If you’re just tuning into the story about the fracas at a Harry Reid-Sharron Angle campaign event in Nevada Thursday night, here’s how the local NBC station reported the incident:
Moments before the forum was supposed to end, as Angle was answering a question, a Reid supporter decided she wanted to leave. That apparently didn’t sit too well with one of the Angle supporters, who allegedly refused to let the woman out.
Within moments, the two were exchanging blows. The fight sparked a firestorm of controversy over who was to blame…
Police interviewed everyone involved, but ultimately decided not to arrest anyone.
Who’s to blame? If the male tea bagger assaulted the woman Reid supporter, then he is clearly at fault.
Not surprisingly, Sharron Angle blames the victim:
Angle: Well I think this is a play right out of Saul Alinksky’s rule for radicals. What happens if you don’t want the news to report on the forum and the debate between the two contestants, you try to make a bigger news story. And the news story is the brawl, and so that’s what they did. They staged a fight, that’s the way that I felt it was going. There were two women that were actually looking for a fight, trying to get that to be the top news story and they succeeded.
Harry Reid’s campaign begs to differ:
That’s right – Sharron Angle alleged that the woman punched repeatedly by a man identified as one of her own Tea Party backers was “looking for a fight,” and had in fact “staged” the incident to distract media attention from news coverage of Angle sitting on a stage for 30 minutes, ticking off her standard talking points. Uh huh.
“In addition to the extreme offensiveness of alleging the woman victimized by this assault was essentially ‘asking for it,’ this cruel and totally unsubstantiated allegation raises serious questions about Sharron Angle’s character,” said Reid campaign spokesman Kelly Steele. “Beyond her extreme and dangerous agenda for Nevada, Angle has said many things that cause reasonable people to literally question her sanity and whether or not Angle knows the difference between the pathological things that escape her mouth and objective reality – and this may take the cake
These thugs believe women who dress evocatively are asking for it when they’re raped and then asking to be forced to bear their rapist’s child. So it only follows that they’re also asking to be beaten up, by a man, when they want to leave a political rally. It’s all about freedom and equality to these “patriots”, after all.
Right Angle. Take a lesson from Pullosi Punch and Judy Reid who’ve been beating DEMselves up for at least 4 years!
interesting she mentions Alinsky. willing to bet she has absolutely no idea who he was. seems Alinsky is the new Marx or Chairman Mao, the dark lord of the socialist takeover.
IMHO, Angle lacks principles. In fact, I would say that anyone who endorses another when he/she knows the person is wrong, has no principles. I’ve watched “conservatives” lie to their supporters for over 30 years for personal and/or political gain. I thought it was wrong in the 1970s, and I still think it’s wrong in 2010. No, I know it’s wrong. A person who supports a corrupt individual, cannot vote for that person and expect him/her to do the right thing. Before being sworn into office, the individual has already shown that he/she will do anything necessary to get elected.
Angle is a mean mean person. She wants it to be mandatory, that girls who have been raped by a family member have to carry to term. If that’s not bad enough, she doesn’t want insurance to pay for children with birth defects. GET IT. She is SICK!! Most children of incest are born with moderate to severe health issues and she now wants the girl to have to shoulder that burden along with having to keep the reminder of the rape and abuse. HOW DO YOU DEFEND SUCH A MONSTER AS ANGLE?”
I support a woman’s right to choose and I certainly oppose Angle, but “most children of incest are born with moderate to severe health issues” is just not supported by any evidence. The facts are good enough–we don’t need to rely on made-up claims.