Yeah, that is pretty disgusting. Imagine using a 3 year old kid to make your protests for you. That father is an asshole. The picture doesn't really tell a story, but if they did rip it up it was out of order. Dumb as well, given how a photo of a moron making his point whilst hiding behind a 3 year old kid would have looked.

Yeah the father is disgusting for using his kid as a political prop. Yeah the Kerry people are disgusting for ripping the sign up. Yeah the GOP conventioners are disgusting for the purple heart bandaids on the floor of MSG. Yeah the protesters are disgusting for their Bush is a Nazi crap.

Welcome to the realm of modern American politics.

You people are really twisted if that's your take on the situation. The day you rip a little girl's sign, is the day you take things just a little too far. And, as if taking kids to protests isn't the hallmark touch of the left.

"Yeah the Kerry people are disgusting for ripping the sign up."

How does saying that make me twisted ?

But first you said: Yeah the father is disgusting for using his kid as a political prop.

That's a twisted moral equivalency.

I don't think so. I think people should not be using kids for political points, whether protesting Kerry or Bush's war or fudning of schools. And alas those on the right use kids as well. My right. Not the "right" of Arnold, Rudy and so on which may be why I am a little steamed about using kids for politics. On a walk this week I passed an abortion clinic which had the usual protesters in front of it preying and carrying signs. A child, perhaps 5 or so, was there with a sign. Note I said child not choice (now that's twisted !). The sign was quoting Jeremiah 31, the famed line about Rachel weeping for her children are no more (incidently the same chapter is a strong one for Christian fundemantalist support for Israel, one I wish they would use more). That bothered me. The child was being used as a symbol for a cause he did not understand. Now of course it is even worse for someone to grab the sign and rip it up. But it is still wrong. It is wrong when the Left does it; it is even worse when the Right does it for we should know better. I do not think using a child for politics is as wrong as the act of violence against him or her, such as ripping a sign out of her hands or the monstrosities committed against them in the abortion clinics. But it is still wrong.

Many left-leaning blogs/sites are claiming that this isn't the first time this particular fellow has been accosted and even go so far as to suggest that this particular photo-op may be staged.

Submitted for your approval: Rising Hegemon

Interesting. Obviously if there was anything staged about this, that's wrong and the guy should be called on it.

This remark may come from the proverbial left field, but what if the child, based on her understanding of politics — such as it is — really does like the Bush-Cheney camp?

I know of people (now adults) who made decisions as fairly young children to convert to Christianity. Decisions that they didn’t recant later, after having become thoughtful, mature adults. The parents even reported a visible change at the time of youthful conversion, in one case.

To the degree political commitments are quasi-religious, I don’t think one should completely delegitimize the passions/beliefs/views of children — regarding Bush/Cheney or abortion. Kids are sharper than we think.

Turns out the entire incident was staged. The "Kerry supporter" who ripped up the little girl's sign is her brother, and the son of the man who reported it.

AND---he's done it before. Three times before, in fact.

Here are all the details: http://www.atrios.blogspot.com/2004_09_12_atrios_archive.html#109542699935507535

Of course, I'm SURE you'll give this the same level of scrutiny you gave the CBS memo story---right?

[crickets chirping]

Looks like you done shocked the wingers into silence, Don.

First of all, the Union has apologized, lame as it was:

http://www.ibpat.org/news/WVa.html

So I'd like all the "people" who actually ever listen to that Atrios guy to apologize for the character assasination.

Second of all, the town where this happened is 50 miles from anything resembling a city, in WEST VIRGINA. This was probably one of the only times the people in this town be a part of something civic-minded of national importance.

Guess what? Protesting is legal. Expressing your personal opinion IS LEGAL.

The IDEA that some parent trying to get their children interested in CIVICS at a young age is "asking for trouble" really disgusts me.

Sit back and think about what you people are saying.

The father should not have brought his children to this protest, probably the only significant national event that will hit their little town EVER, because he should have known that expressing another opinion in front of a Democrat is "asking for trouble".

I don't know what's more disgusting, the union thugs or you Democratic apologists.

Christi raises some interesting questions. Regarding politics, I suppose it comes to how intelligent the child is. I do not know how much a child can rationalize at the age of 3 and how much they think about these things. My suspicion would be that a 3 year old has no political concious besides basic authority figures from family to daycare etc.

As for religious matters, that is a troubling question and I appreciate Christi's thoughtful comments on it. I believe all of us are touched with a divine spark (yes, while I am Catholic, I know I'm stealing this from Quaker theology, blame it on too much reading on one of my heroes, Herbert Hoover) when we are created in the womb (the chief reason I am pro life). We are created with souls and that leads to sorting out the good and the bad, the wrong from the right. We can not deligitimize this. Yet we must also remember that while kids are smarter than we think, adults are more devious than we think. Some people will cheerfully use their trusting children for any cause; from noble ones to ignoble ones. I have met a five year old whose Klan father has trained him well. So while we can not deligitimze the thoughts of children, we also can not automatically legitmize it. Even the soul can not be manipulated by forces of darkness, perhaps the innocent one most of all.

If this father made this whole thing up, he's a real sicko. To compare this to CBS though, trying to influence an election with forged documents, is really stretching the imagination.

Karol, the guy didn't make it up. The union apologized (see my earlier comment) and the guy is being "disciplined" (union speak for a note in your file and a hefty raise).

"The father should not have brought his children to this protest, probably the only significant national event that will hit their little town EVER, because he should have known that expressing another opinion in front of a Democrat is "asking for trouble".

I don't know what's more disgusting, the union thugs or you Democratic apologists."

No one is saying don't bring your kids. It's just pretty pathetic - wheteher left or right -,using kids who are way to young to understand, as a vechile for thier own opinions. Yep it's wrong ripping the sign up, but the father cannot get off free. If the story is indeed true. You never seen the Southpark about the coffee house Sean ? You know, the one where weeks pop exploits the kids to his own ends ?Reminds me of that. Do you reckon that kid may eventually fall victim to thieving Democrat underpants gnomes too after the Union has finished with her ?

REICH WHINGER DIRTY TRICKS

Busted.

Serial Republi-con Victim complains for the THIRD straight presidential election of being assaulted and has offspring assist.

Check out the whole story at Rising Hegemon. This is unassailable evidence that the Reich Whingers will do anything to get Dear Leader facsist re-selected to office for four more wars. They are even stupider to use the stooge's offspring. This is where history will show Chimpy lost the re-selection.

ps. Don't think because I'm Canadian that I won't influence this election. I have absentee ballots from New York, Michigan and Florida from three different identities. On each I will loudly vote for John Fitzgerald Kerry (unless I decide to write in Osama).

As I don't watch much South Park, I have no idea what you're talking about. That someone obtains political analysis from Comedy Central and has no compunction about lauding that fact, though, is a very frightening proposition.

Again, I think it speaks volumes of Democrats when the criticize an American for bringing his child, regardless of age, to a political event on public property.

Would it have been OK for the father if he had just brought the 11 year old to be assaulted?

At what age does the DNC consider someone a legitimate target?

If I was at a "Club for Growth" event and some anti-war nutter had his/her child there protesting, whether 1 year, 5 years, or 15 years, and anyone from the club laid a hand on the kid or scared the kid, I'd call the offender a scumbag and probably lay him out if he was as rotten as this guy.

Even if it was the protestor alone, as long as he/she was quiet, I say "fine", let him stay.

That the difference between conservatives and liberals. There's no "nuance" in this, there's right and wrong.

And another difference between liberals and conservatives. The weblogs that engaged in the character assasination against the girl's father will NEVER post a retraction, even now that the union has admitted that it was one of their members who did it and NOT the man's own son.

LGF, powerline and instapundit would update and apologize if they ever even did such a ludicrous thing in the first place.

Keep hating, liberals. Your're helping W out every day like you wouldn't believe.

Dear Sean:

The weblogs that engaged in the character assasination against the girl's father will NEVER post a retraction, even now that the union has admitted that it was one of their members who did it and NOT the man's own son.

While the "mean ole Kerry supporter" may or may not have been Mr. Parlock's son, there is no denying that this fellow was a shill. Mr. Parlock has staged incidents just like this in 1996 and 2000. Check out http://captainnormal.typepad.com/captainnormal/2004/09/political_munch.html for the evidence.

LGF, powerline and instapundit would update and apologize if they ever even did such a ludicrous thing in the first place.

Are you kidding? These folks still claim that Saddam has WMDs.

I'm amsued that, after displaying evidence that Democratic activists have been suppressing people's freedom of expression for 8 years now, that somehow this is an indictment upon him.

I can imagine you at home: "See, we keep beating him up, but he keeps trying to speak up! He should have known better, and deserves a good beating!"

The man is an activist. I don't care if it was his first or 5,000th event that he went to in order to display his support of our president. That you Democrats think that gives you the right to assault a person because he doesn't agree with you, I think speaks volumes about you.

Keep it up. This is great stuff.

"As I don't watch much South Park, I have no idea what you're talking about. That someone obtains political analysis from Comedy Central and has no compunction about lauding that fact, though, is a very frightening proposition."

They give you a degree for it in the UK.

One serious point. An assualt of this kind - on adult or child is of course always unacceptable. Sort of goes without saying.
Not sure how you read anything else into the additional argument about using kids. Don't think it is a left vs right debate.

It shouldn't be a right-left debate, but then again, it is.

It's sorta like Islam and terrorism. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but the vast majority of terrorists are Muslims.

Same thing with political violence in the US.

Not all Democrats engage in political vioience, but most politically violent people are Democrats.

Furthermore...

Most muslims usually can make an excuse for the violence perpetrated by the extremists within their fold.

Similarly, most Democrats can make an excurse for the violence perpetrated by their extremists... *ahem*... I mean "activists", "protestors" or "overzealous union members".

Look at the Democratic blogs. Their all over the guy who was the VICTIM of the violence as the cause. Not an ill word against those poor defense crowds of union folks who had no choice but to terrorize him and his three year old.

Now go look at al-Jazeera and how they cover terrorism.

Eerie.

Different levels of violence, but a mentality that is identical.

I hope you all realize that Mr. Parlock has done this type of thing (showing up at Democratic events with Republican signage) on at least two other occassions in the last 10 years. The links documenting these events have already been provided by Don.

This time Parlock has a 3-year-old that, no matter how you want to rationalize it, was brought to the event for one purpose and one purpose only. That is to react as any 3-year-old would to adults behaving very badly. She did this and Parlock got his exposure and the picture he wanted.

The union apologized because they saw what the rest of the world observed. I'm sure they have no idea of Parlock's past history or the fact that he would use his 3-year-old daughter for political points.

Both Republicans and Democrats have acted terribly during this campaign. We are a divided country because of one reason. Hopefully, that reason will be replaced in November.

If that Union worker is his son, then it is obvious that this man staged the incident. However, if the worker is not his son it makes ZERO difference how many times this has happened in the past. That liberals get violent when confronted with differing opinions is not that unusual. It could've certainly happened to his several times.

And Rick, we seem to be a 'divided' country whenever a Republican is president. Look at newspapers from the Reagan years, they were saying much the same thing. Maybe because liberals go nuts when the pres has a (R) next to his name?

As opposed to the Republicans who acted sane in Bill Clinton's presidency ? There was an anti-Clinton industry from "The Clinton Chronicles" VCR tapes that told us how he killed Vince Foster to the various other conspiracy stuff. Sorry Karol. In today's political realm, this stuff comes from both sides. No doubt if Kerry wins, we'll here more about bogus Purple Hearts and his secret communist past.

Why don't you call a spade a spade? Why can't liberals denounce a fellow liberal for doing something that is obviously wrong?

Bogus Purple Hearts? The Kerry campaign already had to to admit Kerry's first Purple heart was "self-inflicted" when he fired a grenade launcher and the shrapnel came back on him.

That is not conspiracy theory the Kerry campaign acknowledges it.

Now some Republicans went overbord accusing Clinton of killing Vince Foster. They were wrong. But not all Republicans are that way. The difference is you never see a liberal condemn another liberal.

Von Bek, I agree with Michael. I wasn't a Clinton-hater. I wasn't a fan but I didn't froth at the mouth and I didn't hate people that liked him. I also don't remember mass protests or Republicans crashing the Dem convention. There will always be a few wackos on each side but it seems like there are more than a few these days on the left.

Michael, I'd suggest reading Naderite comments regarding Gore back in 2000. I think leftists took shots at each other back then but yeah they are united in 2004. I do think the Right is a bit more open to criticism. I for one love to take shots at David Frum, Tony Blankely, Andrew Sullivan and other voices on the right who are neither American or conservative. I also love to roast "conservatives" who love big government, big defecits and unrestricted immigration; namely the Bush administartion and its neocon allies.

Karol, I'll concede that but I think it is more the nuts oppose whoever is in office. If Kerry wins, the nuts come out on the right again.

If Clinton had won either of his his mandates on less than 50% of the vote the right wing nuts would have been angry and out in force as well.You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

Um, Urbane, Clinton did win with under 50%, both times. He got 49.23% in 1996 and 43.01% in 1992.

Yep, quite right,slackness on my part, but you know what I mean - less than his opponent.

We don't decide our elections by popular vote. That's just the way things are. We are a Republic, not a pure democracy. If liberals want to bang their heads against the wall because of that, that's their problem. I think that's going to happen more and more as people in highly populated cities overwhelmingly Democrat while people in suburbs and rural areas vote Republican. Take a look at this map. Bush is in red. How anyone can look at this map and still feel cheated that Gore isn't president is beyond me.

"We don't decide our elections by popular vote."

Aw, c'mon, you're just stirring it up now. It all came down to Florida in the end. The point I was trying to make related to the controversy that reigned in the aftermath of the election. If Clinton had been elected in a similar fashion it would have hardened the opposition to him from day one, and given it an extra edge. The vast majority of the time elections in the U.S. reflect the popular vote.
Is electoral reform an issue in the U.S. ?