Following the debate Friday, both candidates had rallies here in Saint Louis. George Bush’s was invitation only. Kerry’s was originally planned outdoors at Forest Park, but was moved to an indoor location because of rain. It was, however, open to the public.
Make of that what you will; but to me it demonstrates the way this administration insulates itself from anything but fawning accolades. It’s just pathetic.
Surely this is wrong. Don’t the pubbies call themselves “the party of inclusion”? Don’t they allow all voices to be heard?
:rolleyes:
More interestingly, what is the point of an invitation-only rally? Why waste money preaching to the converted?
Because then the evening news will show the President making his points, and having everybody being in total agreement. The sheeple will say, “Say, I don’t want to be wrong! I’d better believe the President like all of those other people do!”
THe Governator did something like this in San Jose on Friday. He had a town hall discussion about small businesses and “de peepel”. His event was invite only and nobody below a certain income were there essentially. CEOs of big name companies, other local politicians, not a real person for fucking miles.
Sam
I want to see one of our die-hard Bush supporters defend this sort of thing: the fact that every Bush or Cheney campaign rally is limited to known loyal supporters, that people have to sign loyalty oaths, etc.
Come on, let’s hear it. How is it a good thing for a president to isolate himself from dissent, especially from citizens in the general population. How does this promote democracy? How can this enable him to be president of all citizens, not just those who voted for him? How does this show leadership in the world? Does it present an effective example of how democracy works to those countries where we’re supposedly trying to carefully nuture new, democratic governments?
I think this practice is hurting the president badly, notably in the debates. He simply does not know how to deal with people who disagree with him or criticize him. In both debates it seemed like he was barely suppressing his rage. No wonder his international diplomacy is in so wretched.
This has been a tactic of G. W. as well. He came to Des Moines and I was rather interested in going to the event, as it was billed as a town hall affair. However, it was an “invite only” townhall discussion. M’kay…
I have no count of public vs. invitation-only events for either candidate, but I know that a few of Kerry’s forums have been by invitation only. He had one in my hometown, although that was followed up a day later with a large public event two hours south of here.
The more interesting question is why the Bush campaign feels it’s necessary to screen out only those who support the president, as documented in this NPR story.
It was interesting, I was listening to NPR one morning and they had some pretty fair handed analysts (they usually do) discussing the debates and one of them brought this up as a possible cause of Bush’s poor debate performance. He said that this administration has scripted so many contacts with the press and the people that it has put the President at a disadvantage.
However, given the President’s amazing ability to say really stupid and fly shit, it makes me wonder how much damage they have actually prevented by taking these actions. By now, most people have their minds made up so the debates are not such a big deal.
While I am not a Bush supporter, I have heard one (unconvincing) explanation for this “loyalty oath behavior”:
To which I reply, “Wow. Kerry is right when he says Bush is in his own little world.”
LilShieste