The Cliven Bundy saga reminds me of the Trayvon Martin case: it is a very squishy example of a very real problem. Because the facts of these cases could be interpreted either way, they divide the rank and file rather than uniting usĀ against the real enemy from above. In light of this, rather than the nuanced Bundy case, it would have been nicer to see the governmentĀ forced to back down on a cut-and-dried asset forfeiture in which property was permanently confiscated from someone never convicted of a crime (likeĀ Rudy Ramirez), or an eminent domain case in which the government seized private property for the benefit of a privateĀ developer (like in the case ofĀ Vera Coking).
Sometimes I think that political operators deliberately chooseĀ cases that arenāt clear-cut because rather than despite the fact that they will generate grassroots activism on both sides of the aisle. In order for this to work, the case must have merit and flaws on both sides of the argument.