it’s not like i watched any of that new-president-parade and assorted nonsense, but i did catch on the news that there were (unsurprisingly) a lot of people along the route booing the cavalrade, or whatever they call the presidential car.
i’m not saying that i agree of disagree with the booers (blame me - i voted for nader), but it makes me feel kind of bad for dubya. i was wondering: is this the first presidential new swearing in brouhaha that had protesters like this? or are there always a few? obviously most of them are because of the joke of an election we had this year, but is this the first time the losing side actually came out to boo the winner?
One of the network talking heads said that this was really the first “big” protest since 1972, when everyone was upset about Vietnam. I’m not sure if that counts as the losing side booing the winner, but there was a lot more than just that at this inauguration as well.
Bastard! Please tell me you’ve repented of your folly.
But seriously, I’ve paid attention to inaugurations since I was a wee timy breath mint back in '77, and this is the first time that I’ve seen serious demonstrations. I tend to agree with the commentators today that it’s only in the last few years that we’ve seen the development of seriously organized, post-Vietnam protestors. Blame the mass media and the Internet for today’s activities.
But I have to admit, “Commander in Thief” and “Hail to the Thief” really are pretty catchy.
Yeah, back in my day they demonstrated. They demonstrated in 1969 when Nixon was sworn in, and a lot more in 1973. That was about Vietnam. There were demonstrations at at least one of Reagan’s inaugurations, although I’ll be damned if I can remember what they were about.
I can’t speak for earlier inaugurations, but there were quite a lot of protests in Washington during the Depression, so I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some sort of demonstratin at FDR’s first inauguration.
I remember Jimmy Carter chose to walk to the White House rather than take a motorcade to show his “common touch”. Those were quiet times. That probably wouldn’t be possible today.
You haven’t been keeping up, I could give you lots more. Like:
George “D Dubya I” Bush
Little Georgie Bush, Boy President (attribution: Tom Tomorrow’s “This Modern World”)
Curious George
President-Select (well, we can’t use this one after today)
[/hijack]
That should be “Uncurious George.” Amazing, we have a First Lady who’s a former librarian and actively promotes reading, and a president who barely reads.
[/hijack]
You gotta love those Secret Service spokesmen. “Near” is right; I saw the video on NBC Nightly News, and that cacklefruit splattered all over the passenger door of Dubya’s limo.
Perhaps it was a different kind of protest, but in 1861 Abraham Lincoln was escorted to his inauguration under heavy guard because it was feared that someone would try to assassinate him.
However, the organized protest in that situation was better known as the Confederate States of America.
phew! ok, this doesnt make me feel AS bad for ole spurious george, now that i know he’s not the only prez who got protested at. of course, it does make me feel bad for nixon…
Yeah that Nixon kid never got any respect, no matter where he went. In 1958, during a tour of South America, the Peruvians stoned his car and the Venezualans smashed his windows. No wonder he was paranoid.
Except for the violence, I’m really happy with the past few year’s increase in protesting. My slightly hijacked question is: why? Is it the zeitgeist, a trend toward activism, or are the Angry Young People (of whom I’m an embarrissingly passive member) fed up? Or are things really that bad?
I remember the protests in Washington, DC last year, and damn near everyone I know in our small college town went (we’re only 5 hours away). There’s been a surge in leftist/punk/anti-culture self-righteousness that’s just amazing to me. Don’t get me wrong–I’m glad people care, but why did so many just start caring?
That’s a good question. I suspect the short answer is “They figured out how to get on television.”
At some point in time, people realized that standing behind the fences and waving signs doesn’t get attention unless you have the massive numbers that protests in the 60’s had.
My recollection is that the anti-abortion folks came to this conclusion in the early-mid eighties. They realized that if they started chaining themselves together and blocking traffic or business, they could get on the news. Actions escalated to include harassing, threatening and attacking patients and doctors.
Then, on the news program, one of their representatives could say “While I don’t really approve of their tactics, I wholeheartedly support their position…” and BINGO, they had created a public “discussion”.
These methods were copied and “enhanced” by radical environmentalists in the 90’s. The enhancements included training camps on how to disrupt activities, how to handle tear gas (something about breathing through a washcloth covered in toothpaste, I think) and what to do if caught and arrested. And thus we have Seattle and Washington.
And once again, the news programs come on. The disruption is shown, and a spokesman can come on and claim to “hate the delivery but love the message.” And BOOM, we have a public “discussion” on environmental issues.
So, now people see that protest can have an impact, provided you are willing to break a few eggs and push the rules.
On the other hand, look at the “Million Man March”. A peaceful and massive gathering. But what was the lead news story? “They probably only had a couple hundred thousand.” As if that made it a failure, and the positions not worth discussing.
