Yeowch!

OK, you folks remember the child who was assaulted by Leftist losers for daring to have a "Bush/Cheney" sign in her hands, right? Nothing says Democrat like assaulting a three year old girl, lemme tell ya!

It gets better.

Steve H. of Hog On Ice is laying down some of the most savage beatings I've seen on the web. First of all, one of his more idiotic commenters actually blames the father for what happened.

That so-called "father" should be locked up for using his child in an act of provacation. Bringing her into that environment was nothing less than reckless endangerment of a child. There are better ways to express his first amendment right than to abuse his child in that manner. He could have started a riot and the child could have gotten seriously injured. What a loser he is.

Steve for you to mischaracterize the Edwards supporters as the villains while ignoring the culpability of the so-called "father" is grade A BS!

Steve, of course, responds in a way that leaves nothing to the imagination.

It's absolutely true that the father was foolish to trust liberals to behave like human beings. These are the same people who beat up a young boy for waving a "Sore Loserman" sign back in 2000. The same people who dragged a New York cop off his motorcycle during the RNC and put him in the hospital with severe facial trauma.

(....)

If, as Totsie's comment necessarily implies, liberals are so stupid and violent we can count on them to behave this way, then it IS the father's fault, just as it would be his fault if he went to the zoo and lowered her into the monkey pit. But here in America, our Constitution is supposed to protect our right to do exactly what Sophia was doing, and liberals always lie that that right is more precious to them than to us. So what are liberals, Totsie? Animals or hypocrites? I say "both."

No wonder they put them in cages at the Democrat National Convention.

Think about it - A liberal just admitted that Democrats and Kerry Supporters cannot be trusted to behave as civilized human beings. A liberal just admitted that assaulting a three year old girl is perfectly acceptable behavior, if you're a Democrat. Here, let me restate that for you.

A liberal just admitted that assaulting and screaming at three year old girls is acceptable behavior, if you're a Democrat. In fact, it should be expected.

Steve also rips apart the hysterical liberal claim that Parlock (the father of that three year old girl) is a fake, because he's been assaulted before.

In 1996 and 2000, Phil Parlock made the West Virginia papers by being attacked by Clinton and Gore supporters. Ergo, the conspiracy nuts say, the attack on his daughter was staged. And the liberal blogger who brought out the 1996 and 2000 stories even suggests that the goon in the photo of Parlock and his daughter is actually Parlock's son.

Okay, let's accept the conspiracy-nut premise. That's Parlock's son. He got himself a Kerry T-shirt and tore the sign out of his sister's hands. That means the sister is in on it. Phil Parlock somehow managed to train a three-year-old to cry convincingly on cue, and to behave as if her own brother terrified her. Or Parlock's son is such an evil son of a bitch, he deliberately scared the hell out of his own baby sister, on camera.

Now, what about the liberals in the background, who appear to be cheering the sign-ripper on? I guess that black lady is also Phil's daughter.

And since he happened to be on the scene with his camera ready, AP photographer Randy Snyder must be a Parlock, too. Maybe Randy is a woman, and Snyder is her married name.

If Parlock is really that prolific, he could get Bush elected just by telling all his children to vote for him.

So Parlock has been assaulted before for his political beliefs? That only proves that Democrats are against free speech. That only proves that Democrats are against the right to assemble. That only proves that Democrats are easily the greatest danger to America that we've seen in a long time.

Fine, Parlock goes to events packed with Democrats, and he waves Republican signs, and then he complains to the press when the Democrats attack. What exactly is he doing that is wrong or deceptive? Is he hypnotizing liberals and forcing them to attack? Do liberals have a right to beat him up and attack his children, just because he's a repeat protester? Does the fact that he has been attacked before mean he's not allowed to talk to the press about it any more?

Explain the logic.

Sorry Steve, there's no logic where the Left is concerned.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has a list of links detailing just how low the Left will sink.