Looks like there’s more to the story I linked to below.
It seems as if the man holding the child is one Phil Parlock who has a bit of a history of showing up at Democratic events, displaying signs for Republican candidates and ending up on the receiving end of some rough treatment by various and sundry other attendees.
Various other bloggers are claiming that it looks like a setup and that the “attacker” is actually one of Parlock’s sons.
I call “bull” on that last charge – and so does Michelle Malkin who actually spoke to Parlock. He flat out denies that the “attacker” in question was his son and thus far, there’s nothing other than theory to suggest otherwise. The union in question (IUPAT) has issued an apology and has instituted an investigation, which, in my mind, lends credence to the fact that the assault was in fact genuine. The union heads have had enough time to run the photos by their membership and if the “gentleman” in question wasn’t a part of IUPAT, I would think such an apology wouldn’t have been forthcoming.
Here’s my two cents: it’s patently unwise to take your 3 year old child to an opposition rally as you are clearly putting the child’s safety in jeopardy. You’re either (directly or indirectly) using them as protection (what rational person would hurt a 3 year old?) or as a prop for “political theater”. For that, Mr. Parlock should be reproved. If you want to involve your children in politics from an early age, I would find another way that doesn’t threaten the child’s life and limb, even potentially.
However, all indications are that he has (in this instance and in past instances) protested and made his point quietly. It is unacceptable for anyone, regardless of their political views to assault a protestor and it’s particularly shameful for anyone to run the risk of hurting a child in the process.
It looks as if others feel just about the same way.
I had mistakenly put words into Kip’s mouth. He wasn’t saying that the union heavy looked like Parlock’s son, he was saying quite the opposite.


Various other bloggers are claiming that it looks like a setup and that the “attacker” is actually one of Parlock’s sons.
Actually I was suggesting the exact opposite (i.e., that the union apology argued strongly that it was not Parlock’s son. 🙂