Story here. (Scroll down to “Denver Three Watch.”) Redacted version of manual here (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.)
What the fresh hell are you going on about/
Summarize, man! :rolleyes:
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.
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:
We’ve always known they pull this shit, but this proves it’s a matter of express (though not published) policy.
This is unlawful, immoral or wrong how?
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.
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
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 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” 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.
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.
So you’re saying Bush shouldn’t do what makes sense? I think he’s been a very good president by that standard.
[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.)
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?
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.
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!
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?
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.
Right. Anti-Bush rallies just spring out of nowhere, once a single basher throws dragon teeth on soil. No organization whatsoever.
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.