Unless they support terror, which these people obviously did.
There’s a difference between not inviting somebody into your home, and demanding that they clear the streets because you don’t want to look at their signs. I hope that even a dyed in the wool republican can understand the distinction involved.
I think that Bush would be the type that would forcibly move Barbara Frietchie from her own home if she were to sport an anti-Bush sign as his motorcade was moving on her street.
John - I think it’s less nuanced than you’d like to make it.
If Bush wants to pose with some supporters, with or without signs, that’s fine. Nobody’s saying otherwise.
If Bush and the Secret Service are willing to put up with a crowd waving pro-Bush signs, including total strangers that have never been checked out by the SS a mere 100 yards away from the podium, then those waving anti-Bush signs get to be 100 yards away from the podium, too.
If the pro-Bush and anti-Bush sign-wavers are on right and left sides of the podium, respectively, and Bush decides to wander over toward the right side of the stage, that’s fine too.
But to allow pro-Bush sign-wavers to merely be part of the crowd in a public speech on public property, but to forbid anti-Bush sign-wavers to be there as well, would seem to be a violation of free speech.
John Mace, I know you love President Bush and want to have a million of his babies, but couldn’t you admit, just this one time, that this is bullshit?
I’m looking for the “Reagan Sucks” placard but I guess it got lost in the shuffle.
.jpg){kind=link}
“Security considerations” my butt.
But you’ve got no problem with forbidding protesters from being near the cameras? Give it up.
Actually, I think you hit the nuances quite well, except for #2. I would say it also depends on how big the respective crowds were and whether or not the secret service knew something particular about the crowds (you are, I think, making an asumption that this isn’t so). Otherwise I pretty much agree with your post.
Taken out of context. My post was in response to 'Luci stating that presidential photo ops with pro-Bush supporters must be prevented.
What? A President manipulating a photo op? This is an outrage! No President (all of them), in my life time (the history of the United states) has manipulated (Bent photographers over and asked them to kiss his ass) the media. Nixon and his dog juggling act, Carter and his attacking rabbit, Clinton and his shoreline dancing lesson, Bush chopping wood. Fortunately, the more staged it is, the dumber it looks.
It is most certainly a security issue and yes the president can assemble any crowd he so chooses to stand in front of (if that is what he wants to do). The reverse is to let every nut intent on disturbing an assembly run amok. I don’t think the DMC would want a bunch of radical republicans screaming and shouting in front of a camera at their convention. The right to free speech does not translate to mean someone has the right to be heard. That would mean someone MUST listen to them.
Did I say that? Gee, I don’t think I said that. Let me check. No, definitely not. Sorry if I confused you, John, but no, swing and a miss, strike one.
Ol’ Dio got it right. Being raised by wolves, and all, he understands. Refer to him for translations in the future. If you give a shit, that is.
You expect people to *mime]/i] thier political opinions.?
(Actually, in GeeDubya’s case, that would be surprisingly easy!)
You expect people to mime thier political opinions.?
(Actually, in GeeDubya’s case, that would be surprisingly easy!)
I think what is confusing people is the illusion of public access to the president. It doesn’t exist. If you are within visual range of the President you are there at his discretion.
The DNC convention building is private property, therefore they can invite or uninvite anyone of their choosing within that property.
However, a public sidewalk is public property. The government has to give equal treatment to those wishing to express their viewpoints. They can’t give the people expressing a favored viewpoints a “good” place to protest, and the people expressing the unfavored viewpoint a shitty place to protest.
What if Bush decided he didn’t want to see black people, and ordered the Secret Service to remove them from public sight wherever he goes? Does he have an unlimited amount of power to move people from public areas?
No, a public sidewalk is not public property when the President is standing on it because it is a security issue. You may not like it but that’s life. I don’t like it because of the total CF it creates with traffic. A visiting President will shut down every bridge on his route.
[bolding mine]
FOR SECURITY REASONS. Expressing a view contrary to Dubya, in and of itself, is not a security breach.
Face it. Bush is a pussy. He wouldn’t go to NYC for the 2nd anniversary of 9-11 because he knew he would be booed. He orders the Secret Service to remove all protesters from his sight. In the weeks following his reckless invasion of Iraq, he only appeared at military bases, where the soldiers couldn’t freely express their opinions towards him. He gives an exclusive interview to Brit Hume of Faux News, so you know that he will be getting nothing but softball questions. He only gives news conferences if Tony Blair is at his side to answer the tough questions. Need I go on?
So I guess what we can learn from this is, if one is a terrorist looking to get close to President Bush to commit some nastiness, all one has to do is carry a pro-Bush sign.
Yeah, “security” sure is what’s at stake here. :rolleyes:
First, I doubt the President stands around looking over a list but if we’re playing the “what if” game I’m willing to give the wheel a spin. What if a President wanted photo ops with ONLY black people in it (that’s never happened:) ). Your analogy based on race does not apply to security concerns and any president who suggested such a tactic to the Secret Service would look pretty stupid.
The problem with the topic is that it applies to all Presidents but in this case it is being directed at Bush as if it is something new.