No. The time is now.
Without going into my stance, I will say that in all my years observing politics, every single time I've heard this comment it's to hide a double standard. Not a single exception. How do I know this?
Because when that time does come (in this case it would be violence by the left), they are silent, and will not condemn.
This is as good a time as any.
In fact, regarding Charlottesville, this really isn't a right wing issue, it's a Trump issue. Most Republican leaders that I can think of condemned this immediately and strongly as well. Trump's response was unusually tepid at first, which is what people are taking issue with.
By "they" I meant individuals I've interacted with, not a generic "they". My experience is with individuals who are polarized about various things (abortion, Middle East, etc) - I wasn't referring specifically to left vs right examples.
Some personal examples:
Muslims upset at a local newspaper for publishing certain cartoons. At the time they were protesting and demanding the editors get fired (one of them eventually was fired). I discussed it with them (friends, not just strangers), and they said a few things:
1. This isn't just about Muhammad but all of Islam's prophets (which includes Jesus, Moses, Abraham, etc).
2. This isn't just about Islam - they'd complain even if it happened to reverent figures of other religions.
3. The very statement that is being discussed here: Those are not the current problems and they are discussions for another time.
I pointed out to them that the comic section of the same newspaper had some years prior published really "offensive" cartoons about both Moses and Jesus. Response was "Well we weren't aware". Fair enough. Then later there was a news item about people upset with offensive depictions of Jesus. I pointed it out to them, and their response was the equivalent of "Leave me alone." Happened again related to a Hindu god. Same response.
The examples suggest the three points were not true. When those events became current problems, they did not want to have a discussion about it at all.
Similar story regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict. Without talking about which side did what, in one of the conflicts one side was accused of carrying out war crimes. Protests. I asked some of my friends (protesters) why this issue is so potent to them when similar or worse crimes are not. The response:
1. This is about human rights, not favoritism to a particular group. "We condemn it when it happens to any one".
2. This is the issue of the moment. Don't distract from it.
Sure enough, later there was another conflict so eerily similar to what they were protesting, but in a whole other part of the world. Point it out to them, and get the equivalent of "Leave us alone". And then of course much worse conflicts occur than in the Middle East (DRC, for example). Crickets.
This is what I meant when I said "Every single time I've heard this comment it's to hide a double standard."
And of course, I have to endure accusations of aligning with the other side (by both sides) whenever I ask these questions. I'm asking because I'm curious and want to know. In some cases I may be neutral, and in others I'm actually siding with one side. But my taking a stance to one side does not mean I'll blanket accept the hypocrisy by that side's proponents.
It took him two days and only after great pressure from people across the political spectrum. From Saturday when he gave his first statement to Monday before he gave the statement you referred to he refused to answer multiple times when he was asked by reporters to condemn white supremacy by name and call the attack an act of terrorism.
But when Merck's CEO resigns from the business council he was able to vehemently attack him and his company on twitter almost immediately. When a terrorist attacked the Louvre in France at 5 am Washington time it took him 3 hours to denounce 'radical Islamic terrorist'. His response to the London attacks also involving terrorists driving a car through crowds was just as swift and specific. But he holds off on calling out the neo-Nazis and KKK by name, disgusting.
Liberals and conservatives have been united in their condemnation of Trump's failure to call out evil by it's name. You are the one living in an echo chamber that is willing to defend white supremacists and their President.
The "lone wolf" moniker has something to do with the proximity to and coordination with other wolves. When a white supremacist commits homicide at a white supremacist rally the label would not seem to apply.
He was photographed marching with Vanguard Of America[1] carrying a Vanguard shield shortly before his attack with the car.
[1] Who are now desperately disavowing any knowledge of him
Completely untrue.
A couple of crazy religious people we can deal with, they are nowhere near to overtaking any Western country. But the largest Western country just got taken over by the ultra-right, according to their own statements. Whether or not that is factually true remains to be seen but for now Bannon, Miller, Gorka and Trump seem to be pretty secure in their positions.
Absolute and complete bullshit. What fuels white supremacists is a combination of idiocy, hatred and personal failure.
That is literally the opposite of the actual media narrative associated with Muslims, and is often held out as the difference in coverage between Muslim-related incidents and non-Muslim ones (for want of a better differentiator).
Muslim/brown/whatever attackers are always framed in terms of their religious affiliations, and white attackers are almost always described as "lone wolves".
It beggars belief that you are trying to present that switched, with a straight face.