Of course, it would never happen in reverse -
i.e., a 3-year old child holding a Kerry banner at a Bush rally having the sign torn up.

Of course, that's because the child would never be allowed IN the Bush rally with a Kerry sign in the first place, but the point is still valid.

Funny, I must have misread something in this story. I thought it said a woman wearing a shirt that accusses President Bush of killing her son was at a rally where First Lady Laura Bush was speaking. I also seem to recall reading that after she became disruptive and refused to leave, she was escorted off the premises by security - not beaten by an unruly mob.

Nice try though.

Let's see -
her son had died in Iraq in service to his
country, she's at a rally where Laura Bush
is speaking, and she shouts out
"WHY DON'T YOUR CHILDREN SERVE?"
She's immediately hustled outside by
men in dark suits (presumably Secret Service)
and, when she tries to speak with reporters,
she's handcuffed and taken to jail.

I'm guessing the only only ONLY reason she
even got into the rally is this : she brought
the t-shirt bearing a picture of her dead soldier
son and the words "President Bush killed my son"
rolled up, and put it on just before shouting
out her inflammatory query.
I have no doubt whatsoever that, had she been wearing the t-shirt when she arrived, she'd never have been allowed inside the venue.

When my dad was in the Army, women whose sons had been killed in wartime service were called Gold Star Mothers. Guess that sort of sacrifice pales in comparison with losing a campaign sign.

Oh, and check Porlack's history. In '96, he reported being knocked to the ground by a Clinton supporter for holding up a sign reading "Remember Vince Foster" at a rally. In 2000, he smuggled 12 Bush-Cheney signs into a Gore rally. Now this! What an unlucky guy.

You can try to make the issue about whether or not opposition can get into rallies, but it really isn't.

For one thing, the rally that the incident with the union member and the 3 year old took place at wasn't a Kerry rally, it was a pro-Kerry rally. I seriously doubt that a rally at which Kerry or Teresas was present along with their security, would have treated a disruptive protester any differently, up to and including not letting her in in the first place.

Regardless, this is a false parallelism you are trying to create. The point is that no one in the crowd assaulted this woman, let alone a child, out of partisan zeal.

Nice try again.

All right, how about this:
Clare Martin, protestor at the RNC, has
her sign pulled from her hands, is knocked
to the ground and kicked by a bystander.

References:
http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/09/21/414fd61e0a541

http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/09/20/414e80e9ee4dd

She's at a partisan event, representing an opposition position, and is assaulted, presumably out of partisan zeal.

Is this a close enough parallelism?

Pretty good! I commend you on sticking with it and finding these examples of deplorable behavior. The one nit I would pick is that there wasn't a 3 year old involved, which is what I found most horrific about the example I sited.

Your example would be more akin to something like this.

Still, your point is valid. I think it refinforces something I believe - that there shouldn't be any place for violence or even the squelching of non-violent, non-disruptive, protest. There is too much of exactly that going on, and it is happening on all sides.