Ed Morrisey has a series of still photos that were taken just prior to the video of Mike Stark getting taken to the floor after attempting to charge George Allen. The pictures show Stark assaulting someone who appears to be an Allen staffer in order to get into the hallway to accost Allen and provoke the incident.
Very obviously, Stark had become violent before the altercation we saw on CNN. The staffers afterwards closed ranks around Allen to keep Stark from committing violence against the Senator, and when he continued to push and shove, they physically removed him from the scene. The CNN video provided plenty of justification for the concerns of Allen's staff, and these pictures show that they acted rationally to Stark's irrational behavior.
Nor is that the only smear going on this week in America's dirtiest campaign. Dan Riehl notices a strange allegation by Frank Schaeffer in today's Dallas News. Schaeffer claims that Allen's campaign sent out a broadcast e-mail that called James Webb a "perverted pedophile", and he's leaving the Republican Party as a result.
Now, I have already written about what a mistake Novelgate was, but I've been on the Allen campaign's e-mail list since Day 1, and I never saw anything like this. Neither has Dan Riehl. Dan wonders whether someone sent a hoax e-mail to Schaeffer, or whether Schaeffer has decided to hoax everyone himself; I don't believe the latter could be true, so I'm inclined to believe the former. If someone who supports Allen and has signed up for their e-mail broadcasts has received this e-mail, let me know, but this looks like a last-minute attempt to manipulate voters.
Allen has made mistakes in this campaign, but the Democrats have been nothing short of vicious. They've attacked Allen's mother, they've tried to pry open his divorce records, and they've tried to imply that a couple of summonses for minor infractions amounted to a secret arrest record from 30 years ago….
I agree with Captain Ed on that. This has been a very, very dirty campaign. Allen has made mistakes, but the opposition has been run on pure sewage, not on the issues. I continue to believe this has been the worst election cycle I have ever seen.
I guess I wonder why this is a series of stills rather than a video, and I also wonder why the stills are flashed so rapidly that it is hard to actually see what’s in the frames, and further I wonder why the supposedly ‘assaulted’ guy never changes his neutral facial expression.
Is it possible that Stark was pushing his way past the fat guy rather than ‘assaulting’ him? Is it possible that the rapid flash of stills [probably taken from video] were cherry-picked to try to create a pathetic countervalence to the obvious ‘ wrestling to the floor’ video-taped assault on Stark?
Whatever, the rapidly flashed ‘stills’ leaves a certain sense of spin in my head.
Think it is bad now jsut wait until the 2008 Presidential campaign, as in International Leftist in Mexico returning full force to the American electoral process. The Gore fiasco will seem minor compared to what the Leftist will do in 08.
You know what, Donna? You’re going right off the deep end, here. Stark rushed toward the candidate pushing people out of the way to do so. If Allen had Secret Service protection that guy would have been on the ground even faster and even harder. He made what I would consider very aggressive moves trying to get to Allen. In this day and age, that warrants getting protective.
So play your spin games about poor Stark who went there with the intention of provoking an incident. I’m not buying it.
Donna? What kind of computer you got? Because whatever it is, I can probably act like a live manual and tell you how to either stop, speed up to make it more “video”-ish….
“Is it possible that Stark was pushing his way past the fat guy rather than ‘assaulting’ him? ”
That would be considered a PC textbook definition of “assault,” Donna. If he pushed, he violated the other person’s “space.” He made physical contact. He thereby violated what Allen’s person considered and declared his “personal zone” and attempted to violate it.
Get your own sides terms right before you march ‘em out, sweetie.
Actually, “assault” is a threatening gesture. “Battery” is actual physical contact, usually following assault. Stark assaulted AND battered.
When you recall that candidates have been assaulted and even shot, it is clear that Stark was treated with restraint. He got off easy.
BubbaB? I stand corrected, and want to make it “crystal, crystal clear” that I apologize for you not discerning my underlying, subtextualized and implicative meaning that “assault of course implies battery.”
Black Jack, I just accidentally blipped another of your comments that got trapped in the spam queue.
Gaius, it’s probably just as well. My comment was in sharp disagreement with one of your closely held beliefs, not PC, and likely unproductive given the coming elections.
I’ll save the point for another time. It’s not like I’m short on opinions.
No, I don’t care that you disagreed with me. Please repost it. I screwed up and hit the wrong key before I rescued the comment is all.
Gaius, I’m having trouble commenting at other sites too. There’s something about my handle that spam filters find suspect. I like Black Jack and have been using it (for obvious reasons) since I bought my first computer in Reno, Nevada about 15 years ago. But, now it seems the time has come to make a change. I’m going to try calling myself, mokus. We’ll just have to wait and see if that works out.
That came through perfectly. It was the “black jack” – that’s a prime spam word.
TC – sorry, wasn’t trying to criticize, I was actually just pointing out that what Stark did could be considered TWO crimes, not just one… I was responding mostly to Donna’s post, and agreeing with yours…