ACLU obtains "Presidential Advance Manual" -- "rally squads" to drown out protesters

[BrainGlutton]

Story here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/06/29/BL2007062901157_5.html). (Scroll down to "Denver Three Watch.") Redacted version of manual here (http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/presidential_advance_manual.pdf) (pdf file; scroll down to pp. 32-35 -- or US 17 - US 20). In a way this, while raised in connection with an ongoing court case, is old news because the manual in question is from October 2002 -- but it raises the obvious question of what sort of "Advance Manual" they're using now.

Did any previous administration do this sort of thing? (Not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious.)

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

What the fresh hell are you going on about/

Summarize, man! :rolleyes:

[Sofaspud]

Wait -- are you pitting Bush, the people suing, the ACLU, or all three?

'cause I could get on board, maybe, depending.

[BrainGlutton]

Wait -- are you pitting Bush, the people suing, the ACLU, or all three?

'cause I could get on board, maybe, depending.

I'm Pitting whoever wrote the Presidential Advance Manual and whoever applied its tactics in the field.

[BrainGlutton]

Wait -- are you pitting Bush, the people suing, the ACLU, or all three?

'cause I could get on board, maybe, depending.

I'm Pitting whoever wrote the Presidential Advance Manual and whoever applied its tactics in the field.

Context is the blurb from the WaPo story linked in the OP:

Denver Three Watch

Ann Imse writes in the Rocky Mountain News: "Two people ejected from a Bush speech in Denver over a bumper sticker have filed a second lawsuit, claiming a White House manual unlawfully bars potential critics of the president from public events.

"The Presidential Advance Manual calls for Bush volunteers to distribute tickets in a manner to deter protesters and to stop demonstrators from entering. It also calls for 'rally squads' to drown out demonstrators and get between them and news cameras. The manual was obtained through a deposition in a West Virginia case."

The ACLU has Web-published a heavily redacted but nevertheless fascinating copy of that official White House Presidential Advance Manual.

We've always known they pull this shit, but this proves it's a matter of express (though not published) policy.

[silenus]

This is unlawful, immoral or wrong how?

[John Mace]

I'm unclear how this event was "taxpayer financed". And if tickets are required, how is it a "public event"? I don't necessarily agree with this policy, but it's unclear that they have a legal case.

[elucidator]

They had tickets, and a person of undefined provinence forcibly removed them due to a "No Blood for Oil" bumpersticker.

story here
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR2005062101583.html

[BrainGlutton]

This is unlawful, immoral or wrong how?

Assuming you meant that seriously (hard as that is to believe): For one thing, it's fundamentally dishonest, in the same sense that an astroturf organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing) is dishonest. These "rally squads" were to be deployed to give the false impression that grassroots support for the president was just as loud and just as widespread as opposition to him; the careful distribution of event tickets to Bush supporters was, likewise, designed to falsely inflate his popularity and suppress even the appearance of dissent. For another thing, it's bad in a civic sense, just as the sequestered "Free Speech Zones" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zones) are bad, and I hope you don't need anyone to explain why.

[Captain Amazing]

Assuming you meant that seriously (hard as that is to believe): For one thing, it's fundamentally dishonest, in the same sense that an astroturf organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing) is dishonest. These "rally squads" were to be deployed to give the false impression that grassroots support for the president was just as loud and just as widespread as opposition to him; the careful distribution of event tickets to Bush supporters was, likewise, designed to falsely inflate his popularity and suppress even the appearance of dissent. For another thing, it's bad in a civic sense, just as the sequestered "Free Speech Zones" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zones) are bad, and I hope you don't need anyone to explain why.
Well, yeah, but doesn't it make sense that the President would want to give the impression that he's popular and supress the appearance of dissent? It would be really stupid PR for Bush (or anybody for that matter) not to do stuff like that. There's no point in having a rally to make you look strong if you let the opposition disrupt it and make you look weak. You'd be better off just not doing it at all, then.

[BrainGlutton]

Well, yeah, but doesn't it make sense that the President would want to give the impression that he's popular and supress the appearance of dissent?

Of course it makes sense. There are a lot of things that make sense for a president to do which, for other reasons, a president very definitely should not do. This is one of them.

[John Mace]

So you're saying Bush shouldn't do what makes sense? I think he's been a very good president by that standard.

[BrainGlutton]

So you're saying Bush shouldn't do what makes sense?

[*sigh*] I'm saying he shouldn't do (nor should people acting on his behalf do) dishonest and/or dissent-suppressive things to make himself look better. Of course, he wouldn't be the first, which is why I posed the question in the OP: Have previous administrations stage-managed the president's public appearances to this egregious a degree? (I wouldn't be surprised if some have, but nor would I be surprised if the Bushies are breaking new ground here.)

[Captain Amazing]

But you haven't given any reasons that the President shouldn't do it, other than that it's "dishonest" and "bad in a civic sense". This is advertising; it's PR, and the goal is to look as good as you possibly can. So, I'm asking you, why shouldn't the President do it?

[Starving Artist]

Of course it makes sense. There are a lot of things that make sense for a president to do which, for other reasons, a president very definitely should not do. This is one of them.Why? The miscreants are organized and they plan in advance how to try to make the President look bad, why is it bad for the President to have advance plans to counter them? You haven't explained why the one is good and the other is bad.

[elucidator]

Geez, you rag on him when he does things that don't make sense, then rag on him when he does things that do make sense. Poor guy can't get a break!

[elucidator]

Why? The miscreants are organized and they plan in advance how to try to make the President look bad, why is it bad for the President to have advance plans to counter them? You haven't explained why the one is good and the other is bad.
Miscreants? Excuse me? And about these "plans", where do you get that? The article I cited speaks only of a bumper sticker on their car, have you some more extensive information, or did you just pull this out of your Nixon?

[AskNott]

If this had only happened at GOP party functions, it would be legal, though somewhat unethical. However, the screening out of non-Publicans and the forcible moving of protesters to "free-speech zones" out of camera range happened at "public appearances", too. Remember all those "town meetings" to promote Mr. Bush's plans? They were scripted, and no dissenters were let in. When these events were shown on the news, reporters did not tell the viewers that the "town meetings" were no such thing.

[athelas]

Right. Anti-Bush rallies just spring out of nowhere, once a single basher throws dragon teeth on soil. No organization whatsoever.

[Harborwolf]

But you haven't given any reasons that the President shouldn't do it, other than that it's "dishonest" and "bad in a civic sense". This is advertising; it's PR, and the goal is to look as good as you possibly can. So, I'm asking you, why shouldn't the President do it?Personally, I'd rather the president had other things on his mind when seeing protesters than "Hey. Those people are making me look bad. Get me some people to make me look good." Plus it seems a bit too ministry of propaganda to me.

[Starving Artist]

Miscreants? Excuse me? ;)

[elucidator]

Cute.

[Voyager]

Right. Anti-Bush rallies just spring out of nowhere, once a single basher throws dragon teeth on soil. No organization whatsoever.
Right. Two people with bumper stickers is an organized mob. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

In any case, you do realize the difference between a counter-demonstration which stands around showing support for the President, and one specifically organized to drown out protest, don't you?

[elucidator]

Of course it was "planned", the sticker was already on the car! Obviously, they'd been planing this move to demoralize our troops for some time!

[Captain Amazing]

Personally, I'd rather the president had other things on his mind when seeing protesters than "Hey. Those people are making me look bad. Get me some people to make me look good." Plus it seems a bit too ministry of propaganda to me.
You can't run a government without propaganda. Unfortunately for Bush, his people just aren't very good at it.

[elucidator]

You can fool some of the people all of the time. Roughly, 30%.

[Kimstu]

Have previous administrations stage-managed the president's public appearances to this egregious a degree?

Well, having an Advance Operations Manual of some sort is clearly nothing new: there's one listed among the Reagan library holdings (http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/findaid/advance.htm), for example. I don't know what's in it, though, nor whether or how it differs from the Bush team's version.

[BrainGlutton]

You can't run a government without propaganda.

Of course you can.

[BrainGlutton]

But you haven't given any reasons that the President shouldn't do it, other than that it's "dishonest" and "bad in a civic sense".

Those should be sufficient.

This is advertising; it's PR, and the goal is to look as good as you possibly can.

That has its legitimate place -- which is on the campaign trail and nowhere else; and never at government expense.

[Squink]

story here
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR2005062101583.html
Yeah, these are the people who got tossed out by a guy impersonating a secret service agent. Did the GOP's fake agent do any time in the slammer?

[John Mace]

Personally, I'd rather the president had other things on his mind when seeing protesters than "Hey. Those people are making me look bad. Get me some people to make me look good." Plus it seems a bit too ministry of propaganda to me.
Not to worry. Bush has people to keep that stuff on their minds so he doesn't have to.

[Voyager]

Well, having an Advance Operations Manual of some sort is clearly nothing new: there's one listed among the Reagan library holdings (http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/findaid/advance.htm), for example. I don't know what's in it, though, nor whether or how it differs from the Bush team's version.
Every President has one of these, I'm sure. You can't just wander into a location without preparation. I'm willing to bet Reagan's doesn't have anything about organizing demonstrations to drown out the opposition, though.

[BrainGlutton]

Not to worry. Bush has people to keep that stuff on their minds so he doesn't have to.

And the buck stops where?

[John Mace]

And the buck stops where?
At a lower level, of course. We are too busy to deal with bucks.

[Harborwolf]

You can't run a government without propaganda. Unfortunately for Bush, his people just aren't very good at it.Well aware of that. It's the amount of energy they seem to be employing in it that bothers me.

[elucidator]

And the buck stops where?
He has people for that.

[Harborwolf]

Not to worry. Bush has people to keep that stuff on their minds so he doesn't have to.With the amount of people he has keeping their minds on things so he doesn't have to, one wonders what exactly he has on his mind.

[John Mace]

He has people for that.
Heh. Those people have people for that.

[Harborwolf]

Heh. Those people have people for that.I have a feeling that this particular chain of "people having people" ends in a single very tired wage slave.

[elucidator]

The Under Assistant West Coast Promo Man

[Harborwolf]

The Under Assistant West Coast Promo ManHe could burn the whole government down. (http://www.foryourinfotech.com/Blog/milton.jpg)

[Cervaise]

And the buck stops where?I understand they're currently recruiting a Buck Czar.

[Kimstu]

I dunno. I don't mind so much that the Administration tries to script and stage the President's "public" events to the furthest extent possible, as much as I mind the media letting them get away with it.

When the White House hands out a "fake newscast" press release with a "fake reporter" telling the story, if a news channel broadcasts that, I want them clearly announcing "Here's a press release from the White House on that story". When the President holds a scripted "town hall" PR event, I want the media that report on it pointing out that the Q&A was staged. When the President holds a rally where demonstrators are shunted off to a distant site, I want the newscast to show some footage of the demonstrators, along with an acknowledgement that the rally organizers prevented them from assembling within camera-shot of the rally.

The President is allowed to try to hide from his detractors in public if he wants to, as far as I'm concerned. But I want the media to be alert enough to let us know what he's up to, so we can keep that in mind while judging the persuasiveness of his PR.


I'm willing to bet Reagan's doesn't have anything about organizing demonstrations to drown out the opposition, though.

If it did, his Office of Presidential Advance handlers must have been one incompetent bunch of screwups. Because IIRC (and news reports seem to bear me out), Reagan got heckled quite a bit in his speeches by people who disagreed with him.

E.g., in early 1984: (http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/ENT/502270315)

Hecklers broke into speeches by President Ronald Reagan, although it rarely threw him off his game.

In early 1984, the president was interrupted by a heckler, according to a transcript of the speech. "Don't tell me one of the eight is here?" Reagan quipped, referring to his eight Democratic challengers.

And in late 1984: (http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1984/102384b.htm)

The President: We got out from under the thrall of a government which we had hoped would make our lives better, but which wound up living our lives for us. The power of the Federal Government had, over the decades, created great chaos -- economic chaos, social chaos, international chaos.

[At this point, the President was interrupted by hecklers in the audience.] [...]

My generation, and a few generations between mine and yours -- [laughter] -- we grew up in an America where we took it for granted that, yes, you could dream, and there was nothing to keep you from making your dreams come true except you and your own ability -- --

[Audience member. [Inaudible] -- war!]

At the 1982 Bundestag speech (http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/ga5-820609.htm) (does it count if it's not on US soil?):

The President: We're menaced by a power that openly condemns our values and answers our restraint with a relentless military buildup.

[At this point, two members of the audience began heckling the President. The heckling continued intermittently during this part of the President's address.]

In another 1984 speech: (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/b/baptist_churches/index.html?query=ELECTION%20ISSUES&field=des&match=exact)

HECKLERS INTERRUPT REAGAN SPEECH AT GATHERING OF FUNDAMENTALISTS

President Reagan, addressing 10,000 fundamentalist Christians, was suddenly heckled tonight by a score of people shouting, ''Bread, not bombs!'' The outburst occurred as Mr. Reagan spoke to delegates to the Baptist Fundamentalism '84 Convention at the D.C. Convention Center.

Reagan's own reminiscences of his re-election campaign (http://www.ronaldreagan.com/reelect.html):

Although there were always a few hecklers on the campuses I visited, they were usually outnumbered by students enthusiastically cheering the policies of the previous four years [...]

I was never a Reagan fan, but I have to say for him that, canny old showbiz hack as he was, I don't really think he would have stooped to using his presidential power to create pseudo-public appearances where anybody who might venture to disagree with him would be shuffled off out of media eye- and ear-shot.

[Evil Captor]

Yeah, these are the people who got tossed out by a guy impersonating a secret service agent. Did the GOP's fake agent do any time in the slammer?

IOKIYAR.

"It" under the New and Improved Republican Party now includes torture and treason, impersonating an FBI agent is small potatoes.

[jayjay]

With the amount of people he has keeping their minds on things so he doesn't have to, one wonders what exactly he has on his mind.

Well, it is a limited-capacity venue...

[Zoe]

athelas: Right. Anti-Bush rallies just spring out of nowhere, once a single basher throws dragon teeth on soil. No organization whatsoever.

Of course anti-Bush rallies are organized. The question is do they bar pro-Bush people from these rallies?

Also, do any of Bush's opponents bar pro-Bush people from their rallies?

Brain Glutton: That has its legitimate place -- which is on the campaign trail and nowhere else; and never at government expense.

I don't accept barring anyone from a political rally in this country even on the campaign trail. Let them have their say, but don't let them rob you are your right to hear and be heard.

Even Nazis have the right to organize demonstrations in Jewish neighborhoods in the USA. Are you going to tell me that pro-Constitution supporters can't show up at a Bush-Cheney rally?

[if6was9]

Well, yeah, but doesn't it make sense that the President would want to give the impression that he's popular and supress the appearance of dissent? It would be really stupid PR for Bush (or anybody for that matter) not to do stuff like that. There's no point in having a rally to make you look strong if you let the opposition disrupt it and make you look weak. You'd be better off just not doing it at all, then.
If Bush wasn't such a fumblemouth, he could handle it like this Clinton YouTube video. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=JGTQZnC-6a4)

[if6was9]

I don't agree with the man, but this Romney YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGct7N86mrY) shows another quick-thinking politician with balls.

But Bush needs "rally squads" and manuals so it looks like he has support. Pathetic. Clinton and Romney gained support because they took on dissention themselves.

[BrainGlutton]

With the amount of people he has keeping their minds on things so he doesn't have to, one wonders what exactly he has on his mind.

Considering the situation he's in, I would guess, beer.

[Evil Captor]

There used to be a guy who had the same ideas as the Bush Advance Manual authors. In fact, he was so good at it that he would create entire fake communities full of fake goodwill for his political leader. His name was Potemkin, the leader was Stalin and he was the creator of Potemkin villages. I gather that all the Bush defenders who can't see anything wrong with these tactics are down with Potemkin and Stalin, too. (Come to think of it, the Soviets also suborned a New York Times writer (Walter Duranty) to help them with their happy news facade while they starved 20 million people in the Ukraine to death. Think of him as an early Judith Miller. Like Miller, he would eventually be exposed for the news ho that he was, but not until after he had done his damage to America.)

(Thinking about it, the neocon leaders who started this whole mess are supposed to be ex-Trotskyites. Could it be that our conservative friends are adoping the public relations tools and techniques of the Commies without adopting their ideology as well? Would it be fair to call them the New Commies, dedicated to destroying America from within by utterly corrupting democracy, just as the old style Commies were reputed to be attempting back in the 50s?)

[elucidator]

[pedantic sniff] Potemkin worked for Catherine the Great. [/ps]

[lexan]

[pedantic sniff] Potemkin worked for Catherine the Great. [/ps]

And the story about him erecting phony villages is a myth.

[Evil Captor]

And the story about him erecting phony villages is a myth.

Correct, mostly, though it's generally conceded that Potemkin did some sprucing up to make the territory he conquered look more valuable thatn it was -- but he never bult fake villages.

That said, the impulse to create fake news about happy people is a widespread one, most often used by authoritarian regimes with something to hide, as this article about Potemkin villages demonstrates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_village). And my main point still holds: the people who think Bush's fake townhall meetings and so forth are acceptable stratagems should be forced to answer the question: how far are you willing to back this kind of behavior? Where do you cross the line between simple political savvy and fascist authoritarianism?

[mswas]

I'm unclear how this event was "taxpayer financed". And if tickets are required, how is it a "public event"? I don't necessarily agree with this policy, but it's unclear that they have a legal case.

He's saying that Bush shouldn't act unethically just because it's in his power and self-interest to do so. You'd probably agree with him completely if he were talking about the guy that didn't wear the same regalia as you.

[mswas]

But you haven't given any reasons that the President shouldn't do it, other than that it's "dishonest" and "bad in a civic sense". This is advertising; it's PR, and the goal is to look as good as you possibly can. So, I'm asking you, why shouldn't the President do it?

Because it's focusing on image more than substance? Perhaps trying to be popular by I don't know, serving the people to the best of your ability? Is that not preferable to manipulating the way you appear on television?

[mswas]

You can't run a government without propaganda. Unfortunately for Bush, his people just aren't very good at it.

Ha, I'd argue the opposite. I'd say they are masters of it.

[mswas]

I have a feeling that this particular chain of "people having people" ends in a single very tired wage slave.

Prescott Bush is being kept alive in a sort of 'Bacta' tankish setup at Langley watching multiple feeds 24/7.

[if6was9]

There used to be a guy who had the same ideas as the Bush Advance Manual authors. In fact, he was so good at it that he would create entire fake communities full of fake goodwill for his political leader. His name was Potemkin, the leader was Stalin and he was the creator of Potemkin villages. I gather that all the Bush defenders who can't see anything wrong with these tactics are down with Potemkin and Stalin, too. (Come to think of it, the Soviets also suborned a New York Times writer (Walter Duranty) to help them with their happy news facade while they starved 20 million people in the Ukraine to death. Think of him as an early Judith Miller. Like Miller, he would eventually be exposed for the news ho that he was, but not until after he had done his damage to America.)

(Thinking about it, the neocon leaders who started this whole mess are supposed to be ex-Trotskyites. Could it be that our conservative friends are adoping the public relations tools and techniques of the Commies without adopting their ideology as well? Would it be fair to call them the New Commies, dedicated to destroying America from within by utterly corrupting democracy, just as the old style Commies were reputed to be attempting back in the 50s?)

NeoCOMMS... as it were...

[Terrifel]

Correct, mostly, though it's generally conceded that Potemkin did some sprucing up to make the territory he conquered look more valuable thatn it was -- but he never bult fake villages.

That said, the impulse to create fake news about happy people is a widespread one, most often used by authoritarian regimes with something to hide, as this article about Potemkin villages demonstrates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_village). If the term "Potemkin village" is historically inaccurate, then someone should coin a new phrase to embody such an important concept.

Since the current thread mentions "rally squads" and other such bogus grassroots organizations, I therefore nominate the phrase "Bush league."

[Captain Amazing]

Ha, I'd argue the opposite. I'd say they are masters of it.

If they were that good at it, he'd have more than a 30% approval rating, his party would have control of Congress, and he'd be able to pass items on his legislative agenda.

It's stupid to blame Bush for this. He's a politician, so of course he's going to thy to stage manage events to make himself look good. It's what politicians do. If you're going to blame anybody, blame the members of the press who let him get away with it.

[John Mace]

He's saying that Bush shouldn't act unethically just because it's in his power and self-interest to do so. You'd probably agree with him completely if he were talking about the guy that didn't wear the same regalia as you.
What regalia do I wear?

[Merijeek]

He's saying that Bush shouldn't act unethically just because it's in his power and self-interest to do so. You'd probably agree with him completely if he were talking about the guy that didn't wear the same regalia as you.

Bah! John is an independent. As is xtisme. And Weirddave.

What? STOP LAUGHING! :confused:

-Joe

[Steve MB]

I'm unclear how this event was "taxpayer financed".
OK, so your default assumption is that Bush walked there without Secret Service guards. We disagree on that.

[Steve MB]

Well, yeah, but doesn't it make sense that the President would want to give the impression that he's popular and supress the appearance of dissent?
It makes sense that I would want to be able to take money out of ATMs without debiting my bank account, but that doesn't mean I get to do it.

[BrainGlutton]

If they were that good at it, he'd have more than a 30% approval rating, his party would have control of Congress, and he'd be able to pass items on his legislative agenda.

Well, not necessarily.

The best PR skills in the world won't save a president's approval rating if what he's actually doing does not produce good results.

[OneCentStamp]

His name was Potemkin, the leader was Stalin and he was the creator of Potemkin villages.

:confused: :dubious:

On preview, I see this has been addressed. I'll just clip everything except for the smileys.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I don't agree with the man, but this Romney YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGct7N86mrY) shows another quick-thinking politician with balls.

But Bush needs "rally squads" and manuals so it looks like he has support. Pathetic. Clinton and Romney gained support because they took on dissention themselves.
Bush Sr. did that too. During the '92 election there was some guy from the Clinton camp going around to Bush rallies, heckling the president dressed like a chicken. The phrase "Chicken George" played into his schtick somehow. I think he had it on a sign or something. Nowadays, of course, that chicken would never get through the gate and would probably be trucked off to a secret prison and killed, but instead of having security tackle the chicken and break his legs, Poppy Bush enegaged him from the podium, joked with him, traded jabs, took the piss out of him. His then campaign manager, Mary Matalin, said that she begged him to stop talking to the chicken but he kept doing it anyway, telling his handlers, "I love that chicken."

It was one of the many things I really liked about GHWB even though I voted against him. He wasn't a coward and he wasn't an idiot.

[mswas]

If they were that good at it, he'd have more than a 30% approval rating, his party would have control of Congress, and he'd be able to pass items on his legislative agenda.

I think they went too far with it, but for a while there they had a great run of people defending them no matter what they did. They overplayed their hand.

It's stupid to blame Bush for this. He's a politician, so of course he's going to thy to stage manage events to make himself look good. It's what politicians do. If you're going to blame anybody, blame the members of the press who let him get away with it.

Heh, well they played the press, just like this thread is about.

One of their greatest triumphs, convincing people that Bush is an idiot. I never thought he was an idiot.

Also, I think that the job he has done was designed to weaken the country in relation to corporate control. People say he was a failed CEO, he was actually a marvelously successful CEO. The reason people think he failed is because they are under the misapprehension that his corporations were designed to succeed. They weren't they were designed to fail, they were tax shelters.

[BrainGlutton]

During the '92 election there was some guy from the Clinton camp going around to Bush rallies, heckling the president dressed like a chicken.

I saw that happen -- but it was a Pub dressed as a chicken heckling a Clinton rally. He was playing off the whole "draft-dodger" meme.

[Shodan]

I saw that happen -- but it was a Pub dressed as a chicken heckling a Clinton rally. He was playing off the whole "draft-dodger" meme.
Well, in that case it is completely unjustifiable.

Regards,
Shodan

[jayjay]

I saw that happen -- but it was a Pub dressed as a chicken heckling a Clinton rally. He was playing off the whole "draft-dodger" meme.

Actually, there was a chicken suit following GHW Bush around in 92, because of his apparent intense fear of presidential debates. The Clinton camp had to pressure the Bush camp for months to get them to even sit down and start negotiating for a debate schedule and format. I don't think it was the same guy or the same chicken suit at every one of Bush's appearances, but it happened. Of course, in typical Poppy fashion, Bush actually made the chicken guy into a phenomenon himself, by talking to him every time.

[Shodan]

Well, that's OK, then.

Regards,
Shodan

[saoirse]

Actually, there was a chicken suit following GHW Bush around in 92, because of his apparent intense fear of presidential debates. The Clinton camp had to pressure the Bush camp for months to get them to even sit down and start negotiating for a debate schedule and format. I don't think it was the same guy or the same chicken suit at every one of Bush's appearances, but it happened. Of course, in typical Poppy fashion, Bush actually made the chicken guy into a phenomenon himself, by talking to him every time.

It really is too bad that no one ever got those two to fight.

[Zebra]

Once, Ronald Reagan stopped in OKC for a rally. At the time his catch phrase was "America, go for it."

When he came to the point in his speach, the person at the applause sign, yes, there was an applause sign, missed their cue. So he redid the line, the sign went on, and the crowd cheered.

Guess what aired on the news that night?