Sam, I may well be splitting hairs semantically speaking, but I think if you’re honest, you’ll argue that these two statements are a wee bit contradictory.
(Boldening mine).
with
Boldening mine).
Seems now you’re saying that she participates in *lawful protest * and *civil * *disobedience * and hangs out with world leaders that are disliked in conservative circles-not a strong indication, at least in my book, that she’s going to stand up at the State of the Union and holler “Bush is a lying wiener whose mother dresses him funny” or Down with the imperialist running dogs" or " My son volunteered to serve his country, was sent to fight in a war we cannot win, for reasons that have all proven false, and he died. For what Noble Cause did he die, Mr. President".
This is a formal event. It’s traditionally bipartisan. It’s televised around the world. It costs hundreds of millions of dollars for the networks to show it. I think having a certain amount of control over who gets in, what they wear, and how they behave is certainly reasonable.
The thing is, if it becomes de rigeur for politicians to use the occasion to bring in partisan firebrands to stir up shit, then the end result will be something like a bipartisan guest-approval panel and a vetting process, which will waste everyone’s time and turn into another excuse for politicians to attack each other.
Sometimes restraint and respect for institutions is worthwhile. Sheehan shouldn’t have been there. Take her to the next Democratic convention, fine. Keep her out of a formal state affair.
And I would say the saame thing if someone invited some right-wing nutbar who couldn’t be guaranteed to not cause a scene.
Just about every observation you make is rooted in your own fantasy.
There was no ban on her presence, and it has been made abundantly clear by the Capitol secutiry folks that they fucked up in asking her to leave. When will you actually get this through your skull and stop parading her t-shirt as a valid reason for denying her entry?
And what about how they “behave”? Even according to the people who kicked her out, there was nothing objectionable at all about her behavior.
Again, by “stir up shit” you apparently mean “sit there and listen to the speech,” because the only suggestion that she intended to do anything else comes from the fevered imagination of conservative hacks like you.
Why?
Is it within the rules for members of Congress to bring guests? Apparently yes, or they wouldn’t do it.
Is there a specific prohibition on inviting people known for their political activities? Apparently no, as this would disqualify the members of Congress themselves, and because no-one except delusional fanatics like you have ever even suggested otherwise.
Well, as this is about the tenth time you’ve used this argument, and because nothing else you are saying holds any water, we can safely conclude that the only argument you have is that she should have been excluded because she had the potential to disrupt proceedings. And we’re supposed to believe you about this despite the fact that she explicitly states the direct opposite, and despite the fact that, no matter how much she might want to embarrass the President, it would make sense that she doesn’t want to embarrass the people who invited her to attend.
Yours has to be one of the puniest and most ridiculous arguments in the history of these boards, and that’s quite an accomplishment.
It is, and yet she wasn’t stopped at the door and told her dress wasn’t appropriate. That would’ve been the time to do it, no? However, she wasn’t removed because she was wearing a tshirt. She was removed because of the message on the tshirt. Which has been pointed out.
I agree with your first paragraph. As for the rest, it seems kicking Sheehan out has caused more of a stir than just letting her sit there quietly would have done. And it’s not for anyone to say what she WOULD have done. You don’t know that and there’s no way to prove it. As for being bipartisan: pfah. The president shaking his finger at a bunch of congressmen acting like high school kids is hardly what i’d call “dignified and bipartisan.” The entire damn speech was full of disruptions from people you say had a legitimate reason to be there.
She wasn’t just booted out, she was handcuffed and arrested when she had committed no crime, had been told nothing about a dress code and was given no opprtunity to cover the T-shirt.
Someone did. Her name was Beverly Young and she did cause a scene. She didn’t get arrested, though.
But the rules have to be defined ahead of time, or it’s just “the rules are whatever the king says they are,” in which case we’re no longer a nation of laws, not men.
People would have lost their jobs only because the Bushistas get so upset when the bubble around The Leader is breached. So screw that nonsense.
And who would have looked bad if Sheehan had done something wild in the middle of the SOTU? The headlines across the U.S. would have been filled with outrage at her and those associated with her.
Sorry, that’s no reason to pre-empt.
You know, people get to carry guns around in this country. At any time, any one of them could, like, kill a bunch of people, just on a whim. If we can put up with that risk, we can put up with the risk of rude protest.
Unless spoiling The Leader’s party is judged a worse offense than actually killing people. And quite frankly, I’m starting to see more and more of that sick Star Wars attitude.
This is really scary and pitiful, that Cindy Sheehan was treated that way during the SOU.
Here’s a link to an interview last Friday with Sheehan on The Stephanie Miller Show, slanted toward progressive Democrat stance, but it really bears listening to. http://www.stephaniemiller.com/bits/2006_0202_cs.mp3
Sheehan does not sound radical or crazy here, pretty much like a regular person, and explains what happened at the event.
Ya know, if Bush really wanted to make a good point, he would have acknowledged Sheehan, and said via astute speechwriter, that , in a free country, everyone has a right to their opinions, and to speak their piece. Then, go on with his agenda…
Instead, my alarm bells are now way raised about the way Sheehan was treated. If there is a specific dress code during the SOU, it should be in writing on the ticket purchased as point of contract, or posted at the point of entry.
In any case, a decent course of law enforcement would be that an Offender would be simply asked to leave. If they did not, then other measures would be taken. Sounds like Sheehan was not given the benefit of the doubt. I was really amazed that in the previous interview link, she wasn’t angry and stringent about it, she really sounds like a gentle person. That really speaks strongly where she’s coming from, to my mind. She has her cause, wears her T-shirts for that every day, and soldiers on. She did not deserve the treatment at the SOU.
I’ve got to agree with you on this one, Sam. Many times I have wished that you would spend more time on Canadian politics and less on that of the US. However in your original post here I saw you as merely advancing a possible reason why the cops rushed into an ill-considered action just because they were dealing with, gasp, Cindy Sheehan.
You’re right. And if you look at my post #308, you’ll see that i conceded that Sam’s explanation of why the securtity people did what they did was “pretty sound” reasoning.
But offering it as a possible explanation is one thing; offering it as justification is quite another. And that’s what he did in post #322, and what he has done in a number of other posts in this thread.
Look, I’m just trying to explain what motivated the people to do what they did. And to state that, as general principle, an expectation of order is reasonable around huge state events like this. I also said that I thought the real culprit was the congresscritter who invited Sheehan, simply because she had to know that there was a reasonable chance that it would end badly.
I’m certainly not condoning Sheehan’s arrest and holding. No one had a right to do that. They could ask her to leave, and have her escorted if she refused. That’s all. But as I said, I think it would have been more prudent to simply ask her to cover up. Because ultimately, even if do think the Congressperson showed bad judgement in inviting her, she WAS invited, and had not caused any disturbances. So she should have been asked to cover up or leave, and that’s that.
Yes, and that’s where you are way off the mark; this is precisely the point of disagreement.
You haven’t been able to demonstrate any sort of history of Sheehan’s disrupting other people’s events, so there’s no reason to think it would end badly unless the people running the event had a cow simply because she was in the room. So there’s no reason to think Rep. Woolsey made any sort of mistake by inviting Sheehan.
And on top of that, as I’ve pointed out, there’s a nontrivial tradition of disruptions at the SOTU by the Congresscritters themselves.
I apologize in advance if this has been brought up before or even if this causes a hijack to this already gone on too long thread. If my memory serves me correctly, didn’t Michael Moore attend one of the SOTU speeches a couple years ago? I don’t believe he caused any disruptions and he has a history of putting congress people on the spot. Why is it there is such an upheaval because of a mother who lost a son to this meaningless war shows up?
If they want to impose a dress code, I have no problem with that. But it’s very obvious she was singled out here, just by the way she was treated versus the congressman’s wife. Who by the way (as someone else stated) SHE caused a scene, not Sheehan.
Anyways, go back to your regularly scheduled lame pitting. I think this horse has been beaten to death here.
Which is why I asked for any cites Sam could provide of Cindy disrupting speeches.
Yes, she is an extremely outspoke opponent of the war in Iraq and yes, she has volunteered to get arrested in specific settings.
However, that does not mean she was going to disrupt the speech or behave in an improper manner.
Right you are.
However, and this is obviously a huge bone of contention with me, the right wing pundits have gone out of their way to launch a smear campaign and to portray her as a raving out of control loonie.
I’ve seen her quoted out of context on this board before,
I’m thinking specifically of her remarks about federal troops in New Orleans intimidating the remaining residents.
Ironically, shortly after Cindy was lampooned here, I received an email from a friend that had returned to her home in Vermilon Parish complaining that the National Guard as well as the federal troops were sapping the local Red Cross resources, patrolling the roads at high speeds which swept water back into their houses and, instead of assisting the residents, frightening her friends and family.
My friend’s brother in law had armed troops beating at his door at 2 AM and demanding to know if he was a looter-although his house was well lighted because he had one of the few functioning generators.
The family was totally terrified.
So there was creditability to Cindy’s statements but that was neatly ignored by those that wanted to brand her an irresponsible crazy.
Just as some posters here seem determined to justify her removal and arrest at the SOU speech, although they cannot provide any proof that this is a pattern with her.
Raving? I don’t know. Out of control? I don’t know. Loony? You betcha!
And Sam, I disagree that Congresswoman Whats-her-name is to be blamed for inviting her. She was perfectly within her rights to invite Sheehan, and if the Pubs had been smart, they would’ve hoped Sheehan would make a scene. The vast majority of Dems are avoiding Sheehan like the plague. Having her there and having her associated with the Democrats would’ve been the best thing the Pubs could’ve taken out of that waste-of-time speech! The whole think is just political theater anyway.
Well the Pubs don’t control the Capitol police do they? And unlike you, I’ll bet most Pubs prefer decorum in a constitutionally mandated event rather than disruption for partisan advantage.
I doubt it. And the event iteslf isn’t constitutionally mandated. Bush could send a letter to Congress if he wanted to. The whole thing is staged to score political points. Both parties try to score those points no matter which party the prez belongs to.
Guin was quite obviously referring to *Iraq * as a “pointless war”. Not Afghanistan. An *honest * person would have recognized that. But to you RW ideologues it’s all part of the same War on Terra, right? :rolleyes:
What would come after? Your substance-free denial of its applicability so you can feel free continue to spout your bloodthirsty nonsense?
We have *yet * to see the first thing these people can do that you won’t offer up an excuse for.
They’re controlled and funded by Congress, which is controlled by … well, you could look it up.
