Mike Stark Gets Shafted Again

[Brian Stevens]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/04/D8L6KDI80.html

:mad:

[Boo Boo]

1. Frankly, I wish they'd keep Mr. Stark locked up until

Wedensday. If he's having any impact at all on the election it will, IMO, be negative.

[progdonkey]

2. I have to agree with you on that...

While I think it's great for us liberals to see Stark putting himself in these positions to get these psychotic reactions from the Allen supporters, for the less politically inclined people the point becomes that Stark is putting himself in these positions. It's like walking up to a dog you know is dangerous so you can get bitten and show everyone what an awful dog it is and how negligent the owner is. Yes, the owner is negligent and yes, the dog is dangerous and should be locked up in a cage in the basement, but you walked up to the dog, knowing it was dangerous and something might happen.

Similar thing here, especially this second time. With the first one, he was trying to ask some uncomfortable questions (though I really wish he hadn't yelled, "Did you spit on your wife?" Instead of putting that question out there, it looked like he really was just some abusive questioner--had the accusations already been generally known in the public, it would've come off much better), but no matter how uncomfortable those questions may have been, what happened to him was assault, plain and simple. There was no excuse to grab him and tackle him to the ground; he bore no physical threat to anyone there.

But this second time, he's going in knowing that something will probably go down. Whether he'd be further assaulted, or (as is the case here) framed for assaulting someone else, he knew his presence would instigate something.

Even though it's fun to see how pathetic these RWers are that they'd try to frame him by taking a dive after brushing up against him (and then sitting on the horn in their cars, trying to ruin the audio while he was talking to reporters), each time he does one of these things, it just becomes more reasonable for the Allen people to claim that he's harrassing them. Not only does that make them seem more credible with any future incidents, but it could also work retroactively, making people think that, hey, maybe their response that first time really wasn't so out-of-line.

Though, in the end it still shows just how disgusting Allen's campaign is, since we get this little gem in the article: "Senatorial aide Dan Allen said his boss was concerned by Stark's presence because his daughter, a student at nearby James Madison University, was at the event and 'he wanted to make sure she was safe.'" Stark's presence made Allen concerned for his daughter's safety. I don't know about you, but that sure as hell sounds like Allen's daughter was in danger of being kidnapped, assaulted, raped, etc. by Stark.