no workable ideas.