See you in 20 years.
I’m a firm believer in the concept that the leader of our country is just another citizen, just like all of the rest of us, and as such should be available for criticism as well as kudos for his job performance. That said, I’m not going to get too bent out of shape about his limiting the audience at campaign events. I don’t like it, but I wouldn’t go see him if I could, so I’m not missing out on anything.
Bush and Cheney have gone to extremes to remove any form of protest from their view. They’re not only banning opponents at their meetings, they’re having them removed from public areas surround them. I think it’s dangerous for any leader to banish his opposition from his view, for a number of reasons.
That said, I’d have kept that woman out too. I agree that she was probably speaking from grief and had no real inent to take action. But an occasional distraught and unbalanced person will try to do something, and the Secret Service is supposed to stop them. I want to see Bush voted out of office, I don’t want to see him killed.
Well, say I want to hold a civil rights rally on the Mall in DC…public place, no? Should the KKK be able to come in and disrupt my rally? I mean, I’m a citizen…and so are they? Why SHOULDN’T they be able too (under your thinking)? Isn’t it dangerous for them? “I think it’s dangerous for any leader to banish his opposition from his view”, right?
I think that those opposing this aren’t thinking this thing through all the way and seeing the ramifications that opening up such things would have. The increase in violence, and the ability of small but vocal (or even violent) groups to disrupt not only political rally’s, but other types of public demonstrations (say, the anti-war protests for instance).
-XT
The KKK can come to your rally and protest it. As far as I know, as long as they are being peaceful they can be there too.
The small violent minority can be dealt with by the proper authorities.
I must have missed the last time that an undecided voter took a shot at Kerry or Bush. And I haven’t noticed any reporters sneaking bombs into White House press conferences.
And believe me: the Klan and civil rights demonstrators have squared off in Washington DC more times than I can count. They get separated so that violence does not break out, but one group is not sent a mile away to hold their protest.
Why do you keep insinuating that Kerry supporters would become violent if allowed to see a speech by Bush?
And, for God’s sake, the word is “rallies.”
Just for illustration, before the convention the President/Republican Party Candidate for President had a rally in a city park in Cedar Rapids, Iowa (the more or less city in this neck of the woods). The park was not rented by the GOP, it was just permitted to use it, much the way you could get permission to use a park shelter house for a family reunion. Four people were arrested for trespass. One was a middle aged lady who stood on the sidewalk wearing a Kerry button – only that and nothing more according to the local news paper’s report. Two were young guys wearing tree costumes (don’t ask me what a tree costume looks like) who left a “free speech zone” to use a water fountain on the edge of the park. One was a man on the sidewalk with a sign reading “Where are the WMDs” or some such statement. The arrests were made by the local police at the direction of the Secret Service. All four people were handcuffed dragged off, stuck in the city lock up until a magistrate set bail, which was well after the whole thing was over. The arrests were made before the President/Candidate arrived. All four plead not guilty to the trespass charge (how can you trespass on the public right of way?). Subsequently the charges were amended to creating a public disorder by disrupting a lawful assemblage. The trials are scheduled for after the election and the smart money is betting that the charges will be dismissed at the court house door. An acquaintance of mine received a ticket to the rally from the a local GOP worker. At the “gate” to the public park she was told that a computer check showed that she was a registered Democrat, her ticket was taken away and she was told that if she did not leave she would be arrested.
In contrast, sometime in 1948 my father roused me out of bed before day light to go stand with what looked like most of the town to see President/Candidate Truman whistle stop through Bellefountaine, Ohio. There I was, six years old, holding the hand of the most virulent Republican I have ever known, standing not 25 feet from Harry S. Truman.
I suspect that the contrast in these two situations has more to do with limiting access to the President/Candidate than with and actual possibility of risk to the President. It sure looks as if there is a concerted effort to avoid any situation where the President/Candidate may be exposed to anything but enthusiastically supportive audiences. One of the last things the campaign needs is a film clip of anybody screaming something at Mr. Bush that might suggest there is someone in this country who is not convinced that W. can walk on water.
Did you guys ever hear the people used to be able to drive up to the door of the whitehouse, leave a card with thier names in it, and be invited to supper there later that day or the next. Now you can’t get within several hundred feet of it.
I know the Kerry campaign quite litterally invites undecided voters to issue events in order to give Kerry a chance to convince them. Most Kerry events of course include all the local Kerry people who need to be “touched” and rewarded for helping the campaign (they’d be steamed if they got passed over), but getting undecided people there to get a chance to hear what Kerry has to say is absolutely critical.
Come on. YOu know better than that. Its not ‘undecided voters’ that they are trying to keep out…its people posing as Bush supporters who are really trying to disrupt the event. Are you telling me that you believe that Kerry encourages covert Bush supporters to come on in and disrupt HIS speeches???
Interesting. I’m claiming that if you open such things up that there will be violence (reguardless of its its Bush, Kerry, or a simple public demonstration)…and you are saying I’m talking about Kerry. Either I’m really not doing a good job of making my points or you have a one track mind.
There WAS plenty of violence between such groups in the past. You seem to be saying we should go back to the bad old days when the police just stood aside and whatever happened, happened. My thinking is that if you begin to allow protesters to disrupt public demonstrations you are encouraging such violence as we experienced in the past…and I for one am not eager to go back to such times.
My experience when going to such demonstrations (I lived in DC for years) was that counter protestors WERE sent away…especially at the more potentially violent ones. I can remember myself being asked to leave the area by DC police during a KKK rally years ago because myself and friends of mine were heckling the clansmen and throwing things at them.
My appologies for my bad spelling. As I’ve said before, English is a strange language.
-XT
Agree with those who say that in general, this is not a freedom of assembly issue. If the Pubbies want to keep out all but the faithful, it’s their right.
With a few caveats.
First, no mention has been made of the cost to local communities. They have to provide law enforcement and the facilities for each campaign stop. I’m trying to find the cite, but I did read that the Bush campaign has gotten into the habit of stiffing the locals on the bill.
If this is a closed appearance, why should the town have to pay a dime?
Second, what exactly is the Bush campaign trying to accomplish by barnstorming the country for votes while keeping undecided voters from actually attending the events? Are these people goddamn idiots? They get away with it because the appearances make the local TV news, and that’s where they make their bones with the swing voters.
But if I’m the Kerry campaign, I take the previous two points and RUN WITH THEM. “George Bush claims he’s a man of the people . . . yet he’s afraid to face average voters!” I’d also start yelling that local municipalities shouldn’t have to host these events if they come with a guest list.
Finally, the point that xtisme is missing is that it is now standard operating procedure for the Secret Service to threaten any political opponent within visual range of the president with arrest. Does this not frighten you? Legal harassment for the crime of dissent? How about the notion of “Free Speech Zones”, whereby protesters are ushered great distances from the president (and the media)?
Don’t come at me with the “security of the president” issue; it is legitimate, but only if the SS . . . let me pause while I debate whether to use that acronym, hmm, I hate the whole “my enemies are Nazis” trope found on pretty much every message board since the beginning of the internet, but the temptation of cheap irony is just too powerful to resist! . . . makes an effort to determine whether a person standing by the side of the road with an “Impeach Bush!” sign is actually a threat, and not just exercising their freedom of speech. A gun is a lot more dangerous than a “Vote Kerry” button, and to equate the two sends our country down a dangerous path that our right-wing brethren choose to ignore.
People bent on disruption can simply lie their asses off and sign the bogus declaration of support, with no consequence other than getting GOP junk mail until the sun goes out. The only people who are screened out are law-abiding citizens with a different opinion.
As noted above, the GOP has the legal right to do this in some cases (i.e. on private property owned by them or by someone who agrees to these rules. I’m surprised that they can get away with it when holding events on public property.
What surprises me is that the Secret Service is complicit in all this. Why would they direct the local police to arrest someone for wearing a Kerry button? Last time I checked, they were on the public payroll (meaning all the public, not just the Republicans). When is the Secret Service going to start goosestepping?
So, people lose their right to speak when a candidate is in town? If someone is being disruptive, remove them from a rally. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is arresting someone because they’re wearing a Kerry t-shirt, or holding a Bush placard, at an opponent’s rally.
I have no idea. But I haven’t heard reports that Kerry has people arrested for wearing Bush t-shirts. And Kerry has faced a fair number of hecklers: See here, here, and here. I think the hecklers might have been jerks, but they asked valid questions. On the contrary, at least as far as I have heard reported, Bush only takes pre-approved questions at bogus town hall meetings, and those who dare to wear a Kerry t-shirt at a Bush rally risk arrest, regardless of whether they are behaving well. I’d condemn Kerry if he only took scripted questions, but I haven’t heard anyone make that charge.
What violence are you talking about? Nobody is saying that the USSS shouldn’t screen for weapons and the like. But I don’t recall Reagan’s political rallies being like English football matches, and there were an awful lot of liberals who couldn’t stand him. I don’t recall Clinton’s rallies becoming riots, and nobody can doubt that Republicans despited that guy. You seem to be mixing up Democrats and Republicans with the KKK. I have no clue why you keep talking about the Klan. I don’t think they’re fielding a presidential candidate this year.
Being asked to leave the area because you were committing assault? Pardon me, but I don’t think that has a damn thing to do with campaign rallies. You know full well that if you did that at a Bush or Kerry rally, you’d end up in handcuffs in a matter of seconds.