The guy is an asshole. He makes a habit out of going to rallies and getting into confrontational situations, and he always brings his kids along with him. I find that really sad.

That does not, in any way, give a free pass to the guy who ripped the sign up. I'm just saying that there was more than one idiot invovled in this thing.

And I'm with you, Bill. Saying that the sign ripper represents all Democrats is just wrong.

The goon that did the despicable act just happened to be a democrat but it was his act and his alone. The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades to which the goon just happened to belong (see the shirt) has issued a statement. See http://www.iupat.org/news/WVa.html

The guy who took that poor kid in there had to know that he would be starting a riot and the little girl would be in the middle of it.

Still......It was a crappy thing to do all around.

Ditto.

I have three children, two girls (11 and 15) and a boy (6). I would not put my children into a hostile political situation like that and I don't know many parents (and no good ones) who would. I don't approve of the actions of the person who ripped up the sign either. I am glad the union involved issued a statement. I wish the picture had never gotten the publicity it did.

Bottom line: I agree with Bill 100%.

Thank you very much for your post. I agree with all 4 of your points. I'll just add that there are people who say they were at the event who claim that no one ripped a sign out of the little girl's hands, and at this point I think none of us can be sure what actually happened. But if this photo shows what it seems to show, then yes he is an evil man, and Mr Parlock's misguided actions does not change that.

http://huntingtonnews.net/cgi-bin/ubb-cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001898&p=1

--Rick Taylor

- The guy reminds me of what we used to call "rush junkies"....they go and belong to all the activist groups they can find for the pure excitement of it and the chance for confrontation in a relatively safe environ...in a word "low life punks" ( Ok...thats three words )

- The Dad has done this sort of thing before in spite of on going warning's from family and friend's...Very dumb for a parent

- I give the Union a "C". They didn't move on this for 2 days and only after the Emails started piling up from irate conservative company owners threatening to stop doing business with anyone who supported IUPAT...Then they sent out the disclaimer to every GOP email addy they could find...

- Everyone who noticed the IUPAT guy in the background is holding his sign upside down raise your hands....

I don't care if the guy was a provacateur and neither should you.What you are in fact saying is that fanaticism is not only to be expected but is in fact tolerable.This was a PUBLIC AIRPORT and anyone and everyone has a right to be there and to legitimately proclaim their opinions.
CONSTITUTION ANYONE ?
When you begin to make excuses for brutes and physical restraint of expression you on well on the road to somewhere you don't want to be.This guy was a cretin and the dad did nothing wrong.
This is also not directly analogous to adults picking on adults which is also unacceptable but not as grotesque as this shameful episode.If a Republican had done this I would be just as outraged but I happen to feel that the moonbattery ,at this historical moment ,is largely confined to the loons on the left.

What you are in fact saying is that fanaticism is not only to be expected but is in fact tolerable.

Where am I saying that, genius?

I'm not making an excuse for brutes. I should be able to stroll through NE Washington, DC at night if I want (after all, it's my Constituional Right), but it's certainly not a smart idea.

And posing kids with political signs is gross.

dougf you did READ the previous posts before posting that blather, right?

I've spent too much time following this story. But in case anyone else is interested, I found a page with links to two radio interviews with Mr. Parlock.

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/09172004-2.shtml

--Rick Taylor

Yeah, there was a recent story down here in Florida that many, many -- I think dozens -- of Kerry signs had been stolen out of yards up in the panhandle. As a right-wing Bush supporter I was --

1. Mad that they did it at all.

2. Mad that they gave the other side such cheap ammunition about us being right-wing neanderthal cretins.

Unfortunately both sides have neanderthal cretins and therefore it makes it hard for us to throw this particular stone.

jwniii Melbourne FLA

Thanks Bill, great post and I am glad to see a leading Conservative Blogger who can cut through the BS and put right before politics. Its one of the reasons you are on my blogroll and have my respect.

I agree with practically all the sentiments regarding this incident. The a*hole who tore the sign (as far as we can tell, he tore it) is not representative of most Dems or IUPAT union members, and general use of this photo so far has been propaganda. I'm not sure about the allegations that the gentleman in question is a provocateur, perhaps he is.

What I find sad is that our right to engage in politcal expression has come to the point where a father is excoriated for bringing a child to a rally. Is our culture incapable of rational political argument, where we must keep children away in the same way we keep children away from the "bad parts of town"? It's not as if this man was toting his child around a housing project or at a KKK rally. It was a political rally to express support for your candidate for the United States' presidency, and he happened to be for the other guy. How mom-an-apple-pie can that be? And yet it's turned into a situation where if you bring a child, you're excoriated for putting the child in harm's way. God forbid you should inculcate a child into our ideal expression of political support! "We the People" indeed!

What the hell has happened to my country? Perhaps we truly have regressed to the '60s. Regardless, I see the reality and while it is sad, I can only accept it and shake my head that something so quintessentially American has now turned into an event that requires a hard-hat and body armor. Into the trenches we go!

I see what you're saying about free speech, but he brought a child to an opposition candidate's rally, and that's asking for trouble in a heated political climate. I do agree that it's a shame that people should be scared, but that's a wider issue.

The kid in the bottom picture turned me off because of the hateful nature of his sign.

Uh huh. And fifty years ago you would be right to say "Hey, lady, you go to that white lunch counter and you are just looking for trouble."

Sometimes it is right to go looking for trouble. You just had your conciousness raised by this photo. Now what are you going to do?

One thing that seems to have been lost in the splitting hairs amongst both sides:

1. Kerry campaign officials apologized.
2. Union officials apologized.

There are jerks on both sides. Thanks for not cheering for "our" jerks.

Lee,

First of all that's a ridiculous comparison to racism. As for this ...

Sometimes it is right to go looking for trouble.

Sure, but is it right to go looking for trouble with your three year old daughter?

What kind of coward does that?

Get the Hell off my site.

So, how many toddlers of Democrats have been assaulted by Republicans?

I tend to agree with your take on the situation. Whereas, over on LGF, a couple of nights ago, some guy was practically torn to shreds for voicing the same. (Not, however, by Charles)

Parlock's reportedly 'repeat' insertion of himself and his children into these situations does seem absurd. It also proves how apparently easy it is to find a goon amongst those crowds.

As for the republican kicking the woman...just as bad, and I can't believe that anyone would make excuses for it. Sadly, some have.

Let's make that a bit less rhetorical.
How many toddlers have been traumatised at Bush gatherings?

"I see what you're saying about free speech, but he brought a child to an opposition candidate's rally, and that's asking for trouble in a heated political climate. I do agree that it's a shame that people should be scared, but that's a wider issue."

And that's precisely why I'm sad. I hate the fact that I fear there will be violence as a result of this election. My gut feeling is Bush will win the election and the nasty elements of the Far Left who have co-opted the Democrat party will not take it lying down. I believe they will act in the name of the Democrat party and destroy its reputation, bringing down good men and women who have tied their names to that party. In a greater manner than the man in the IUPAT shirt did. That's the fear of Christopher Hitchens, of Phil Hendrie, and of other staunch Democrats.

It sounds familiar, doesn't it? We hear about how Islam is fighting for its soul against those who have hijacked it for their own gains. I believe the same is happening with the Democrat party. Radical nitwits have subverted both entities.

After reading what I have on your site, I can only say that you strike me as a good man, a knowledgeable man. Your site is a daily visit for me. But I do foresee that you may be addressing the wider issue you mention earlier than you think.

Squatch -

Thanks.

And I've already addressed it.

gabe -

I think I understand your point, but why do you assume that if such an event happened, it would certainly be caught on film?

I just wanted to drop a subtle reminder of the difference between the kinds of supporters the left and the right have on their extremes.

Your link shows why I think you are both a good man and knowledgeable. :-)

I assume nothing about anything being caught on film. The IUPAT incident is only a glimpse of what may be. If what I think will happen is to happen, I believe most of it will occur off-camera, as the swirl of events will be too rapid for it to be filmed coherenntly. We'll get dribs and bits from the news but the whole story will be as most stories are - fragmented cameos from here and there that we need to put together.

The question is: who will put it together? You and other bloggers? MSM? If so, my statement that that you may be addressing the wider issue sooner than you think holds true.

gabe -

point taken, and I'm actually willing to acknowedge that faaar left wingers have made themselves a home closer to the mainstream of the dem party, but I've seen some pretty scary right wing screamers as well, at abortion rallies and the Reagan funeral.

I mentioned in my previous post that I had some doubt that someone really had tried to tear a sign out of the little girl's hand. And I'll repeat that if that is what happened, then the man who did it is evil, and Mr. Parlock's actions are no excuse. With that said, here's why I believe it didn't happen.

Take a careful look at the picture. The little girl isn't holding up the sign, her father is. Mr. Parlock's right hand is supporting her foot and his left hand is holding her hand holding the sign. In the radio interview, Mr. Parlock is asked if he or the girl was holding the sign. He says

"We were jointly holding the sign. ... I gave it to Sophia to put up and I held it with her, and they just ripped and tore and almost knocked her off my shoulders."

Ok, so he's a father. A union thug goes up and rips and tears the sign out of his and his daughters hand. Am I really supposed to believe that he didn't immediately let go of the sign to protect his daughter? Am I really supposed to believe that he put up a struggle (the little girl wouldn't, she's not even holding it in the picture) so that the sign ripped and tore and the union man wound up with one piece of it and Mr. Parlock another?

So after that happens, the picture shows the thug standing a few feet away from him, sneering and throwing away the piece of a sign he stole. Now, am I really supposed to believe that the father is just standing there, holding up a piece of sign in front of his little girl, when a thug who just nearly knocked her off his shoulders is standing just a few feet away from him? Is that really what a father would do, after his daughter had just been assaulted in the way Mr. Parlock describes? Mr. Parlock is just standing there, one hand on her foot and the other holding a sign in front of her, when a thug who just ripped and tore away her sign nearly knocking her off his shoulders is standing just a few feet away staring at him. Am I really supposed to believe that?

And what about all the other people in the picture? Am I really supposed to believe that none of the other bystanders in this picture tried to help? A man just assaulted a little girl, nearly knocking her off her father's shoulders. Am I really supposed to believe that no one intervened? Actually, Mr Parlock said "they," not "he," so I guess they were all part of the assault.

Mr. Parlock also said,

"That picture was taken on our way out and they were still trying to get the remnants of the sign off her."

So not only did the crowd not intervene when this thug attacked a little girl, but they were trying to get that little remnant of sign that was left as Mr. Parlock and his daughter were leaving. Am I really supposed to believe this?

Now, I try not to leap to conclusions, but I'm pretty sure Mr. Parlock is a liar. If you go to one of the links I posted above, you'll find a local bulletin board from Huntington. Mr. Parlock has a reputation. A couple people there say he pulls stunts like this all the time, and that if you knew him, you wouldn't be surprised by this event. One woman claims she was in a position to see what happened, and while her account isn't entirely clear, she does emphatically claim that no one ripped a sign from Mr. Parlock's little girl. And of course Mr. Parlock has told stories about being assaulted by Democrats (often union members) in the last three Presidential elections running.

Some liberals are arguing that the alleged union member in the picture is one of Mr. Parlock's sons. They've posted pictures comparing them and there is a similarity, and I certainly wouldn't put something like that past Mr. Parlock given what I've written above. But I think it's a mistake for them to be pushing that angle so strongly. The fellow in the picture may be a union member or not, but there is no reason to believe Mr. Parlock's account of what happened.

Now a number of people have asked the very reasonable question of how so many liberals could have been completely taken in by the Killian forgeries when they were so obvious. Well, it was because they fit what they wanted to believe.

--Rick Taylor

And what about all the other people in the picture? Am I really supposed to believe that none of the other bystanders in this picture tried to help

A lot of people freeze when they see someone being assaulted. Yes, we all like to think that we'd rush in like a hero, but human nature is what it is.

I have my doubts about the picture's authenticity, since it seems almost too perfectly staged. But the lack of action from bystanders isn't among the reasons.

If it's "too good to be true" it probably is. And, yes, if you want to demonize liberals this is a good picture.

(Come to think of it, that "it's too good to be true" should've gone through Rather's head.)

Very well written.
And thank you for pointing out that the hatred on both sides is out of control. I am so sick of hearing that "blame the victim" crap about this. The victim is a sweet little girl that shouldn't have been there, and as far as I know, everyone wishes all the best for her.

Bill,

I don't think it's a hoax, as the union guy would have been outed now as this "son" which is what the hoax-promoters allege.

Last month a Bush supporter was punched in the face by a Kerry supporter on camera in Everett, WA.

I'm sure you've seen the videos of the Protest Warriors being assaulted during the RNC?

I think it is safe to say that during this campaign, there are far more documented instances of Democrats acting up and getting violent with the voices of dissent than Republicans. They're edgy. They're pissed. They are infected with Bushitler syndrome.

Take no offense, as I like your commentary, but you have a Bill O'Reilly streak in you in two ways. One, you knock off this middle-of-the-road non-partisan sanctimony now and then, and two, you put yourself in your stories too often. So often you post about yourself, your relation to other bloggers, or how you're not getting the resepct your deserve. All a part of your self-involved link whoring I suppose. But I always hate it when Bill O'Reilly talks about "Bill O'Reilly."

It just seems to make what is otherwise solid investigative blogging into prom-queen drama. Just my $0.02...

Other than that, keep up the good work!

I'm really of two minds about this. It is true, maybe Parlock should not have brought his kids. However, this was not a rally (this was people meeting Edwards plane) and, like another poster, I'm disturbed by the fact that we now have to worry about bringing our children to anything political for fear of what 'the other side' will do.

I do seem to recall during all the "anti-War"[ahem] protests organized by A.N.S.W.E.R. there were children holding signs and marching with their parents (or being pulled in wargons). Certainly these people were not marching in an echo chamber, yet they felt secure enough to bring their kids?

Will it go further to where it is intimated to women that they should stay home rather than be near "dirty" politics and risk being jostled and assaulted?

Obviously, even prostitutes get raped; and their profession doesn't ameliorate the responsibility of the perp. Whether or not dad is a jerk for taking his daughter (and I tend to go with the jerk label, even as I think he had every right to be there, with his daughter and expect that even if the people around him disagreed with him they wouldn't assault him) is beside the point.

And OH..btw Rick? In the full series of pictures, the surrounding crowd tries to block further pics of Parlock with their signs and are also seen trying to hustle the guy out of there.

What was that Kerry rally earlier that a large group of pro-life Catholics stood silently and the surrounding Kerry supporters tried to hide them from Kerry's view with their signs?

IMHO the photographer saw one Bush/Cheney sign standing at the fence and knew if something were to happen, it would happen there.

This is just no good on so many levels.

re: Darleen

Just to reiterate, if the guy really did go after the little girl that's really rotten; it shouldn't happen regardless of what Mr. Parlock did. I may have gone too far in my previous post, but I still think it's too early to conclude that something like that did happen with any confidence. Since the union is taking responsibility for this, hopefully we'll find out the truth.

--Rick Taylor