October 27, 2010

Yes, yes, I know there was that eye-catching "head stomping" to talk about yesterday...

... but that just highlights the lack of anything serious in the political news this week.

Yes, yes, I know that liberals would like to purvey the notion that tea partiers are violent and that incident fit their template, but:

1. One data point proves nothing about a large group (unless you follow the thinking style of bigotry).

2. The "violent Tea Party" meme has been pushed since the very beginning of the Tea Party movement, so it's nothing new. And the failure to pick up enough data points to look anything like a pattern is glaringly obvious.

3. The MoveOn.org woman came to the event to create an incident and caused the Ron Paul's supporters to worry about his safety, so that violent incident was prompted by the urge to defend, in which case even that one incident isn't a data point that fits the gapingly empty template.

4. "A person in a disguise, carrying a sign from a radical organization, tries to push through the crowd to hand a political opponent an unknown object.  What would the Secret Service have done to her?"
Indeed!

5. I bet some of you, reading #4, thought of saying: "Person"?! It was a woman. How threatening could a woman be? But:
A: That's sexist. You think women cannot be dangerous?

B: Squeaky Fromme, Sara Jane Moore. It happens.
6. Are we really going to elevate every prank and beating to a political event deserving analysis? That "stomping" had nothing do with anything worth thinking about in deciding who to vote for. If that counted as substance, it's evidence of the extreme dearth of substance this week.

7. And let me say one more thing to those who delighted in what they imagined was the political usefulness of the "stomping" incident. There is a big rally in Washington this weekend that will draw many thousands of persons. Within that throng of presumed liberals and lefties, there will be all sorts of characters, with their diverse problems and motivations. You don't know who will act up, what foolishly overstated signs they will carry, and what provocations will lead someone with clouded judgment or poor impulse control to do something that will look awful on video. That will happen 3 days before the election, leaving very little time to explain. If that happens, you will want to eat all the words you've been saying about the stomper.

ADDED: New video shows the aggressive behavior of the woman — Lauren Valle — that took place before the men took her down. 

428 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 428 of 428
metasailor said...

Joe, if you read my comment again you see what I'm comparing is the excuses.

But hey? Whatever. You guys don't want to see reality, I can't make you. It just blows my mind the lengths to which you are going to not to see it.

I mean, not even Ann Althouse is taking a position as far out there as you guys. But have fun. And once again I hope it never happens to you. Whether or not you're "rushing a candidate" to ask him an embarassing question, in what I understand is still called a public event at the United States of America.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
OK, so her trying to go up to Rand Paul is "rushing" him, in some manner that Rand Paul would have reason to fear for his life - even though security had already determined she was no threat.
My Yhwh you’re slow…Security saw her as “no threat” because she hadn’t rushed the candidate! You keep acting as if she charges/rushes/moves to the candidate and they decided, in a professional manner, “Oh she’s no threat.”

What happened was the members of the crowd pointed her out and “security” decided she wasn’t worth their attention…now was that a correct decision, I don’t know. I don’t want to judge post facto. But she was “no threat” just like Mohamed Atta was “no threat” in that just prior ro the act they had done nothing wrong.

I enjoy the universe of the supposedly neural calm folks like you who morph into "curb stomping"/"Jack-@rse" spewers...

metasailor said...

So, Joe - you seriously, honestly, hand-to-God think the reaction of the Rand Paul supporters to this woman had nothing to do with her potentially embarrassing Rand Paul with some sort of protest?

You really, seriously think this reaction was ONLY because they were concerned for Rand's safety from this woman?

Luther said...

Hell, I give up.

Most on the left have never had a finger raised against them, much less having that rare fleeting finger flick across their nose.

Much ado about nothing is all of this.

An ideologically enraptured woman gets her fifteen seconds. Which, unfortunately, has lasted far longer than it should have.

metasailor said...

Joe, for the record, I don't think you're slow. I do think you're deluding yourself rather than admit someone who you consider on your side did something wrong.

I do enjoy it when the personal insults start coming out. That means you're running out of rationales.

metasailor said...

Luther, your statement about the Left is utterly clueless. But hey! Go into some downtown bar in NY, SF, LA, Chicago, et al and see how long it takes to disprove your thesis.

Internet tough guys are always good for a chuckle though, so thanks for that.

jim said...

Wow, that sure is a lot of rationalizing. isn't it?

1: Requires ignoring Angle's "Second Amendment remedies," as well as the amusing case of the Texas man with a backpack full of pipe-bombs, as well as the man who had his gas-lines cut, as well as the person who ran a car off the road because it bore an Obama bumper-sticker, as well as Miller's strongmen detaining someone for the "crime" of trying to ask him a question, & on & on & on. There are more than enough "data points" to show just how thuggish a few of these "patriots" really are.

2: See above.

3: These people knew she was just there to hold up a sign, not to detonate her TNT vest - they'd met her before & knew damn well that she posed no threat to Paul whatsoever. Profitt's statement of concern for Paul's safety is pure bunk meant to excuse his vicious behaviour (he now wants HER to apologize, by the way). Their violence was planned (they had just boasted about "taking someone out") & intended to send a clear message: dissent against our candidate in his presence can & will be crushed with violence.

4: The Secret Service would detain & question her, not hold her down & step on her head. The "point" is a false analogy, unless you can seriously equate a candidate for the Senate with a sitting President.

5: The video speaks for itself. The woman who was attacked is about as threatening as a puppy.

6: "Are we really going to elevate every prank and beating to a political event deserving analysis?"

Her "prank" was intended to make a very cogent point: the GOP is receiving massive anonymous support from anonymous Astroturf "citizen's groups" who have total carte blanche in the wake of the Citizens United case to manipulate this & any future elections to suit their ends. Rand Paul is one of many who benefit signifigantly from this explicitly anti-democratic development. It's worth noting that this important topic is getting lost in the story of the beating, & that Paul will likely win in spite of it - neither of which says anything pleasant about the state of America in 2010.

7: Something bad might happen at the Stewart/Colbert rallies, & if it does that will prove that liberalism is, was & will always be morally bankrupt - so pay no attention to the woman getting her head stomped on!

I certainly can't argue with that ... because it's pure gibberish.

Luther said...

Here, watch this video... see how benign she was. If I had been assigned security detail for Paul she would certainly have seemed a threat.

Of course, those who look for kumbayaa in the world see no threat until and as they watch their body parts dissipate on the wind.

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/10/new-video-exposes-false-narrative-of.html

Luther said...

Hey, 'sailor'. I've been in most of those bars I suspect. 'Toad Hall' ring a bell. And since when have bar whores meant courage, courage in defending their country and not their ego. Large difference my friend.

dave in boca said...

NBC Evening News, to its credit, showed Alex Sink cheating during an interlude while she was debating Rick Scott, who called her on it and rightly so.

The memeorandum thread is almost completely corrupted by Washington Monthly and a bunch of ultra-left blogs that crowd out more important developments. No such brouhaha happened with Kenneth Gladney and the finger-bite LA victim when SEIU thugs were cracking skulls.

nikrok1 said...

I just watched the video of her approaching the vehicle TWICE . . .
She a liar.

She looked and acted like an ATTACKER. So let's call her what she is. Rand Paul's attacker is much more accurate than 'head stomping victim'.

Alpha Liberal . . . you're delusional. The only Bullshit is the brown-matter in your head.

If I'd been on security, she would have been put down h.a.r.d. and left with a dislocated shoulder. She got off WAAAY EASY.

Basspastor said...

A think the latest video just played Daniel for a fool.

Basspastor said...

And everybody else who defended the Move On fair lady.

Fen said...

Her "prank" was intended to make a very cogent point: the GOP is receiving massive anonymous support from anonymous Astroturf "citizen's groups

Please explain how attacking Rand Paul with a sign makes your "very cogent point"...

Shanna said...

Oh Joe, there is no point trying to match wits with the genius who said this to you "Joe "Crypto-Jew" - if that is your real name" while calling himself metasailor.

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...

Metasailor: OK, so her trying to go up to Rand Paul is "rushing" him

"trying to go up to" =! "rushing the car and attacking him with a sign"

Have you even watched the full video? Quit being such a weasel.

But this guy putting his foot on her when she's already down and ISN'T MOVING and then SHOVING her into the curb

Hey Weasel, please explain how she can be shoved *back* down into the curb if she wasn't moving?

She was resisting, trying to get up to make a THIRD run at attacking Paul.

At least you agree that "putting his foot on her and shoving" != "stomping"

and then needing someone else to warn him off before he does it again - that's restraining her.

Yes. Because while she's a professional activist, but he is NOT riot police.

He doesn't know how to properly restrain someone, but your side wants to turn that into "jackbooted nazi stomps head of peaceful demonstrator trying to go up to Paul".

That simply not what happened here.

And you're not even agreeing that his foot touches her head, when we can see her head move from CONTACT with his foot?

Where do you see his foot touch her head? I think you are confusing "head" with "shoulder". Which follows, consdering your earlier argument that there's no significant difference between the two.

AHLondon said...

Many have noted that she was in disguise. But there is a reason she might have worn the wig that I don't see anyone has noticed. She is a woman with short hair who in a video might look like a guy. My hunch, she provoked the security team so her buddies could get video of security manhandling a woman, a blond woman, to make it really obvious. This explains why she is smiling about the stomping, she got the video she wanted. Many have noted that there isn't video of other provoking behaviors besides rushing the car and reaching in the window. First, that is provoking enough. That is way to close to let someone get to the candidate. If the candidate is shaking hands, or in close contact, security is on his shoulder. Paul's security should have never let her get that close. Second, we don't have proof she didn't do other worrisome things. What was she saying? What else was she doing off camera? My hunch is that she might have been doing quite a bit of worrisome stuff because she dressed for video. She prepared. She knew exactly what she was doing.

matta said...

WRT #1 - How about several data points? Miller in AK handcuffing a reporter, Angle in NV suggesting "second ammendment" remmedies if the elections don't go their way, O'donnel in DE threatening to "crush" a TV station (via a lawsuit) if they don't destroy some embarassing video? And that's in the past couple of weeks. TP candidates don't mind using violent images and terminology because they know it appeals to their base.
WRT #2 - When you pick a violent act as the name of your political party (yes, destruction of property is a violent act even if done as a political statement), one should expect some to view you in that light.
#3 - The excuse of many of those who use violence. So just how was he defending RP with his foot stomping on top of a prone woman again?
#4 - Reinventing history? They recognized her, knew who she was, saw what she was carrying and she was clearly standing beside the vehicle when it drove up and not pushing through the crowd (as the other video shows). There's no evidence that suggests she continued to try and approach RP after the car drove by and he got out (which is where the orig video starts). More likely, at that point she was trying to run away from the various TP "volunteers" assaulting her.
#6 - Its your blog, if you don't want to elevate it, stop blogging about it.

Fprawl said...

Dear Trooper,
My wife and I discussed our Nov 2 carpool strategy. Kentucky 6th district.
I am taking an hour vacation in the morning to vote, then she is skipping her allergy shot to vote at 4:30.
Guess which party.

adios.

dick said...

metasailor,
Interesting that Security found she was no threat without doing anything other than taking a cursory glance. Squeaky Fromme was also not a threat nor was John Hinckley.

If you look at the whole video you can see her charging through the crowd to get at the candidate on his way in. Why would she do that after trying to shove something into his car and poking at him in his car with a poster on a stick. Then she is taken down, struggles and then is finally subdued. Actually the security should be charged for not at lest taking notice of this crazy woman.

metasailor said...

Hey Luther, I'll tell you what then. Why don't you go to the downtown STREET of NY, LA, SF, or Chicago and start telling liberals they've never been in a fistfight. And see what you get then.

There is indeed a big difference between defending your country and your ego, friend. It seems pretty clear that making false claims about a whole class of people *doesn't* come under "defending your country". So you might want to look at stopping defending your own ego, by trying to call other people cowards. Live your own example. How about that?

metasailor said...

dick:

Interesting that after 5 fat middle-aged jackholes bravely tackled a lone woman armed with a sign that, gasp, COULD HAVE BEEN A LASER DEATH-RAY!!!!!!1111eleventy!1!! - the security team was proven right.

Isn't that something? It's almost like the Rand Paul supporters were more offended by the woman's sign, and created the "security" excuse as a reason to justify their actions.

Nahhhh, can't be. She must by a cyborg programmed by the PresidAntiChrist.

metasailor said...

"Have you even watched the full video? Quit being such a weasel."

Tell you what, ferret. Why don't YOU post me a link with the video where YOU see her do ANYTHING ELSE than put her sign up to a car window. With the seconds, just like I did.

"Hey Weasel, please explain how she can be shoved *back* down into the curb if she wasn't moving?"

Hey skunk, because a) that's what the footage shows, and b) you may not be aware of this, but bodies can actually compress. Isn't physics grand?

"At least you agree that "putting his foot on her and shoving" != "stomping" '

I'm just trying to reach some kind of bridge to your reality. At least you agree he put her foot on her - right?

"Yes. Because while she's a professional activist, but he is NOT riot police."

No. But he is a jackhole who is now being charged. Thank heaven for that at least.

I am done talking with you. You literally will not believe your own lying eyes that show his foot striking her head and MOVING HER HEAD twice. You want to invent all manner of excuses for this behavior, rather than even admit that one member of Rand Paul's campaign lost his temper and did a shitty thing. There really is no more use to be served by continuing this discussion. Good day.

blake said...

There are a lot of "liberal troll" archetypes on this thread.

They start out reasonable sounding. Just want you to consider this or that.

Then before you know it, yer eatin' babies.

metasailor said...

I just want to check before I go.

Do you guys really, truly, honestly think that the Rand supporters tackled her because they thought she was a security threat? And not because she was a protester who irritated them, with a sign they didn't like?

blake said...

Babies are tasty, of course.

But they're soooo fattening.

Fprawl said...

The woman allegedly ran past the open window of the SUV and whacked Rand Paul with the sign before the takedown a minute later.
Here in Kentucky, it is easier to get a gun than a Moveon.Org sign, so I question the security arrangements.
I have already posted that U of Ky (site of debate) has more than 60 sworn officers and Lexington has hundreds more.
One of them could have opened the door for the target...candidate.

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 428 of 428   Newer› Newest»