Jindal staffer beaten in New Orleans during SRLC

posted at 4:10 pm on April 13, 2010 by Allahpundit

Like the boss emeritus, we’re getting outraged e-mails demanding to know why we haven’t written about this yet, so here’s the obligatory “don’t jump to conclusions” post.

Don’t jump to conclusions.

The Hayride reports that a source who visited Bautsch at the hospital the day after the attack says they were told the couple was attacked for wearing Palin buttons:

Two people at the Brennan’s event have now confirmed that the protest had largely broken up by the time it ended, but we also understand from someone who visited Allee Bautsch in the hospital Saturday morning that she and Brown were followed and attacked expressly because they had Palin pins on (she heard one of the attackers say “Let’s get them, they have Palin pins on” – so the attack WAS politically motivated as its victims understood it. It was not a mugging, it was not an argument gone wrong and it was not a bar fight.

My first thought was of that infamous hoax just before the 2008 election when a campaign worker in Pittsburgh claimed an Obama supporter had carved a “B” in her cheek. My second thought was of Air America breathlessly reporting a few years ago that Randi Rhodes had been attacked while walking her dog, which turned out to be a case of Rhodes, um, falling down outside a pub. What happened to Bautsch and her guy is no hoax — one of them has a broken leg, the other had a concussion and fractures to the nose and jaw — but whether there was politics involved or whether it was an old-fashioned New Orleans brawl remains to be seen. Jindal’s spokesman said last night there’s no evidence that any lefty protesters were involved and just a few minutes ago he e-mailed MM to report that the detail about the Palin buttons is simply wrong: Neither Bautsch nor her boyfriend were wearing one. (The Hayride, which was pushing the political angle heavily yesterday and has now updated its post to reflect the new info, sounds more circumspect today.) Mediaite has picked up the story and the Times-Picayune already has at least one item up about it, so I assume this mystery will be solved sooner rather than later. Updates to come. Exit question: If it turns out there was a political element to the beating, can we blame the NYT op-ed page for fostering a “climate of hate” against conservatives? (Exit answer: Yes!)

Update (Ed): It sounds as if this is less a hoax than just a failure to get facts verified, which is still a big problem.  One has to remember that New Orleans is still a pretty tough city with a high rate of violent crime among American cities, and the law-enforcement resources were already being taxed by the French Quarter Festival last weekend.  It doesn’t take politics to beget violence.

On Saturday night (the night after the assault on Ms. Bautsch), another blogger and I walked back to the Holiday Inn Superdome where we both were staying from Morton’s Restaurant.  At about 9:20 pm or so (maybe a bit earlier), we came up on a massive roadblock and saw two people down on the street, one in a gurney, and police and ambulances all over the place.  It looked like a bad traffic accident at first blush to us.  I found out only after getting back to the hospital that it was a shooting that had wounded seven people, mostly passers-by.  Had the other blogger and myself come through 15 minutes earlier, we could have been hit.  If that had happened and two conservative bloggers got shot in New Orleans during the SRLC conference, many people could have jumped to the conclusion that it would have been political, when in fact the shooting resulted from a personal conflict from earlier in the year.

We’ve all jumped to conclusions, and even blogged on that basis on occasion.  Allahpundit’s correct in keeping an open mind as to motive in this case, too — but he’s waiting for the corroboration and the evidence, which is absolutely the right thing to do.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I didn’t say she “hates” Palin, she’s just not that into her, for whatever reasons which could not be because Palin is insufficiently Conservative.

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 5:48 PM

So naturally it’s proof that Malkin is.

Esthier on April 13, 2010 at 6:00 PM

I didn’t say she “hates” Palin, she’s just not that into her, for whatever reasons which could not be because Palin is insufficiently Conservative.

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 5:48 PM

When you admit you don’t read someone’s work, then why do you mischaracterize what you *think* MM says? Because she doesn’t say those things about Sarah Palin.

conservative pilgrim on April 13, 2010 at 6:00 PM

So naturally it’s proof that Malkin is.
Esthier on April 13, 2010 at 6:00 PM

The presumption is there, yes.
I wouldn’t call it “proof,” however.

It’s a free country, if you think MM’s sufficiently conservative and to whom you’ll gladly listen, that’s your own personal call.

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 6:02 PM

When you admit you don’t read someone’s work, then why do you mischaracterize what you *think* MM says?
conservative pilgrim on April 13, 2010 at 6:00 PM

I am not “mischaracterizing” whatever MM says or doesn’t say, I’m merely making observations about what is there.

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 6:04 PM

When you admit you don’t read someone’s work, then why do you mischaracterize what you *think* MM says? Because she doesn’t say those things about Sarah Palin.

conservative pilgrim on April 13, 2010 at 6:00 PM

Why should MM, or AP for that matter, want this story to go away so quickly?
You need to ask yourself that question.
Or maybe you’re too busy hijacking this thread to focus on my views of Malkin.

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 6:06 PM

One has to remember that New Orleans is still a pretty tough city with a high rate of violent crime among American cities

That’s an understatement.

I love the Saints – ever since they picked up Drew Brees – and I know we’re all supposed to be enthralled by New Orleans, but – sorry – it’s a pit.

Y-not on April 13, 2010 at 6:09 PM

The presumption is there, yes.

Because that’s the only reason why Malkin wouldn’t frequently post about Palin?

It’s a free country, if you think MM’s sufficiently conservative and to whom you’ll gladly listen, that’s your own personal call.

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 6:02 PM

I’m aware of this.

Esthier on April 13, 2010 at 6:10 PM

They actually might not have said anythingracialist, but the poor downtrodden African-American could have still “heard” the guy say “boy.”
Plus, according to well-respected professors at our institutions of higher learning =, the simple act of being white makes you a racist.
case closed.. next?

max1 on April 13, 2010 at 5:30 PM

Since the attackers were white that would have been pretty weird.

exception on April 13, 2010 at 6:12 PM

Oh, I get it. Had these been two gay men beaten this would have been taken at face value as a true hate crime.

carbon_footprint on April 13, 2010 at 6:16 PM

Why should MM, or AP for that matter, want this story to go away so quickly?
You need to ask yourself that question.
Or maybe you’re too busy hijacking this thread to focus on my views of Malkin.

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 6:06 PM

Please. You called MM a “RINO” and said she doesn’t like Sarah Palin. Yet you admit you don’t read her blog nor do you like her. When presented with evidence to the contrary you barrel down and keep swinging away with your position. Your views are being challenged with evidence and now you’re starting to attack me. That happens when one’s argument is lost.

conservative pilgrim on April 13, 2010 at 6:18 PM

So was this a hoax or not? Were the alleged injuries self-inflicted or … ?

I just want to get it straight before the Media starts reporting it as a complete fraud.

Spiny Norman on April 13, 2010 at 6:20 PM

Yeah Jenfidel, Michelle Malkin is a lot of things (successful, beautiful, effective, conservative) but she is far, far from being a RINO. She has been effective at fighting the RINO’s. John McCain, for instance.
Oh, just because she hired AP in the beginning does not make her a RINO.

carbon_footprint on April 13, 2010 at 6:20 PM

The fact that this happened Friday night and it is just coming to light now is kind of odd.

Cindy Munford on April 13, 2010 at 6:26 PM

Yet you admit you don’t read her blog nor do you like her.

I read enough of her blog and hear her on conservative talk radio and on Fox to know her positions.
Liking or not liking her is my prerogative.

When presented with evidence to the contrary you barrel down and keep swinging away with your position.
conservative pilgrim on April 13, 2010 at 6:18 PM

I have not endeavored to prove or disprove MM’s bona fides as a real conservative.
I will indeed “swing away with my position” because my personal choices are an exercise of my freedom, wisdom, discernment and personal taste.

She does want this story to NOT have political motivations.
An intelligent, inquiring mind would wonder why thatis, though.
Likewise, the story about James O’Keefe in Mary Landrieu’s office was skewed, also.
Curiously, both were set in New Orleans.

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 6:27 PM

It’s the French Quarter for crying out loud. It might not have been a fight at all, they might’ve just slipped on the vomit.

misterpeasea on April 13, 2010 at 6:29 PM

She does want this story to NOT have political motivations.
An intelligent, inquiring mind would wonder why thatis, though.

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 6:27 PM

Because an intelligent mind opposes politcal violence and prefers it to not happen.

exception on April 13, 2010 at 6:29 PM

An intelligent, inquiring mind would wonder why that is, though.

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 6:27 PM

This should be good. Please enlighten us.

misterpeasea on April 13, 2010 at 6:30 PM

She does want this story to NOT have political motivations.

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 6:27 PM

And how exactly do you know this?

Esthier on April 13, 2010 at 6:31 PM

but whether there was politics involved or whether it was an old-fashioned New Orleans brawl remains to be seen.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

darclon on April 13, 2010 at 6:32 PM

This should be good. Please enlighten us.

misterpeasea on April 13, 2010 at 6:30 PM

I’d rather hear your thoughts first.

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM

And how exactly do you know this?

Esthier on April 13, 2010 at 6:31 PM

Because she and AP told us so.
This post/thread definitely states that it wasn’t:”Obligatory.”

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 6:34 PM

I have not endeavored to prove or disprove MM’s bona fides as a real conservative.

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 6:27 PM

No, you just stated it as fact.

conservative pilgrim on April 13, 2010 at 6:44 PM

Because she and AP told us so.
This post/thread definitely states that it wasn’t:”Obligatory.”

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 6:34 PM

No, it states that we don’t know yet and don’t want to jump to conclusions.

Esthier on April 13, 2010 at 6:44 PM

No, it states that we don’t know yet and don’t want to jump to conclusions.

Esthier on April 13, 2010 at 6:44 PM

If you read The Hayride account, linked above, you’ll see that the reporter isn’t backing off his story that the couple were attacked by SRLC Leftist protestors who said “Get them. They have Palin buttons on.”

The Hayride is reporting the facts.
MM and HA are doing a lot more editorializing than they should, although I’ve noticed Ed has posted more of a disclaimer.
That being said, the thesis of HA’s original post was that this was a “non-story” that wasn’t politically motivated.

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 6:57 PM

No, you just stated it as fact.

conservative pilgrim on April 13, 2010 at 6:44 PM

One reads, hears and listens to MM’s views and makes their own judgment call.
YMMV depending on your own level of conservatism.
End of story.

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 7:00 PM

Like [David] Shyster would fly all the way down to New Orleans to cover some non-story.

Doughboy on April 13, 2010 at 4:27 PM

Tooooo-shaaay!

L.N. Smithee on April 13, 2010 at 7:16 PM

The Hayride is reporting the facts.
MM and HA are doing a lot more editorializing than they should, although I’ve noticed Ed has posted more of a disclaimer.
That being said, the thesis of HA’s original post was that this was a “non-story” that wasn’t politically motivated.

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 6:57 PM

I have known and read Michelle Malkin for over a decade, back when her online home was Jewish World Review. Until this morning, I had never heard of “The Hayride.”

Whom should I trust more? Hmmm. Let me take a moment to ponder that ques —

Time’s up.

Malkin.

L.N. Smithee on April 13, 2010 at 7:24 PM

I absolutely hate being lectured to by people like Ed and AP like we’re a bunch of f’ing morons who have to be told what to think. Worry about your own opinions and we’ll worry about ours. You don’t need to give us excuses for why you are, or are not, covering a story. If you are covering it, give your opinion rather than tell us what our should be.

End of Rant

TheBigOldDog on April 13, 2010 at 7:28 PM

She does want this story to NOT have political motivations.
An intelligent, inquiring mind would wonder why thatis, though.
Likewise, the story about James O’Keefe in Mary Landrieu’s office was skewed, also.
Curiously, both were set in New Orleans.

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 6:27 PM

I’m not bound by the civility and decorum that has allowed you to escape more honest scrutiny.

Simply put, you’re an idiot. I imagine you literally standing atop a soapbox, reading from a book aloud, out loud, to an audience of stuffed-animals. The book from which you read is, of course, upside down.

The Race Card on April 13, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Simply put, you’re an idiot. I imagine you literally standing atop a soapbox, reading from a book aloud, out loud, to an audience of stuffed-animals. The book from which you read is, of course, upside down.

The Race Card on April 13, 2010 at 7:29 PM

I’m sorry–you came to this conclusion how?

The “idiot” standing on the soapbox is you.

I have politely explained my views with consideration on the subject, but I can see you chose not to notice.

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 7:47 PM

Until this morning, I had never heard of “The Hayride.”

L.N. Smithee on April 13, 2010 at 7:24 PM

Have you read The Hayride account?
He/she tries very hard to be objective about reporting the story.
MM, by her own loud admission, has an agenda.
As does AP.
The Hayride blogger is in New Orleans: that’s why they have more credibility on the subject of what actually happened more than MM in the present instance.
If The Hayride has no credibility, why did AP choose to link to their post?

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 7:50 PM

MM, by her own loud admission, has an agenda.
As does AP.

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 7:50 PM

And that agenda is … what, specifically?

L.N. Smithee on April 13, 2010 at 8:06 PM

And that agenda is … what, specifically?

L.N. Smithee on April 13, 2010 at 8:06 PM

Ask her.
Read her web site.
Listen to her on Fox News.

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 8:16 PM

I absolutely hate being lectured to by people like Ed and AP like we’re a bunch of f’ing morons who have to be told what to think.

TheBigOldDog on April 13, 2010 at 7:28 PM

Excuse me? Here’s Ed from the update:

We’ve all jumped to conclusions, and even blogged on that basis on occasion. Allahpundit’s correct in keeping an open mind as to motive in this case, too — but he’s waiting for the corroboration and the evidence, which is absolutely the right thing to do.

Neither AP nor Ed is lecturing you or telling you what to think. They are just being cautious while others are happy to take a flyer, hoping for a sensational but false narrative to help The Cause. The problem is that this only works for the left, who seem to have craftily collaborated in order to create the false narrative of Tea Partiers shouting slurs and spitting at Democrats.

Listen up: IF it can be proved that the couple were attacked because of their politics, you can shout about the lack of outrage then. If you do so prematurely, any future attacks will be discounted as publicity-grabbing nonsense, and give the left (who are skilled at projection) the opportunity to suggest this is our modus operandi, and not theirs. If you feel like you’re being lectured, maybe that’s just your better judgment emerging from your reflex to get fired up.

The truth sometimes arrives late, but it has no expiration date. You don’t have to rush it.

L.N. Smithee on April 13, 2010 at 8:22 PM


Ask her.
Read her web site.
Listen to her on Fox News.

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 8:16 PM

In other words, you have no idea. Just like I thought.

L.N. Smithee on April 13, 2010 at 8:23 PM

In other words, you have no idea. Just like I thought.

L.N. Smithee on April 13, 2010 at 8:23 PM

No, I have a very good idea.
I’m just not inclined to share it with you here or now, particularly because you’re trying to bait me.
Nor it is particularly interesting or helpful to do so.
MM’s not that fascinating to me.

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 8:47 PM

They are just being cautious while others are happy to take a flyer, hoping for a sensational but false narrative to help The Cause.

What is a “flyer”???
And “The Cause” is decent Americans not getting beaten up for their (conservative) political views, which I can get behind 100%.
Sorry that you cannot.

The problem is that this only works for the left, who seem to have craftily collaborated in order to create the false narrative of Tea Partiers shouting slurs and spitting at Democrats.
L.N. Smithee on April 13, 2010 at 8:22 PM

The flip side of that narrative is that they hide, obscure or suppress actual reports of their own people beating up and hurting Republicans, Conservatives and Tea Partiers.
This is where HA and MM with their “obligatory” meme come in.
They are helping to obscure the real details of this story from the beginning.

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 8:54 PM

Funny how since this story concerns conservative woman who was actually beaten & not a false claim of racism it is pushed to the bottom where nobody can see it… typical.

tetriskid on April 13, 2010 at 9:27 PM

If the two poor souls who were beaten up tells a story of a non political crime, are you guys commenting going to claim the Dems got to them? Good grief, get a grip.

fastestslug on April 13, 2010 at 10:43 PM

AP probably had a different take on this at his post at Kos or HP. Since we don’t know who he is, there’s really no way to know is there? It’s hard to take a man seriously when he demands to remain anonymous.

azkenreid on April 13, 2010 at 11:06 PM

AP probably had a different take on this at his post at Kos or HP. Since we don’t know who he is, there’s really no way to know is there? It’s hard to take a man seriously when he demands to remain anonymous.

azkenreid on April 13, 2010 at 11:06 PM

Yeah, I wish he would use a real name like “azkenreid”.

RINO in Name Only on April 14, 2010 at 4:43 AM

ap, big government has a post by Jim Hoft on this. Things may not be as random as they seem…?

ted c on April 14, 2010 at 5:49 AM

If you wander away from Bourbon Street, the neighborhoods get real bad real fast. If you’re a tourist considering New Orleans for a 3-day weekend or a week’s vacation, you’d be much safer spending your tourism dollars elsewhere.

olesparkie on April 14, 2010 at 7:26 AM

I’d like to “jump tot he conclusion” that they should have been carrying.

Free Indeed on April 14, 2010 at 8:44 AM

“Get them. They have Palin buttons on.”

Doesn’t sound like believable dialog to me. It sounds contrived, like the black caucus guy at the Tea Party protest who turned to his friend and said “this reminds me of another time.” Bad drama.

Sharke on April 14, 2010 at 9:55 AM

doofpundit is really does not know what he’s talking about.

whether it was an old-fashioned New Orleans brawl remains to be seen

I have been to NOLA hundreds of times, and the French quarter as well. What in the world is an “old-fashioned New Orleans brawl?”

Doofpundit continues to show he is just not very informed in addition to not being a very good political analyst.

I still cannot understand why michelle malkin continues to keep him on when plenty of the commenters on here(not me), would be up to the job of replacing him and doing far better.

TTheoLogan on April 14, 2010 at 11:12 AM

I’m sorry–you came to this conclusion how?

The “idiot” standing on the soapbox is you.

I have politely explained my views with consideration on the subject, but I can see you chose not to notice.

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 7:47 PM

You are certainly polite. That did not go unnoticed.

I’m a bit of a prick at times. You must have noticed.

The Race Card on April 14, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Yeah, I wish he would use a real name like “azkenreid”.

RINO in Name Only on April 14, 2010 at 4:43 AM

AZ Ken Reid

Now did yo momma name you Rino after anyone in particular?

Laura in Maryland on April 14, 2010 at 1:01 PM

No, I have a very good idea.
I’m just not inclined to share it with you here or now, particularly because you’re trying to bait me.
Nor it is particularly interesting or helpful to do so.
MM’s not that fascinating to me.

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 8:47 PM

Lame, lame, lame, Jen. You were the one throwing dubious schtuff into the mix, and declining to explain or clarify what you meant when saying Malkin has “an agenda” that is preventing her from portraying the events the way you think they should be.

I’m not trying to “bait” you, I simply asked you to explain yourself. Knowing Malkin like I do, I was pretty darn sure you would come up snake eyes when challenged. And you did.

L.N. Smithee on April 14, 2010 at 1:38 PM

What is a “flyer”???

Jenfidel on April 13, 2010 at 8:54 PM

Oh, brother. Click and learn.

L.N. Smithee on April 14, 2010 at 1:46 PM

Jenfidel is a fundamentlist nitwit. That’s all you really need to know when reading his/her posts.

dakine on April 14, 2010 at 2:47 PM

Jenfidel is a fundamentlist nitwit. That’s all you really need to know when reading his/her posts.

dakine on April 14, 2010 at 2:47 PM

And dakine is a little metrosexual hipster wannabe who is insecure about his own intelligence that he latches on to this childish, trendy christian bashing angle any chance he gets.

The guy actually watches the Academy awards, that is all you need to know about this bag of douche.

ClassicCon on April 14, 2010 at 3:54 PM

An idiot blogger here in Minnesota wrote that Michele Bachmann’s & Sarah Palin’s rhetoric might cause violence. Rather than letting him get away with the Democrats’ storyline, I chronicled just a few instances of Democrat violence, including the attacks on Allee Bautsch & her boyfriend, in this post. NO MORE do these thugs get to get away with this storyline. I’m asking bloggers everywhere to speak out whenever they have the opportunity.

A dishonest attack left unanswered is an attack that gains credibility. That’s unacceptable.

LFRGary on April 14, 2010 at 4:27 PM

Hate crime. No doubt just another expression of hate and intolerance.

It is almost certain the attackers were members of party of hate that historically favored slavery, forced relocation of native Americans, segregation, KKK, bigotry, Jim Crowe laws, the use of police dogs and Bull COnner bullying as well as murdering civil rights leaders.

It should come as no surprise that the same political party that institutionalized racial intimidation and discrimination and created a rhetorical climate that spawned church bombings and lynchings would engage in this sort of behavior.

R Square on April 14, 2010 at 8:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 2