Better let Nick Coleman know. The Strib writer had a tear jerker recently about how some Democrats had some yard signs torn up. Funny, there were no reports of this happening to Republicans. Nick chewed his fingernails and wrinkled his brown and wondered what the world was coming to. He did mention that if there were examples of this happening to Republicans he'd write about those, too. I got a feeling that he was very confident that such a thing would never happen, though.

Oops. Looks like this isn't the first time this has happened to Mr. Parlock. Atrios has pointed out that it happened in 1996 and 2000.

Charleston (WV) Daily Mail, August 27, 1996, Page 3C:
Phil Parlock's experience was less calm.

The Huntington man said he was knocked to the ground by a Clinton supporter when he tried to display a sign that read "Remember Vince Foster," the deputy White House counsel who committed suicide in a Washington, D.C., park. His death has become the subject of much debate among Clinton opponents.

"It must have been a strict Democrat who did this," Parlock said, feeling the red abrasions on his face. "Everyone with the exception of him was real peaceful about our protest."

Parlock said some of the crowd tried to make other anti-Clinton demonstrators feel unwelcome. He estimated that about 150 Dole supporters attended the rally, but their signs couldn't be seen for most of the rally.

Charleston (WV) Daily Mail, October 28, 2000, pg. 1A:
Phil Parlock didn't expect to need all 12 of the Bush-Cheney signs he and his son Louis smuggled in their socks and pockets into the rally for Vice President Al Gore.

But each time they raised a sign, someone would grab it out of their hands, the two Huntington residents said. And sometimes it got physical.

"I expected some people to take our signs," said Louis, 12. "But I did not expect people to practically attack us."

The two said they didn't go to the Friday morning rally to start trouble.

"I came to support Bush and try to change some people's minds," Louis said.

Here is the link: http://www.atrios.blogspot.com/2004_09_12_atrios_archive.html#109542699935507535

And by the way... notice how Atrios points out the guy in the Kerry union shirt looks an awful lot like the mans son in their family photo.

Well, if true, that'd be an interesting twist on the subject.

I'll have to look into this when I get home.

Of course, if it's true, I can see the Dem's spin: "See! This is JUST as bad as Dan Rather!"

Hey, I just got upset about the "Dems are evil, Republicans are righteous" crap in your post. I totally admit that BOTH sides go over the line at times. But you can in no way insist that this is only a problem with liberals. Remember the RNC convention. A women protestor, while on the ground, was kicked several times by a Republican delegate. I have seen Kerry signs spraypainted over with curse words, torn down, etc. This is hardly a one-sided party problem.

Don't take my last comment as saying "Don't mention any of these stories cause you guys do it too." By all means point out those who pull this stuff. EVERYONE who acts like this should suffer the consequences.

For a guy riding into the White House as a "uniter, not a divider", Bush certainly has gotten division down pat. I'm not surprised that emotions run high and violent acts occur with supporters on both sides, and neither should you. I don't condone it, and we shouldn't tolerate such behavior from anyone, in any rally or protest. Claiming a moral high ground by pointing at some people's bad behavior is silly.

Carson,

"By all means point out those who pull this stuff. EVERYONE who acts like this should suffer the consequences."

I agree. And if this fella is trolling for controversy, he's pretty low-rent. Although the fact that Atrios is calling it out is itself worthy of suspicion. When i get home, I'll look into it.

Jeff S.

"For a guy riding into the White House as a "uniter, not a divider", Bush certainly has gotten division down pat."

Er, right. And his opponents are just innocent victims of that division.

Ballocks. The Democrats trumped up a sheaf of phony controversies in 2000 that started the division, they are getting ready to do it again today (according to John Fund, Dem lawyers already have paperwork ready to file in federal courts before the polls are even cold on Nov 3), and *Bush* is the divider? The "hate Bush" crowd reminds me of a bunch of spoiled fourth graders, stomping and screaming and stretching their stories far beyond credibility to fan their blessed victimhood.

Bush had a reputation as a uniter - or at least a consensus-builder - when he ran Texas. The fact that 30-odd-percent of the electorate actively rejects consensus isn't Bush's fault.

"I'm not surprised that emotions run high and violent acts occur with supporters on both sides, and neither should you. I don't condone it, and we shouldn't tolerate such behavior from anyone, in any rally or protest. Claiming a moral high ground by pointing at some people's bad behavior is silly."

I agree, to a point. There's a current of thought on the left that "the end justifies the means"; it pops up in a lot of leftist thought, on a current and historical basis, at a lot of different levels. Does it have an analogue on the right? I'm not so sure.

This is some serious 3rd rate street theater. No need to do DNA testing between the "perp" and the dad. I will believe my lying eyes. BTW, these exposed-scams never get the Dems anywhere, because the nature of their media is to cover-up these things. An exposure of something that never got coverage is a sure non-starter.

"Victimhood", "hate Bush crowd"... yeah, whatever. I'm not entering into a right-wing talk radio buzzword battle.

Bush may have managed being a uniter and consensus builder in Texas, but this ain't Texas. Not sure where the 30% number comes from, care to elaborate on that?

So Mitch, if it turns out that this idiot is indeed trying to smear Democrats with his antics, are you going to retitle your post "The Face of the Republican Party"?

No? Didn't think so. Next time you post something like this, ask yourself if you'd say the same thing if the tables were turned, if a Republican or Bush supporter were responsible. If not, then I respectfully submit that you are part of the incivility problem, not the solution.

""Victimhood", "hate Bush crowd"... yeah, whatever. I'm not entering into a right-wing talk radio buzzword battle."

They're not buzzwords, they're descriptions. Think they're not accurate?

"Bush may have managed being a uniter and consensus builder in Texas, but this ain't Texas."

And Bush "ain't" a divider, at least not by himself. The left never had any intention of meeting Bush halfway, preferring to drum up phony controversies to screw with the legitimacy of his election.

" Not sure where the 30% number comes from, care to elaborate on that?"

It's a swag.

"So Mitch, if it turns out that this idiot is indeed trying to smear Democrats with his antics, are you going to retitle your post "The Face of the Republican Party"?"

No, I'll write a piece on how Powerline and I should have checked our sources on the story.

I'll believe it when I see it.

"No? Didn't think so."

Take a cigar.

" Next time you post something like this, ask yourself if you'd say the same thing if the tables were turned, if a Republican or Bush supporter were responsible."

One reason I felt confident enough to run the slugline I did was that I'm pretty confident in my fellow Republicans. There's a current of "end justifying the means" in the Dems that, in all hosty, I see much less of in the GOP.

Could that be because I'm giving my own side the benefit of a doubt that I don't give the left? Could be, but I've had nobody convince me yet.

" If not, then I respectfully submit that you are part of the incivility problem, not the solution."

Some days, I probably am. Other days, I'm not.

If you're a conservative, that makes me human. If you're a Democrat, that makes me a HYPROCRITE! HYPOCRITE! HYPOCRITE! BUSHITLER LIED! HALLIBURTON ROVE COCAINE AWOL!...

...er sorry. Don't know where that last bit came from.

This is the same phenomenon that is causing people in some parts of the country to not have a Bush-Cheney in '04 bumbersticker, as they don't want their car vandalized.

This is a similar mindset to the people vandalizing SUV's and burning down apartment complexes under construction in California.

My concern is that these people might not be content to gracefully lose the election, but might cause trouble. They are our potential domestic terrorists, as they are so ideological and crazed.

There is no excuse for making a little kid cry like that - but I just want to say that I think the father was an idiot for bringing his baby-
daughter to a rally where they were in the opposition. Is he unaware of how heated things can get? How polarized and angry everyone is right now? And he's right up in the front lines, with her on his shoulders, holding a sing -Making her a huge target like that?

There's no excuse for ripping a poster out of a child's hands - but I think turning this into a partisan "look how Democrats are" isn't right. That father needs to take some responsibility.

She's 3 years old. She has no business being at the front of that political fray.

And I'm a Republican, people. Albeit a rather bohemian one.

I'm going to try to run down something on this story tonight - if this guy is a controversy-troller as Atrios says, it's pretty sad, and if he gets his toddler in on the act, it's worse.

I was probably a bit hamfisted, in retrospect, calling this "the Face of Democrats". It's an issue close to my heart, probably too close, because of the level of political vandalism that happens in Saint Paul; it seems to regular and methodical to be anything but organized. But yeah, I probably painted with an excessively broad brush.

It's been a long week...

Maybe I'm weird, and maybe it's cause I don't have kids - but I don't like it when grown-ups put their kids into positions like that, no matter what side it comes from. There was that picture of the 4 year old girl holding a Pro-Choice sign at the march here in New York, and I was disgusted by that.

Mitch-

Your complaints about drumming up "phony" controversies fall on deaf ears when we are talking about some of the same people who pushed "Vince Foster" and "Swift Boat Vets".

As for your diatribe about a wave of "ends justifies the means" in Dems... I seem to remember rumors surrounding McCain and his family during the 2000 primaries. Something about push polls. But for Rove... i guess the "ends justifies the means." Or how about the phone jamming operation in New Hampshire. I don't question that there are Democrats out there willing to do just about anything to get Bush out of office, but my God... there are equally matched in every way be Republicans. And I don't believe you are naive enough to dissagree.

You can believe that the left never had any intentions of meeting Bush halfway. But he could have at least tried to unite the nation. You always have to expect some dissent. But that is not what Bush or especially his handlers wanted. He has only benefitted from division. That is why he works so hard to appease his base constituency.

He wrote anti-war protesters off as "a focus group." Even when polling showed only a slim majority of the country wanted war. His administration basically told people that if they were not in favor of a war in Iraq, they were traitors. That certainly didn't help.

Are there those who, no matter what Bush did, would never ever have tried to meet him half way. You bet. But there are also those who, no matter how much Bush continues to screw up everything, will still vote for him without any questions.

Please point out to me any specific compromises Bush has made with Democrats on any of his major policy decisions. I would be delighted to see how often Bush offered an olive branch.

We really could go on and on in circles with this one Mitch.

Agreed. Long week. Lets all just take the rhetoric hat off for a while.

Hi Mitch!

I was working the Bush appearance in Blaine yesterday. The anti-Bush "demonstrators" were shouting at Bush supporters with children - calling them "child abusers" for bringing their kids to the event. My nose got burned from the sun and my ears got burned from the sickening language used by the "demonstrators." Quite disgusting. Public discourse? Fine. Impassioned public discourse? Also fine. Hurling invectives at people because of their supposed political beliefs? What's the point?

Look at the thug's shirt. Does the emblem above and to the right of the "A" look like the CBS eye? Just asking.

"Your complaints about drumming up "phony" controversies fall on deaf ears when we are talking about some of the same people who pushed "Vince Foster" and "Swift Boat Vets".

Sorry, but you're comparing apples, axles and artillery. The Dems' endless conspiracymongering about the 2000 election was perhaps understandable - losing an election to someone you hate has gotta hurt - but backed by nothing. Vince Foster was straight from the farthest fringe of the GOP. And the Swiftvets are, as it happens, correct; nobody's shown us a single "lie" from "Unfit for Command". Feel free to start. Until then, it's just the endless repetition of talking points.

"You can believe that the left never had any intentions of meeting Bush halfway. But he could have at least tried to unite the nation. You always have to expect some dissent. But that is not what Bush or especially his handlers wanted."

You act like that's a bad thing. Bill Clinton won the presidency with a much SMALLER mandate than Bush had - he won 36% of the vote in '92, to Bush's 48 and change. He came out for socialized medicine, gays in the military (with which I didn't personally disagree, but whatever), and a host of other gigantistic ideas that didn't get snuffed until the '94 elections.

"His administration basically told people that if they were not in favor of a war in Iraq, they were traitors."

Really? Where did he or the administration say that?

"Please point out to me any specific compromises Bush has made with Democrats on any of his major policy decisions. I would be delighted to see how often Bush offered an olive branch."

Education spending has gone up by nearly half during Bush's term - he basically took Ted Kennedy's plan with few modifications when it came to spending. He's spent a lot - no, a LOT - more on social programs that his "base" would prefer, to the point where liberal commentators were chortling about a supposed wave of conservative defections from Bush's base a few months ago (albeit not so much now). He gave away a lot to get his foreign policy and GWOT agenda through Congress.

"We really could go on and on in circles with this one Mitch."

Only until the post falls offf the bottom of the list.

Mitch- I will address these comments later when I have more time, but your saying I am just full of talking points nearly made me fall off my chair. Glass houses. I am no more full of them than either you or anyone else commenting here.

I know you are sick of us lefties accusing you of hypocrisy, but come on...

We are all under the influence of the months (and for some- years) of Presidential campaigning.

Tearing up a sign and making a little girl cry is nothing. What I think would have taken stones is to sic the folks from Child Protective Services on Mr. Parlock.

The moment that ever happens, All. Bets. Are. Off.

I think this specific picture is probably staged or at least doesn't past the smell test (see Capt Ed's comments about this protestor guy)

But this phenominon is EXACTLY why I don't have Bush-Cheney stickers on my cars; don't need some a$$ keying them to express his disagreement with my political choices. (I too live in Saint Paul.)

Mark-
I totally know how you feel. When I lived in Brainerd, there was no way I was gonna put a rainbow sticker on my car.

Or for great googly moogly--

After Wellstone died, a number of righties defaced Wellstone signs. Tacky? Yes. Ridiculous? Yes. The face of the Republican party? No. Mitch, you live in the city. Of the hundreds of thousands of St. Paulites, there are bound to be a few nuts. Are they wrong to destroy signs? Yes, they are. But they aren't the face of the DFL.

I've had the windows on my car broken for having a Clinton/Gore '96 sticker on it. There are idiots on both sides.

And while I have many reasons to dislike the GOP, they're on the issues, not because some idiot decided he didn't like my views.

I have a John Kerry sticker on the car now; I guess I'm tempting fate again. Oh well.

(BTW, good job correcting yourself. Now, when will you write your apologia for claiming Iraq had WMDs? Just wondering ;)

Calling Bush a divider is to ignore the last presidential election which ended nearly 50/50 in votes. Seems the division was already in place. We have Bill and Hillary to thank for that.
In my view, I don't vote Democrat because of their social positions. They advance the cause of Minnesota tribes to the detriment of the rest of Minnesota citizens. They champion the diversity of homosexuality, lesbianism and trans-genders, but they ridicule the Boy Scouts. They have no respect for the sanctity of marriage. Nor do they respect the Pledge of Allegience. Their years of social welfare programs has created multi generations of welfare dependent families. They worry so much about racial profiling that our airline security cannot show any type of bias when screening passengers. A 70 year old grandma must undergo the same scrutiny as a 20 year old man of Mid-Eastern descent here on a visa. Ridiculous!
As a Christian, I am offended by the "What would Wellstone do?" bumper stickers. They are a mocking rip-off of the Christian saying "What would Jesus do?" Not a lot of originality by the liberals on that one. Comparing a pro homosexual, pro abortion politician to Jesus is offensive to me. Oh well, If I were a Muslim, and I was offended about someone mocking Allah in public, then the liberals would came to my defense.

Wonkette has some more on Ripped Sign gate:

http://www.wonkette.com/gossip/ripped+sign/

RippedSignGate! The Saga Continues.
We love this serial sign-mutilator story -- staged child abuse is so much more interesting than studying fonts. Anyway, another blog is reporting that not only did Phil Parlock set up his kid to be terrorized, but did it without letting his family know. Surprise fake terrorizing! (Huh. Our childhood was a little like that. . . )

I've learned that Phil Parlock, in an attempt to aid Bush in the state, had the incident staged. As far as I know, Parlock's family knew nothing of it. . . . [Blogger informant] Daisy, who also lives in Huntington, knows Phil Parlock and his family and she made it clear that they were "very nice people." I asked her why she thought Parlock would do such a thing, she mentioned that Parlock is "very very Christian," "incredibly anti-gay," and a strong Bush supporter.
There you have it. Phil Parlock: Hates children and gays!

Bush Sign Ripping Staged [The Turnspit Daily]

Well, if Wonkette says so...