Well, the Bushies have made a step up from simply relocating dissenters from the motorcade route: now they have made spectators who wish to see Dick Cheney sign a form stating that they endorse Bush/Cheney '04.



The reason?



The form read:



Obtaining Cheney Rally Ticket Requires Signing Bush Endorsement

Questions:
1.) Should the Republican party be allowed to force speech attendees to sign a presidential endorsement form?
2.) Why has the Republican party chosen to distance themselves from protestors in this instance?
3.) Is this behavior typical of the Bush administration?

It's all a television show show. If you project the image it exists, the Bush Administration is still blameless. It is a wise though sinister choice to keep protesters away and outdoors, because with them gone the entire viewing audience is exposed only mind numbing antics by poorly dressed elderly white men and blatantly manipulative rhetoric spewed from the "We-Hijacked the Republican Party, and we worship Jesus not Allah" Neo-Cons. Even though I'm choosing poignant adjectives here, its still eerie and suspicious. Free Speech is okay as long as your gagged.

*Edited for pointless redundancy when I repeated the same thing, until it became tiring, because I was repeating the same things and being redundant.

They can try to require anything they want to, I suppose, using the all-important "interests of security" as their excuse.

In this instance? I haven't a clue. Has the Republican party allowed any dissenters to get within 50 feet of Bush or Cheney at any time, except of course in the instance where Cheney and Senator Leahy had words and Cheney dropped the F-Bomb in the Senate chamber?

The Republicans do seem to prefer keeping the President well-insulated against any expressions of dissent from the general public.

Has anybody stopped to consider that the opposition might lie to get close enough to protest Cheney's presence in front of cameras? I can hear it now were some dissenter to get through with a sign: "That's not fair! He signed a statement saying he was loyal to Bush/Cheney!!!"

Yeah, the loyal opposition.

This is further evidence of erosion of the freedom of speech and of peaceful assembly when it suits the politicians.

For all the caveats about not carrying umbrellas or handbags to the Kerry rally in Grand Rapids, I saw many women carrying their purses. There were about 20(?--Edit: Curmudgeon said 12) pro-Bush protesters present on the periphery of the line. There were sharpshooters standing on the top of three buildings around Calder Plaza where Kerry spoke. I saw nobody frisked before entering the plaza.

But then Bush's or Cheney's security might be conducted more stringently. I feel like an 8-ball toy here--Is this behavior typical of the Bush administration?--It appears to be so.

I had heard enough from this "Compassionate Conservative" administration, that I thought I would start by going back to the roots of their party, and using the definition of Conservative to point out that they should be a party of traditional values, that is, a party which is proud of its roots and heritage. I right clicked on the mouse and discovered that I was apparently mistaken on my understanding of the word "Conservative."


That's right, according to this definition, The United States does not have a Conservative Party.

1.) Should the Republican party be allowed to force speech attendees to sign a presidential endorsement form?

It's their party, famously described as "The haves, and the have mores." by their current leader. If they choose to exclude the proletariat from their gatherings, it is their right. After all, it might be embarrassing to have the President seen in a crowd of people who spend less than $1,000 for the clothes on their back.

2.) Why has the Republican party chosen to distance themselves from protesters in this instance?

Perhaps because protesters might show up dressed as employee's of Global Van Lines or American Van Lines, or...

The President's handlers seem to feel that if they only show the President against dramatic backdrops such as a "Mission Accomplished" sign, that the voters will feel, "Wow, He really is leading the troops in their retreat." Hey, Laura's cooking is so bad that he had to have Thanksgiving dinner with the troops. Another photo-op with uniforms in the background. With only limited numbers of press conferences, answering only pre-screened questions from the press, etc.; George W. Bush has apparently spent the past four years insulated from anyone that might ask him the traditional Emergency Room Questions:
Do you know what year this is?
Do you know what month this is?
Do you know what day of the week this is?
Do you know who the President of The United States is?
It might be too embarrassing if he had to turn to the questioner and say, "I don't know, but I'll try to get back to you on that."

Perhaps too, if this President was exposed to a protester, he might ask one of his staff to explain this concept of dissent. He has made a point of telling the American people that he hates to read, and so it is possible that he hasn't actually read any of the dissent that makes it to the Letters to the Editor column.

3.) Is this behavior typical of the Bush administration?

Sadly, I believe it is.

It is really a pity. We wanted to see Kerry speak in Grand Rapids, and I went on line, and printed out a pass to see him. As we approached the area, volunteers were handing out passes to anyone who wanted to hear his speech. He drew a large, enthusiastic crowd; and the newspapers accurately reported, about a dozen protesters. For most of us, it was a first time experience going to hear a Presidential Candidate speak live.

I remarked later that my father had seen John F. Kennedy campaign in Grand Rapids in 1960. His job was such that he worked 8 - 12 in a branch office, and ate his lunch as he walked to the main office to work 1 -5. I remember quite well the time that he called his boss to arrange a few days vacation. It was totally out of character for him to do that. I have to believe that he heard JFK speaking as he was on his lunch hour, and got close enough to shake his hand without needing any type of ticket or pass.

I don't know at what point the Republican Party redesigned itself as government of the wealthy people, by the wealthy people, for the wealthy people... Do they have that right? Of course, it's a free country. One of the Presidential candidates reminded us recently that just because a candidate expects our vote, doesn't mean that he deserves our vote. This administration can expect our vote, and plan on four more years. Good leadership training demands however, that you have a plan B. Perhaps, if he is not re-elected, he would be welcomed in Texas, or Iraq as the new American ambassador.

1.) Should the Republican party be allowed to force speech attendees to sign a presidential endorsement form?

Yes, as well as the form which signs the attendee's soul over to the Republican party. I'm afraid the party can screen whomever they wish in order to prevent any of that bothersome "democracy". They have every right in the world to make their little ultra-exclusive soirées private affairs and then claim that they wholeheartedly support the First Amendment. I don't see why this is any different than expulsing protesters who even get anywhere near "the Man".

2.) Why has the Republican party chosen to distance themselves from protesters in this instance?

Because that whole "First Amendment" thing is such an inconvenience. Why should they have to realize that people actually disagree with them? I'm sure it would break their hearts .

3.) Is this behavior typical of the Bush administration?

Definitely. There are numerous well-documented cases of protesters being banished to free-speech zones while Bush supporters are allowed to casually line the motorcade route and stand in the crowd at speeches.

ACLU Articles on Free-Speech Zones

American Conservative Article on Free-Speech Zones

Should the Republican party be allowed to force speech attendees to sign a presidential endorsement form?
Sure. It's their party and they'll cry if they want to. They have the right to restrict attendance to mountain goats if they so desire.

Why has the Republican party chosen to distance themselves from protestors in this instance?
The same reason they choose to distance themselves from those exercising their First Amendment rights in every instance: to create the semblance of unanimous support.

Is this behavior typical of the Bush administration?
Absoutely. This administration has never countenanced dissent. The last place they want to actually see something so unsightly is at one of their own events. Disagreement - ew.

If they were hoping that by restricting the event to enthusiastic devotees that the coverage of the event would look like a nation united behind leadership with a mandate, though, I suspect reports of these "endorsements" will offset that somewhat.

Do these signed endorsements constitute a legal contract?

What's to stop someone signing it to get in and then protesting anyway?

What's to stop someone signing it, jeering and waving anti-Bush placards at the event, and saying "I DO endorse GWB for president. Just not in 2004 - I want him to lose this one to get some much-needed humility, and then if he chooses to stand again in 2008 on a different platform with a different VP, I endorse his candidacy." when challenged?

1.) Should the Republican party be allowed to force speech attendees to sign a presidential endorsement form?
Since the speech isn't really intended for anyone actually present in person, but for the TV cameras and tape recorders covering it, and since tv shows end up looking like Jerry Springer if the audience isn't wholly supportive, I suppose their entitled.
2.) Why has the Republican party chosen to distance themselves from protestors in this instance?
Because they want to avoid looking like the Jerry Springer show.
3.) Is this behavior typical of the Bush administration?
It's typical of modern politics in the TV age. I don't think the Bush campaign is especially unusual in such things. Indeed, it may just be that they are clumsy enough to let people find out about it.

Sure. It's the party of the haves and have mores. Either you pay your dues or you're out.



Obvious reasons -- this is the most hated administration in US history. That's one. It'll also keep the majority of the liberal press away. That's another. And you don't want any Demos in there making Cheney do the go Cheney yourself (sneer) routine again.

Plus it'll keep the evil terrorists out who lurk around every corner, in every nook and cranny. Throw the unemployed in there. The desperate. You know, the unwashed masses who don't count.



You mean disenfranchise people? Favor the rich? Grant uncontested contracts? Create fear and exploit it? Take advantage of a national time of mourning? Push for a war under false pretenses? Pretend it has legitimate power? Wallow in self-delusion? Curse the opposition?

Gee. I'm not sure.

1.)No, this is truly outrageous. I can't believe that many people on their side of the isle got so worked up about a little Cuban boy but who obviously don't mind jack-booted tactics when their people run the show. Could you imagine if it was Clinton who had loyalty oaths, "Free-speech zones" and the like? No, no one would've hit the roof then. Having worked on many campaigns, I can testify about "disrupters" who show up wearing shirts and holding signs of the opponent. No one really got worked uo about it, it was considered something that is just a fact of life.

2.)I don't believe so, this is a generalization in a big way. Whether it's politics, public speaking at the Lions Club or some jerk at the bar yelling at the band to play "freebird" repeatedly it's the job of the person behind the microphone to handle it. If the given person can't, the "heckler" can easily be handled by the crowd through booing or or being physically removed from the scene should they become too over the top.

3.)Who can possibly argue that it isn't characteristic of this administration?? The only qualifying remark that I would make is that the president isn't exactly a good speaker in public(much like his dad) Perhaps with his unsteadiness, they have strict rules in place so that some dead-head or peace protester doesn't embarrass the president in public and get him off of his scripted lines, ad-libbing can be very hard for the less loquacious.

1.) Should the Republican party be allowed to force speech attendees to sign a presidential endorsement form?

It is their choice, although I think they have made a poor decision. As the article states, Cheney has handled "hecklers" well in the past.

Of course, this is a rally, not a public policy speech. They probably want it to be completely positive, rather than having to deal with disruptions, which is understandable to a point. Going this far is more than a bit overboard.

2.) Why has the Republican party chosen to distance themselves from protestors in this instance?
It is a rally to re-elect Bush/Cheney. They want to keep people out that will disrupt the event.

3.) Is this behavior typical of the Bush administration?
The RNC says that this isn't the typical modus operandi, but that they may have special circumstances in this instance that warrants these tactics.

If it were me, I would ask everyone to sign a statement saying that they wouldn't be disruptive. I would certainly want to attract new voters, not simply cement those already "in my camp", which is why I think this is a dumb idea.

1.) Should the Republican party be allowed to force speech attendees to sign a presidential endorsement form?
2.) Why has the Republican party chosen to distance themselves from protestors in this instance?
3.) Is this behavior typical of the Bush administration?

All 3 at once.
If they want to look weak they should go right ahead, just like the Democrats and their "Free Spech Zones" it makes them look afraid.
i don't really blame them as there are a great many people who have the single intention of shutting down their right to enact their pep rally. With no regard for the right of others they will disrupt the festivities of the repubs.
Yes its typical of the Bush Admin, but also the Dems as well.
Can't allow the script to be altered now can we?

1.) Should the Republican party be allowed to force speech attendees to sign a presidential endorsement form?

Well, the GOP can do whatever it wants. They probably have a permit for the area, and thus can control who goes in. It's all made-for-TV anyway--what is odd is how unprecedented this is. Hopefully it is not a symbol of worse things to come.

2.) Why has the Republican party chosen to distance themselves from protestors in this instance?

Because it would look bad on television.

3.) Is this behavior typical of the Bush administration?

Unfortuneatly, yes. Is anyone really suprised?

AML, you've got my vote on this. I'm all for pledging to not disrupt the free speech of others as a condition of attending.

After my initial reaction, I also agree that keeping "Democrat operatives" away is a prudent move. I just wonder what intelligence was used on this and whether these Democrat operatives exist outside the imaginations of the administration.

But maybe the Repubs have moles among the Demos? I bet there are! And what if the Demos have moles among the Repubs? Ha! That'd be a fun job.

1. No, but who's going to stop them since the rallies are events sponsored by a political party?

2. The same reason the Democrats distance themselves from protestors. People prefer acclaim and agreement to dissent and disagreement. So do political parties.

3. The behavior may not be. The disinterest in speaking out against it is.

The Albuquerque Journal reported on Friday that people seeking tickets to the Cheney event who could not be identified as GOP partisans -- contributors or volunteers -- were told they could not receive tickets unless they signed an endorsement form saying "I, (full name) . . . do herby (sic) endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United States." The form warns that signers "are consenting to use and release of your name by Bush-Cheney as an endorser of President Bush .

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...31019_2004jul31

A tip o' the hat to Amlord for being one of the few self-described conservatives to post in this thread. I don't know whether other conservatives are embarassed by this stance by the GOP, aren't aware of it, see nothing wrong with it or prefer to remain silent on the matter.

Amlord's got a better idea than the half-baked one the Republicans came up with. Signing an agreement not to be disruptive makes sense. But then, how do you define "disruptive" in this instance?

It is a show, after all. Dissent really messes up propaganda for both parties. It's really sad that Americans must have on the television only those who are in locked step with their political leaders.

3.) Is this behavior typical of the Bush administration?

Apparently, this behavior even extends to the military. If you happen to be a Democrat then you shouldn't consider joining up

I ran across the following interview with an "unknown" soldier returned from Iraq:


Personally I find this to be despicable behavior and it really speaks to the overall character of Bush adn his administration.

2.) Why has the Republican party chosen to distance themselves from protesters in this instance?

I am limiting my response to this question.

I am a partisan Democrat, I would be easy to indentify, because I wear a Kerry cap everywhere I go (after the election I will resume wearing the Stevie Ray Vaughan hat seen in the picture in my profile) and I have Kerry bumper stickers on my vehicle. If I wanted to see Cheney, I could lie and sign the oath, but I really don't want to compromise my own integrity.

What Cheney is doing with the oaths, not only eliminates potential protestors, but undecided and independent voters who might wish to size him up in person.

So, it seems that observations already made about the pep rally mentality are pretty much on target.

Should the Republican party be allowed to force speech attendees to sign a presidential endorsement form?
Of course. The free speech clause forbids infringement of free speech by an act of Congress. Yes, "speech" has been expanded since the 1960s to include wearing an anti-war armband or portraying a popular spiritual leader as a drunk who sleeps with his mother in the pages of a pornographic magazine...but the fact is, keeping people who don't want to vote for Bush out of a rally is an exercise by a private organization (the GOP) of their own property.

Why has the Republican party chosen to distance themselves from protesters in this instance?
Distancing themselves from protesters makes sense. Keeping out anyone who isn't locked down in the Bush column is the stupidest thing Rove could have done. How are you going to convince anyone of anything if you won't let them hear you speak?

Wait just a minute.

Dick Cheney is not just a representative of the Republican Party, but a sitting Vice President of the United States and as such part of the administrative branch.

Additionally, many speeches by both candidates are made on public property, such as airports. Does Cheney and/or the Republican Party have a right to require oaths when the speech is made on public property?

What the Cheney people are doing is not only making the oath applicable to a candidate, but a current office holder.



This is probably just a typo, but you are contridicting yourself. Unless, of course, you can predetermine a protestor from someone who is neutral. If I wanted to disrupt a Cheney speech, I wouldn't make myself obvious ) by wearnig a Kerry cap for example).

If "distancing themselves from protestors makes sense," then how is it "the stupidist thing Karl Rove could have done?"

CJ, I've seen that article before, and it's pure bunk. If this 'questionnaire' existed, the press would have gotten it's hands on it by now, one way or another. I personally know several people who were at the mess hall and got to see Bush speak. They were never required to fill out a questionnaire. Each unit at Baghdad Airport at the time sent a set number of soldiers to that specific mess hall for Thanksgiving dinner.

Additionally, although I can cite SEVERAL inconsistencies within the article, I'll respond to the part you posted:
I can state categorically, that no soldier who wanted turkey dinner for thanksgiving was denied. Military cooks and the chain of command have always provided turkey and the fixins to troops, even under combat conditions, which these troops were not.

Though I think something such as a loyalty oath is abhorrent, I simply can't buy the premise that it was used on military personnel. We're not mindless automatons, nor are we idealologically brainwashed. Somebody would have spoken up, with proof.

Another possible instance of this kind of thing going on. Today Bush was speaking at a school in WI and pulled the same kind of thing. This was reported over at Daily KOS and I realize it hasn't been picked up by the media, but if you take the time to read the comments in the thread it seems they have confirmed it with the school. You can call the numbers provided yourself if you like.


I don't see how Bush has the right to trample on free speech at a public school, but maybe that is just me.

This is still developing and we'll see if the media picks up on it. I think it further focuses on why the questions for debate here are important. I am fully willing to admit this may be rumor, which is more than I can say for people posting Drudge articles as News

Good link, Cube...

The whole thread after that is riddled with references to Bush, fascism, Hitler, brownshirts, fundi's and other well-thought-out ideas.

Maybe the reason that the media hasn't picked up on this is that it isn't true. Don't you think the drove of reporters that follow Bush everywhere might pick up on this?

I am not going to defend or condone anything posted in the thread, Daily KOS is afterall a primarily liberal/Democrat/Left blog (as you should know) and I'm sure some of the people there are just having a good time. But if you do take the time to scroll through it, you will see numbers to the school if you care to call and verify. They claim they have called and confirmed the story.

If anyone really wants to prove this wrong, there is your chance.

Speaking of well thought out ideas, I give you the Bush Pledge courtesy of Slate. Apparently now it isn't just about signing loyalty oaths, there is a pledge involved.

Oh oh, they left out "so help me God"! Those heathen!

Questions:
1.) Should the Republican party be allowed to force speech attendees to sign a presidential endorsement form?
I don't think they should but hey, whatever floats their boat. I think it hampers freedom of speech (and peaceful assembly), but I'm not so sure Bush cares about that anymore.

2.) Why has the Republican party chosen to distance themselves from protestors in this instance?
Maybe they're afraid, or maybe it just doesn't make for good TV soundbites to have protesters present. Maybe it's easy to get the President flustered on the campaign trail if everything isn't "just so." Unfortunately, life isn't "just so," either.

3.) Is this behavior typical of the Bush administration?
If you mean is it sanctimonious as is a lot of Republican rhetoric, yes. Is it obstructionist (regarding freedom of speech and of peaceful assembly)? Yes.
So (now this is just my opinion, mind you) it is probably very typical of the Bush administration.

Edited to add: This afternoon I had the privilege of attending a rally for Senator Edwards in Muskegon, Michigan. We needed tickets, which were easy to get online or at the Democratic headquarters. We did not need to sign any loyalty pledge or swear an oath to the Kerry campaign. And we got to listen to Jon Bon Jovi! What a difference between the parties when it comes to attending a campaign rally!