Suppressing free speech

This is incredible:

Very rarely does the everyday public get a glimpse of what happens behind the scenes in a normally-secret Bush Administration.  

But Monday, March 28, the Secret Service called three everyday people into their offices to discuss why we were kicked out of a presidential event in Denver last week where Bush promoted his plan to privatize Social Security. What they revealed to us and our lawyer was fascinating.

There we were - three people who had personally picked up tickets from Republican Congressman Bob Beauprez's office and went to a presidential event. But as we entered, we were told that we had been "ID'ed" and were warned that any disruption would get us arrested.

After being seated in the audience we were forcibly removed before the President arrived, even though we had not been disruptive. We were shocked when told that this presidential event was a "private event" and were commanded to leave.

More astonishingly, when the Secret Service was contacted the next day they agreed to meet with us this Monday, March 28 to discuss the circumstances surrounding our removal. We had two big questions going into this meeting:

1.  How is the Bush Administration "ID'ing" citizens before presidential events?

2.  Why was an official taxpayer-funded event called a "private event" - leading to citizens being kicked out?

Most shocking of all, we got answers to both questions.

The Secret Service revealed that we were "ID'ed" when local Republican staffers saw a bumper sticker on the car we drove which said "No More Blood For Oil." Evidently, the free speech expressed on one bumper sticker is cause enough to eject three citizens from a presidential event. (Similarly, someone was ejected from Bush's Social Security privatization event in Arizona the same day simply for wearing a Democratic t-shirt.)  

The Secret Service also revealed that ticket distribution and staffing of the Social Security event was run by the local Republican Party. They wanted us to be clear that it was a Republican staffer - not the Secret Service - who kicked us out of the presidential event. But this revealed something else that should be startling to all Americans.

After allowing taxpayers to finance his privatization events (let's call them what they really are after all,) and after using the White House communications apparatus to set them up, Bush is privatizing the ticket distribution and security staffing at his events to the Republican Party. The losers are not just taxpayers, but anyone who values the First Amendment. Under the banner of a "private event" the Republican Party is excluding citizens from seeing their president because of the lone sin of expressing the wrong idea on a bumper sticker or t-shirt.  The question for Americans is - will we allow our freedom to be privatized?

Karen Bauer, Leslie Weise. Alexander Young
Denver residents

I was emailed this account by the people involved, so it's straight from the horse's mouth. The AP did a story on this as well.

"They hadn't done anything wrong. They weren't dressed inappropriately, they didn't say anything inappropriate," Recht said. "They were kicked out of this venue and not allowed to hear what the president had to say based solely on this political bumper sticker.

"The very essence of the First Amendment is that you can't be punished for the speech you make, the statements you make," Recht said.

So to emphasize -- the White House uses taxpayer dollars to finance these propaganda events. THEN, in order to keep out anyone who might be critical, they "outsource" ticketing and security. That way they can label the events "private" and kick out anyone they want in violation of the First Amendment.

Who in Congress will step up and call for an investigation?

•  Dems should show up in droves..

  to these events wearing whatever they think is appropriate.  Bring cameras and videocams, invite local newspeople to watch Americans being led away from a tax-payer funded event.  This would make great evening news.

  by prophet on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:36:59 AM PST

  •  It might be time

    by 88kathy on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:39:37 AM PST

    •  Ohhh,

      It's Waaaaayyyyyyyy PAST time.

      by Bulldawg on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:06:50 AM PST

      •  Here are the stops

        http://www.strengtheningsocialsecurity.gov/60stops/

        We should have people at each and every one trying to get in to discuss SS with the Preznit.

        by BudMan on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:31:40 AM PST

        •  Those Morons

          Show in the graphical representation March 3 - 24, which equals 22 days.  How can we expect to entrust them with managing reform of a trillion dollar agency if they can't even get their posters right.

          by BlueBaron on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:13:22 AM PST

          •  Dems should show up in droves...

            a la Ghandi. Call the press and have hundreds of dems show up to "make salt" at these propaganda road shows.
            I think Dems could get more mileage out of this than dozens of anti-war protests. It would be another strike against the far right ruining this country and more evidence ofthe erosion of what this country stands for. (or once stood for)

            by sooner on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:18:04 PM PST

            •  SS will site "security" issues

              This is a good idea, but I think anywhere Bush goes in the world, including the USA, the SS can keep people at considerable distance. So unless the "free" press is willing to go a few blocks (or miles) to see these protestors, nothing is going to happen. You can already guess what the media will do - they'll do exactly what they did in NY city during the replubican convention, when they conveniently ignored 100,000 protestors as if they didn't exist. It is pretty sad but true.

              by Bailey Savings and Loan on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 06:07:02 PM PST

              •  Not exactly

                Get tickets from your congressperson. Show up properly dressed (a suit would be nice). Behave. But have a bumper sticker on your car. Or wear a donkey pin on your lapel.

                Have the rethugs (and is THAT ever appropriate) throw you out.

                Call media. Immediately. On your cellphone, from in front of the venue.

                Repeat (and repeat, and repeat).

                They might ignore a few, but keep pounding on them, and they'll get the drift.

                And tell them that the OTHER unnamed network is going to be showing up in, oh, about 2 minutes.

                (Local guys will jump on this -- it's NEWS. For small town stations, this is HUGE.)

                by mmacdDE on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 07:32:40 PM PST

                •  I would notify the media first

                  and tell them what was going to go down...a political car wreck!
                  Revolutions and revolutionary acts are riveting when done right.
                  If the refuk bouncers were intimidated enough THEN you give Bushwhack the gift of a REAL PUBLIC appearence. (with, gosh, other viewpoints and democracy thingys and everything!!!)

                  by sooner on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 10:47:51 PM PST

        •  Maybe I'm being dumb...

          ... but how can you tell what days he's going to be at what stops?  I couldn't find a way to click on the map.

          by tree hugger on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:58:45 AM PST

          •  To thwart organization...

            they only announce the schedule a day or so in advance.

            Taken from: the 60 stops site

            DAY 28
            Wednesday, March 30, 2005

            President Bush participates in a Conversation on Strengthening Social Security in Cedar Rapids, Iowa

            Treasury Secretary John Snow delivers remarks to local community leaders in Bozeman, MT

            SSA Deputy Administrator Jim Lockhart participates in four town hall meetings with Rep. Wally Herger in California

            Social Security AdministrationSenior Advisor Mike Korbey participates in Town Hall meetings with Rep. Tom Price in Woodstock, GA

            Deputy Director, National Economic Council, Keith Hennessey participates in a town hall meeting with Rep. Sur Myrick in Charlotte, NC

            by leolabeth on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 04:45:02 PM PST

        •  the site

          seems to have been taken offline - or at least 'privatized' in one form...

          Any other links to the schedule?

          by JK Minnesota on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:11:06 AM PST

          •  If we don't know when the party is...

            We can't crash it. I've used my meager Google skills for the past twenty minutes trying to find a schedule for the King of Lies SS Tour... you don't think they'd want to suppress THAT info, do ya?

            Every page I've found is happy to tell you about the staged events that have already occured, but I can't find a schedule of DATED upcoming stops.

            Little help?

            R

            From the fool's gold mouthpiece
            The hollow horn plays wasted words

            by Randular on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 12:05:56 PM PST

            •  yes, my experience too

              when bush came to my state, the news was "officially released" very last minute. - like the day before the event.

              And even then, the location of the event was changed at the last minute & was a very small hand-picked group.

              I really think that we need a little inside info on this one. If you have family/friends who are repubs and oppose Soc Sec privatization, have them call & get tickets.

              by biscobosco on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 12:53:39 PM PST

            •  They'd tell you

              if they wanted you to know.  Information is gold, you know.  Maybe we could call our local GOP HQs and find out.  My local GOP offices are largely staffed by kindly blue-haired ladies who will tell you pretty much everything they know as long as you're nice to them.

              by Black Max on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:00:00 PM PST

            •  Google

              Maybe you actually need to type "King of Lies Social Security Tour" in the search bar.

              by fishhead on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:03:41 PM PST

            •  I started a diary

              To track locations of Bush's "town hall" performances.

              http://biscobosco.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/29/162350/044

              He's in Cedar Rapids, Iowa tomorrow (30th)

              by biscobosco on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:25:14 PM PST

        •  have a senior citizen try to get into the event.

          . . . and have them say to the media "I am concerned about social security, and I want to hear what the president has to say"

          by bryanb on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 12:58:28 PM PST

      •  Sneak Attack

        Protests don't work because the MSM doesn't cover them.  The sneak attack is the answer, only intensify the effort.  Swear loyalty, or whatever it takes to get into the meeting, make a loud protest at the right moment and get thrown out.  Then after you get thrown out, someone else stands up and protests from another part of the audience.  It will eventually make it to the media if the chimp is always forced to talk over us and hide our dissent.

        by kharma on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:37:24 AM PST

  •  Reid and Senators should protest loudly

    Demand that Bush pay back the costs of these trips until such time as they become truly "public" events, not partisan private events.

    The Dems should cook up an estimate of what Bush has spent so far on Bamboozlepalooza.  It's probably in the tens of millions at least. Agree on a number and repeat it on every news show and interview they appear on.

    Remember the Republican rule: "If you repeat something often enough, people will think it is true."

    In this case it shouldn't be hard, because it is true.

    by existenz on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:42:49 AM PST

    •  exactly

      and be sure and say "president bush says he cares about how washington spends YOUR money...but he doesn't mind using it for his private cheerleading events"

      by naderhader on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:46:17 AM PST

      •  Great word!

        Describe them as "cheerleading events" and we get a chance to remind people that Bush was a cheerleader in college.

        by Field Marshall Stack on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:52:14 AM PST

        •  Be nice to have a picture of that.

          by rba on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:27:05 AM PST

          •  i disagree

            please.  think of the children.  WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!

            look.  we're on the correct side.  we have the First Amendment.  Who's got the balls to step up & fight this???

            we know this is crap.  they know this is crap.  that's why they are using underhanded tactics to do them.

            who the FREAK is stepping up & doing something about this b/c i am sick & tired of my taxes going to political reporters, to worthless abstinence programs which have been proven not to work, to political appointments, to cheerleading events & to a fucking war with i NEVER SUPPORTED!!!

            & i'm not talking just mass protests at their events -- which i definitely agree with.  but someone has to take that loophole out so that they can't do this at all.  & it has to be congress.

            reid!?!?  boxer?!!?!?  u got ur butt wooped by these "public events" in 2004, mr. kerry.  how about some payback???

            Bush, What Price Did You Pay?

            by krazypuppy on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:42:17 AM PST

            •  You get a 4 for this one, KP.

              You go, man.

              by Black Max on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:03:16 PM PST

          •  Pictures

            The real pictures and some not so real pictures.

            Pretty easy to tell them apart though.

            by Whittless on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:45:08 AM PST

            •  Re:Outright propaganda

              Someone at my company had the nerve to send me this, I can't believe the lengths some people will go to to prop up their image of Bush as some sort of "cowboy".  Take a look, good for a couple laughs, and there's a good list of all the Hollywood cowboys of old.

              http://oldbluejacket.com/cowboys.htm

              by Stentor on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 12:59:58 PM PST

          •  Viola!

            

            by lapin on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:58:31 AM PST

            •  I'd say...

              ... that the technology has changed a bit since George's day.

              by scottp on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:24:25 AM PST

          •  I've got that one saved N/T

            by arkdem on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 05:31:01 PM PST

      •  how about

        you are welcome to pay for the event, but not welcome to attend.  

        this is a travesty, and i think deserves a congressional hearing!  Misuse of taxpayer money, I'd say.  

        by ejpoeta on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:16:46 AM PST

        •  or we could trow some tea in the harbor? n/t

          by jandrewmorrison on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:24:41 AM PST

          •  Or throw Bush in the harbor.

            by Black Max on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:04:29 PM PST

        •  Congressional hearings?

          Hey, buster, we save that for important shit, like steroids in baseball. (snark!)

          by GreatMidwest on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:44:27 AM PST

    •  I second this idea

      n/t

      by CanadaGoose on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:31:23 AM PST

  •  Dems do show up in droves

    The Secret Service makes sure they are a couple of blocks away. On any given day one can see masses of progressives screaming at the President. I do like your idea though. The key to making it work is to make sure that the Dems are not disruptive in any way. Kind of like a silent protest. Seeing a hoard of people being escorted from a presidential event for absolutely no reason would be a new twist.

    by bobinson on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:43:53 AM PST

    •  This is a case of tax payer money

      Funding Local republicians.....Kos please ask these 3 people what information they had to provide to get tickets?

      I want to know if these local republicians are using this oppurtunity to collect demographic information and target fundraising oppurtunities.

      by Mikecan1978 on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:47:06 AM PST

      •  I Attended With No Problems

        Tickets were available to the general public at Bob Beauprez Congressional Office in Wheatridge. I had to show them a photo ID, my name was written on the ticket, and my ID was checked at the door.

        The bumpersticker story is news to me -- but there were articles about this in both the Denver Post and the Rocky Mtn News.  

        by Charles K on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:20:33 AM PST

    •  Would the Secret Service Turn Away

      a Democratic Senator or Representative?  Why can't Kerry show up with a few regular Americans and try to get in?  What would happen, do you suppose?  If Kerry wore a Dem t-shirt, would he be turned away?

      It would be a great photo-op, in any event.

      by prophet on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:15:06 AM PST

      •  anyone ordered to

        the SS does not choose anyone to turn away, they follow the orders set out to them by the sponsering campaignoffice.

        I posted at the bottom, but i was K-E Advance and I know most of their rules and regs.

        They only do what they are told to do, don't let those lying POS pass the buck onto SS. The SS would rather not do events at ALL, NM partisan ones, but once they do, they follow the guidelines set by the White House, in this case.

        Anything they do was pre-approved prior.

        by Dour on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:22:37 AM PST

        •  SS orders

          Is it just possible that in this case the SS were expressing their dissatisfaction regarding the dirty work they're being asked to do? Are we beginning to see the start of a revolt of the Praetorians?

          Question: If enough people (like many thousands) mobbed the lines blocking them from the Presidential limo and rushed to overturn it (I'm not advocating personal violence here), how hard would the police (who are underfunded, and are missing many of their buddies to the Reserves and NG) fight to protect the Chimp-in-Chief?

          by hughster56 on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 06:16:45 PM PST

          •  I also find it interesting

            that the SS is telling how things work. I don't EVER remember this before.

            I can't believe that they approve of how this WH works...and if there's one group you REALLY don't want mad at you, it's your bodyguards.

            THey don't even have to hate you, all they have to do is hesitate a split second at the wrong time...

            by mmacdDE on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 07:51:39 PM PST

      •  That would be pure hilarity...

        if Kerry attended wearing a Kerry 2004 T shirt. Too bad he is too polite to do that.

        by ablington on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:39:25 AM PST

        •  Too Polite?

          At this point I have a hard time distinguishing whether Kerry is polite or a pansy.  What has he REALLY done since November to show his concern for what is happening to our Constitutional rights?  Not much in my humble opinion.

          by Oke on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:10:21 AM PST

    •  What Jeffery Feldman was talking about....

      ... a couple of Frameshops ago here.

      He describes this protest as an example which sounds pretty effective:
      "Walking along the streets during this protest was an amazing experience.  Thousands of people stood silently holding up a piece of paper, evenly spaced at about 15 feet apart.  There were no drums,  no loud music, no shouting.  It was a completely different protest aesthetic than I have ever seen before.  And it was effective--both emotionally and politically.  The protest garnered a great deal of political attention and momentum for issues important to the progressive movement."

      Sounds good to me.

      by highacidity on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:37:15 AM PST

  •  parking lot activism

    what if EVERY car parked at a Bush event were to suddenly have a "No More Blood For Oil" bumper sticker on it?

    Not that I'm advocating defacing private property... maybe just scotch-tape it on.

    by emptypockets on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:54:02 AM PST

    •  Are you Kidding???

      Man, if one of those wingnuts saw you they's pull out their God Given 2nd Amendment guarenteed Magnum and blow you away (in the name of Jesus, of course), and it's be ruled justifiable homicide.  Don't screw with people like that.  I'm serious!

      by Bulldawg on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:11:07 AM PST

    •  Hm... magnetic?

      n/t

      by papercut on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:59:13 PM PST

  •  Complain to your reps

    If your representative or senator is Republican, is he or she going to be happy when a Democratic POTUS uses taxpayer dollars for his private campaigns?  Because that is the precedent that is being set.

    So phone and write your reps.  There is an election coming up next year.  

    I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the ACLU could bring a suit on behalf of the Denver citizens who were ejected.  

    by Plan9 on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:23:44 AM PST

    •  The ACLU is on the case.

      They have a national lawsuit on this subject, and numerous state suits.  Here's the link.  

      by yella dawg dem on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:24:54 AM PST

      •  That suit was dismissed.

        They had sued the Secret Service. The Secret Service denied excluding anyone based on political beliefs, blaming the Local Cops, and the Campaigns.

        When Kerry was scheduled to speak at the Wisconsin Capitol, and advertised that no "outside signs" would be allowed, I called the Campaign Office here, who reitererated their position, claiming it was on orders of the Secret Service. I next called the Chief of the State Capitol Police, who agreed that, persuant to my successful suit against him, and then Governor Tommy Thompson in 1993, anyone has a right to display any sign on the Capitol Grounds at any time.

        Next call was the local Secret Service Office, who passed me to the Regional Office in Chicago. I was informed that the Agency has no objection to signs, so long as they're not mounted on sticks.

        The Campaign , in it's last press release, modified their ban to sticks. Due to ugly weather forecasts, the September event was moved to a rented indoor venue, where I had no right to take my sign inside. Instead, I held it by the entrance.

        Kerry returned to Madison in late October. This time the rally was held on a public street, under a City issued Street Use Permit. Approaching with a ticket in hand, and a poleless sign reading "Grow Hemp, Save Farms," I was grabbed by Union guys working security for the campaign. The first local cop on the scene tried to persuade them to admit me. Meanwhile, several thousand folks were stuck in line due to the standoff. The next local cops to arrive debated what action to taker, eventually deciding it would be easier to arrest me, than my assailants.

        My Disorderly Conduct charges were dismissed by the City Attorney. I'll be filing civil action shortly, against the City, the Campaign, and my individual assailants.

        by ben masel on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:57:34 AM PST

        •  I'm no lawyer

          but if taxpayer dollars are paying for these events it seems to me you could sue the Republican party or whoever sponsored the event for denial of civil rights if you were kicked out.

          by flory on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 12:32:58 PM PST

        •  You forgot the worst part, Ben

          What did the local newspaper put as a caption to the picture of you being arrested? Insult to inury, indeed!

          by randybastard on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 12:39:00 PM PST

        •  Keep up the good work, my friend!!

          by randybastard on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 12:40:08 PM PST

        •  Which suit?

          Was that the national one, or was it limited to Wisconsin?

          by yella dawg dem on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:18:37 AM PST

          •  The dismissed ACLU suit?

            National, sought an injunction. Filed in Pennsylvania.

            by ben masel on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 08:00:39 AM PST

            •  Damn. Do you know

              if they've taken an appeal to the Third Circuit?

              by yella dawg dem on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 08:22:54 AM PST

              •  No

                The Secret service went on record that they do not, and won't discriminate based on political viewpoint, so there's nothing to appeal. They blamed all the incidents cited in the case on either local cops, or Campaigns.

                The dismissal does not preclude a new action, with a better fact record, but the SS themselves have since been pretty careful not to create that record.

                by ben masel on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 09:39:29 AM PST

  •  exactly

    I tried to get tickets when Bush was here. I called all of the senators and reps offices, but did not receive a return call. My call was last minute... evidently the Bush plans were not released to media in advance so we didnt find out till last minute when he was coming and how to get tickets.

    I think that this would be a great dkos action. Find out where bush is holding his next "town hall" session. Why are we protesting outside? why are we being excluded from his "conversations"?

    Get tickets, show up well dressed, suit, business attire, but with a democratic pin or better yet, with an american flag lapel pin and a discreet democrat button .

    Tell the presenters that you have a question for Bush, How can you ask it?

    The point is to expose these "town hall" meetings clearly for what they are. controlled, screened campaign stops.  The point isnt even social security. its the larger narrative which stretches from gannon to armstrong to rather to segrena.

    Bush plays a man of the people on screen. but this could help to pop the bubble.

    by biscobosco on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:39:04 AM PST

    •  The underlying idea...

      of this whole shitpot of shenanigans is Karl Rove's "permanent campaign," this time to pave the way for Bush's anointed successor.  Remember, EVERYTHING Bush and Rove do is part of the ever-expanding political campaign.  These guys are absolutely focused.  Even when Rove is giving the old rogering to his blow-up doll of Lee Atwater, he's thinking "campaign, campaign, campaign."  Treat these "events" as campaign rallies -- i.e. get inside and do some creative (and legal) disruption, even if it means nothing else but getting thrown out.  (If you're going to do that, get a buddy to videotape you.)

      by Black Max on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:11:14 PM PST

  •  Bush supporters heart Kerry!

    Here's an idea.  Identify people who are headed to these sham town hall GOP rallies for privatization and put Kerry bumper stickers on their cars (or "No blood for oil" or whatever).

    Wouldn't that get some true believers kicked out and give them a taste of what it's like on the receiving end of this taxpayer-funded thuggery?

    by freedc on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:18:17 AM PST

    •  GOOD IDEAR (as Howard would say)

      by Joon on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:54:35 AM PST

  •  even better

    use a HIDDEN camera.  heh.

    after that, they'll start strip-searching the attendees.

    "Sir, please step out of your clothing, hold your ticket in your right hand, bend over and grab your left ankle with your left hand."

    by Joon on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:53:39 AM PST

  •  or forget the media, and take'm to court

    I am fairly sure that it is illegal to use taxpayer money for a political event (except to provide security for the president).  If you are excluding anyone who might disagree with you, it is a political rally . . . not a public event, and I can't see how it would be legal to use public money.  Anyone with legal expertise on the matter know anything else about this?  Or anyone want to offer his or her opinion?  

    by bryanb on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:07:56 PM PST

    •  I'm with you

      Kos said:

      Who in Congress will step up and call for an investigation?

      I think with this Congress there won't be any investigation forthcoming soon, if at all. Better to slap a seize-and-desist order on the administration first. That might bring some reaction from those dozy chambers.

      by high5 on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 01:08:22 AM PST

  •  absolutely

    I am so sick of Bush&Co having these "public forums" where the only people that show up are the ones who agree with him. If we don't do something about it, they're going to turn this country into a theocratic one party state. Bring hordes and hordes of Democrats with signs and American flags.

    Crash the party. Signal there's an opposition. The media will cover it, especially if the Republicans are stupid enough to counterprotest and give the whole thing more attention.

    by archerhouse on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:34:16 PM PST

  •  Bush's GOP: Acting Like KGB Agents In Ol' USSR

    Seems like George W. Bush and his Republican hordes are acting like KGB agents in the old Soviet Union kicking out potential dissenters from taxpayer-supported events. There's nothing private about a taxpayer event featuring a public official promoting a highly public program.
    It shows the true nature of George W. Bush and his political operatives. These guys aren't conservatives, they're outright FASCISTS whose extremism must be exposed and put out of commission.

    by alaprst on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 03:52:37 AM PST

•  chirp chirp chirp

  "Who in Congress will step up and call for an investigation?"

  The same Democrats who voted for Condi and the bankruptcy bill!

  Crickets, Markos, crickets.

  by paradox on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:37:35 AM PST

  •  Exactly

    Democrats in Congress are too busy voting to take away bankruptcy protections from people with crushing medical bills and plotting to sell more constituencies out to the right wing to care about this egregious violation of free speech.
    

    by eugene on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:41:03 AM PST

  •  Now, wait a minute

    Colorado Democrats all voted against the war in Iraq, which may have something to do with Democratic gains in this state recently.

    Admittedly, I don't know how each of them voted on Rice or the God forsaken bankruptcy bill. But if you had to rely on a block of Democrats to address this matter with the Executive, I'd say Colorado Dems are your best shot.

    by Kimberley on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:52:04 AM PST

    •  New Colorado Dem Senator Salazar

      wasn't in Congress before January 2005.  He supported the invasion of Iraq, introduced and voted for Alberto Gonzales, voted for bankruptcy reform,and voted for Rice.  He opposes Social Security privatization but seems ready to support a bill giving carte blanche to the gun industry.  Go figure ...

      by coloradobl on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:28:50 AM PST

•  Unless steroids are involved this GOP Congress

  won't investigate anything.  

  Now, unofficial investigations and hearings by Democratic Congressmen should be held.  Also, they should be making speeches on the floor of Congress about this and other issues every single day.  

  But will they do it?  Dunno.

  Conyers can't fight every battle.  He needs help.

  by LionelEHutz on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:37:56 AM PST

  •  It's time to help ourselves

    If congress is so lame that they can't even investigate this kind of crap, then the citizens will have to get creative and do their job for them.

    Aside from the good ideas above, another possibility is to swamp them with so many ticket requests it grinds the machine to a halt...

    by drofx on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:58:38 AM PST

•  Great documentation

  I can't believe the Democratic party is silent on this.  The should be all over the "President in the bubble" and "taxpayer dollars funding partisan events" aspects of this.  

  Of course, my instinct would be to go to one of these events and plaster every car in the lot with a No Blood for Oil bumper sticker :)

  by Twin Planets on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:38:08 AM PST

  •  Obstructionism Works Both Ways

    Time to sic Bulldozer Dean on 'em. :)

    by cskendrick on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:39:54 AM PST

  •  taxation, representation....

    Surely there is a way to riff on this theme about this kind of horseshit. Every 8th grade social studies student should know the phrase -- and how it lead to war. Dare I say, an 'insurgency'.

    Right? Or am I being a nerd?

    by naderhader on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:42:33 AM PST

    •  8th grade social studies

      is now all about manifest destiny and how God meant white people to expand from sea to shining sea, and to burn gasoline in His honor. Anything else would be blasphemous^H^H^H^H anti-American. "Taxation without representation" has been replaced by "We must not inconvenience our most productive citizens."

      Get with the program, man.

      by felagund on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:47:20 AM PST

      •  Not in MY classes, goddammit.

        We learn real history in there, and believe me, some parents don't appreciate what their kids are coming home and telling them what they heard in class today....

        by Black Max on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:14:43 PM PST

    •  Nerd? Try Patriot

      Please.  The precise same thoughts have been in my soul all morning.

      It might be time to take to the streets.  Americans are notoriously complacent but we're fast running out of options.

      Arnie was in San Jose last Friday.  The nurses, firefighters and teachers rushed his car (they thought the limo was Arnie's, it wasn't), the cops lost control of the perimeter.

      All it would have taken is one protestor to start rocking a side and that limo would have been overturned in 10 seconds.  I'm not kidding.  A quick kick to a window and Bic lighter and it would have been torched in 180 seconds.  Tops.

      This is what happened when the Harvey Milk/Moscone verdict was read.  Ordinary citizens just erupted in the streets, who had been calm and quiet just an hour before.  With nothing but their hands and what was in their pockets they created utter bedlam in 30 minutes.

      Keep pushing us, GOP.  We won't be sitting behind our screens forever, motherfuckers.

      by paradox on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:55:18 AM PST

      •  thank god

        I'm not the only one foaming at the mouth when I hear about this shit.

        I'm ready to take to the street, let's get organized. That evil bastard comes to dallas so damn often, people would probably turn out just to protest the gridlock.

        I mean, this is america, goddamnit!!!
        

        by naderhader on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:11:23 AM PST

      •  march

        i say lets organize a series of marches on washington DC.  let shut that town down.  the first one can be peaceful, but the subsequent ones can be increasingly violent until we get to fullscale revolution.  NO MERCY

        by tunataco on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:23:02 AM PST

        •  Why punish DC? We're good Democrats!

          If you want sympathy for your cause, don't fuck with a working guy's commute. Trust me.  

          Janitors for Justice forever earned my emnity when they decided to block the Roosevelt Bridge one morning about ten years ago. I was stuck in traffic needing to rid my body of the coffee I had drank just before I left my house.  My carpool decided after crawling in traffic for two hours to get off I-66 and holed up in a dinner in Arlington and later when shopping at Pentagon City.  I didn't get to work until lunchtime and most of my co-workers who live in Virginia were also very late.  They owe me for the fucking 4 hours of Personal Leave they took from me.

          by akeitz on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 12:25:07 PM PST

          •  Doesn't your (fmr) company owe you

            those 4 hours from ten years ago?  JforJ has done more good for your fellow Democrats in "your" city than you could have in those four lost hours.

            by Mogolori on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 12:57:50 PM PST

            •  Oh please!

              My current non-profit institution btw. And no they don't -- it's not their fault that assholes prevented me from getting there for hours.  And no amount of "good" can overcome the dangerous situation they created that morning.  They are lucky that nobody needed medical attention in that backup and that the Virginians waiting in traffic didn't use their guns that I'm sure they were illegally carring into DC.

              The tactic backfired -- the normally union friendly organizations roundly condemned them and the city passed laws making such a protest a felony.
              

              by akeitz on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 04:27:00 PM PST

        •  No

          Violence is a pretty stupid way to oppose them at this stage. What ever happened to good old fashioned Civil Disobedience. And legal action (ACLU). And voting. And get out the vote.

          by mole333 on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 11:52:23 AM PST

      •  Those evil nurses, firefighters and teachers

        Why do they hate 'merica???

        by adigal on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:23:40 AM PST

      •  I'm sure that would go over well!

        I understand the anger, but it is no way to get the support of mainstream citizens.  It is a good way, though, to elicit a huge reaction from the other side.  The US is not the Ukraine.  

        In the US, if you want to build a civil society, you have to model one.

        by fishhead on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:11:27 PM PST

      •  I got your back, buddy.

        You hit em high, I'll hit em low.  It's time to stop taking this shit sitting down.

        by Black Max on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:16:26 PM PST

  •  Again, blame your State Democratic Party

    When this happened in Arizona, the State Democratic Party was all over it and had a press release and was making calls within the hour and had a picture of the kid in the diaries here.

    The DNC can't do everything. The Colorado Dems should have been more aware and forceful about this.

    by Dour on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:24:57 AM PST

    •  Absolutely;

      It is the local, state run dem party that should have volunteers ready to go to attend and to watch closely what happens.  And raise a stink when Bush kicks them out.

      And then send emails around the world.  This is exactly what motivated the Dean blog.  someone would say "Dean should ..." and everyone would say "just do it yourself."  Or in this case the state parties should be taking the lead.  Let state parties take some of the heat.

      by GrandmaJ on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:31:11 AM PST

  •  e-bay

    Make sure to have pictures of being escorted away, and sell the "offending" bumper sticker or tee on e-bay.  Offer a taxpayer discount since we've already paid for the event.

    by debraz on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:16:00 AM PST

•  Full court press

  To raise this question in LTEs, blogs, radio-show call ins, you name it.

  This crap really pisses me off.

  by baldandy on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:38:19 AM PST

  •  I totally agree

    my first thoughts: this crap just totally pisses me off. I am mad as hell, and I'm sending this to Durbin right now. Any other Illinoisans on here please join me: http://durbin.senate.gov/sitepages/contact.htm

    by peglyn on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:59:33 AM PST

    •  Yeah, we're on this, too.

      Here's the text of the letter I sent. Durbin's only got a web form for comments, rather than an email address, but there's room for 10,000 characters. I asked him to call for disclosure in the case of "private" events (so you don't waste time going just to be yanked out of the seat), as well as a requirement for private funding for those events.

      by Rob at Chaos Digest on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:52:27 PM PST

  •  Tried last week, will try again today.

    I'd say this is outrageous, but my meter's been broken for a long time now.

    When we first heard about the Tucson T-shirt incident, I spent 2 days trying to get through to Randi Rhodes about it, but it was all Terri, all the time. And I'll send an e-mail to my Senator (Schumer), who does have a mouth on him, and an LTE to the NYTimes.

    by sidnora on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:14:48 AM PST

    •  well, I sent my letter

      I have had it, and Durbin is at least going to hear about it:

      Dear Senator Durbin, as a constituent who has sent you many letters of thanks and admiration for your excellent representation in upholding the values and interests of specifically Illinoisans but also Americans in general, I am writing now to ask that you please investigate the ongoing expense of tax payer money to support the Bush/ Republican political agenda. It seems that every day another story comes out which expounds the pervasiveness of this corruption, and I honestly feel that there will be no end to it anytime soon. This latest story I have included makes my blood boil over, and I feel that your outstanding integrity can help to expose and put an end to at least one of the simpler acts of destruction on our constitutional rights that the Bush administration has enacted. Thank you for taking the time to consider my position (story follows). Sincerely, xxxxx

      Mar 29, 10:33 AM EST

      Secret Service investigating removal of three from Bush visit

      By P. SOLOMON BANDA
      Associated Press Writer

      DENVER (AP) -- The Secret Service says it is investigating the claims of three people who claim they were removed from President Bush's town hall meeting on Social Security last week after being singled out because of a bumper sticker on their car.

      The three said they had obtained tickets through the office of Rep. Bob Beauprez, R-Colo., had passed through security and were preparing to take their seats when they were approached by what they thought was a Secret Service agent who asked them to leave.

      One woman, Karen Bauer, 38, a marketing coordinator from Denver, said Monday the agent put his hand on her elbow and steered her away from her seat and toward an exit.

      "The Secret Service had nothing to do with that," said Lon Garner, special agent in charge of the Secret Service office in Denver. "We are very sensitive to the First Amendment and general assembly rights as protected by the Constitution."  
      The three who were removed, along with their attorney, Dan Recht, met with Garner on Monday. Recht said he may file a lawsuit based on the group's alleged violation of their First Amendment rights.

      Garner said the group appeared confused as to who asked them to leave and declined to release further details, citing an ongoing investigation.

      Alex Young, 25, an Internet technology worker from Denver who was among the three removed from the event March 17 at Wings over the Rockies, said officials told them the next day they were identified as belonging to the "No Blood for Oil" group.

      Young said they belong to no such group, but the car they drove to the event had a bumper sticker that read: "No More Blood for Oil."

      "I don't think a bumper sticker on a friend's car should disqualify me from seeing the president," Young said.

      Beauprez distributed tickets to the event, which was part of President Bush's effort to gain support for his plan to overhaul Social Security. Messages left after-hours at Beauprez's office were not immediately returned Monday. A call to Bush's advance team in Denver went unanswered.

      Lawrence Pacheco, a spokesman for Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said the congressman has asked the Secret Service about the group's allegations.

      Young, like Bauer and lawyer Leslie Weise, 39, is a member of the Denver Progressives, a political activist group. He said the three had T-shirts underneath their business attire that read, "Stop the Lies" and they had talked about exposing them during Bush's visit. He said they had scrapped the plan by the time they arrived at the museum.

      Recht said the T-shirts did not play a role in the group's removal.

      "They hadn't done anything wrong. They weren't dressed inappropriately, they didn't say anything inappropriate," Recht said. "They were kicked out of this venue and not allowed to hear what the president had to say based solely on this political bumper sticker.

      "The very essence of the First Amendment is that you can't be punished for the speech you make, the statements you make," Recht said.

      President Bush has visited at least 17 states to gain support for his plan to change Social Security, meeting with people who are generally supportive.

      Some people who have stood up to disrupt Bush while he was talking have been removed. But a group called Americans United to Protect Social Security said there have been at least two instances where people have been removed or barred from a Bush event beforehand.

      In February, a "black list" of people banned from getting tickets was obtained and published by the Forum newspaper. The White House and the Republican Party denied such a list existed and Gov. John Hoeven's staff said no one was denied tickets.

      Brad Woodhouse, a spokesman for Americans United, called the Denver example the most egregious violation.

      "They're screening the people who are allowed to come and then they're profiling them in the parking lot," he said. "It's quite extraordinary, and disappointing."
      

      by peglyn on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:18:00 AM PST

      •  The usual suspect

        "Garner said the group appeared confused as to who asked them to leave"
        This was probably the infamous overzealous volunteer who gets blamed everytime something like this happens.

        by Catte Nappe on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:45:13 AM PST

        •  That line jumped out at me, too.

          I've seen that phrase used more than once in news accounts where I knew the details, and they didn't support the gist or bias of the article.  Just call it confusion.  It provides cover for the miscreant and has the added bonus of making the victim (can't think of a better word) appear to be befuddled or incompetent.

          by sj on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:37:22 AM PST

        •  A few bad apples, a few overzealous volunteers

          You know it's never going to be anyone in a position of leadership taking responsibility. I mean...come on. It was the CIA who got Iraq wrong, not the Preznit. And so it goes...

          by joejoejoe on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 04:14:54 PM PST

      •  May I use your first paragraph...

        ... as a starting point for my own letter to Barbara Boxer and DiFi? Sometimes it helps to have something to start with, and I like how you worded your letter.

        by highacidity on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:01:56 AM PST

        •  be my guest

          and thanks for the compliments (here & below). I do my best writing when I am angry :)

          by peglyn on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:28:42 PM PST

      •  You first paragraph

        is excellent; I'm afraid I didn't do as much buttering up as you did. I usually do, too. But I write Schumer and my Rep. so often these days I think they probably see name and think, "Oh, no, not her again".

        And I used the letter rather than the AP story. Even though it's not "journalism" (and what is, these days?), I felt the most powerful part of the story was their interview with the SS.

        I just hope someone, somewhere, does something about this.

        by sidnora on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 12:05:50 PM PST

•  It speak volumes, and at very high volume

  That the Secret Service was so candid about its directives -- and who gave them -- and why.

  by cskendrick on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:38:56 AM PST

  •  On several levels

    One, that BushCo is that blatant about what they're doing.

    Two, that the Secret Service, like a LOT of law enforcement people everywhere, has totally had enough of it.

    Three, that BushCo has no fear of reprisal. You can already see the giant heads on Fox talking about the right of a private organizer to make sure an event is private.

    <shudder>

    by felagund on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:43:23 AM PST

    •  Why Does the Secret Service Hate America?(n/t)

      by bobinson on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:47:19 AM PST

      •  Why is the Secret Service's mission

        to protect the president being compromised by an unaccountable private security organization?
        

        by Mogolori on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:08:33 PM PST

  •  They are supposed to be nonpartisan

    I'm sure many in the organization are upset that they are being used for partisan purposes.  I read a book on the history of the Secret Service.  The last time they were ordered to clear out protestors from Presidential events was under...you guessed it...Nixon.

    Back then, many of the agents would simply say no to Nixon's aides. They responded that their job was protecting the President, not suppressing free speech. Unfortunately, the leadership in today's Secret Service is not quite as tough with Rove & Co. about honoring the 1st Amendment.

    Good to see these Secret Service personnel try to clear their name, though.

    by existenz on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:47:04 AM PST

    •  What they might be seeing

      Is that the Bush Imperium, while more robust than the Imperial Presidency under Nixon, won't long outlast his tenure...and he will be going back home in 2008.

      I suspect Jeb pretty much short-circuited his chances for the job over the weekend.

      The Easter Bunny was kind. :)

      by cskendrick on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:07:45 AM PST

      •  Don't bet on it.

        Karl Rove is unparallelled at turning cowshit into diamonds...or at least gussying it up and passing it off as diamonds long enough to get a vote out of it.  If Rove wants Jebby as President, I don't care if Jebby butt-bangs Jeff Gannon on CNN, he'll run a powerful campaign.  Rove realizes that you can't lie to all of the people all of the time...but you don't need to.  Enough of the people enough of the time buying into your shit works just fine.

        by Black Max on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:21:32 PM PST

    •  At the Raleigh Bamboozlepalooza

      We were protesting across the street and someone said, "Let's hear it for law enforcement!  They're out here to help us keep the peace today."  The crowd cheered the cops, and one young officer broke the standard issue stone face with a big grin.

      Law enforcement, any first responders, have been systematically screwed. I say put the heat where it belongs, at the top of the steaming pile.

      by debraz on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:21:55 AM PST

      •  why are we across the street?

        That would be appropriate in a partisan campaign stop perhaps. But this is supposed to be a "town hall" with the president.

        We should fill the auditorium and ask our questions. that is what bush fears most. real face-to-face contact. actual discussion of Social Security, or anything else for that matter.

        by biscobosco on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:24:22 AM PST

    •  This is what jumped out for me in the diary...

      ... that the Secret Service appeared eager to distance themselves from the issue. Good for them! I like the idea of making sure we let the personnel of whatever agency is working on these events know that we are aware that don't hold them responsible for the odious orders they may have to follow... (to a certain point of course).

      by highacidity on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:11:12 AM PST

  •  Not letting them off so easily

    Secret Service agents are law enforcement officers, sworn to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States, as are all the state and local cops that you can be assured were present in quantity.

    They need to explain why, with all of the law enforcement on hand, not one of them took any action to prevent/stop what was clearly an illegal action.  

    The Republican staffer is the one that should have been arrested, and then maybe this shit would stop.

    by Wayward Wind on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:56:25 AM PST

  •  Yeah and it begs the question...

    ...of why the hell the Secret Service is answering to the Republican Party. They're supposed to be protecting the president's life, not being Pinkerton officers for the local Republican machine.

    THEY ARE TAXPAYER FUNDED! THIS IS FRAUD!

    by AggieDemocrat on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:31:39 AM PST

    •  New tactic - Civil rights lawsuit

      At the very least, compel the person of George W.Bush or the Republican National Committee (or local chapters) to compensate the United States government for funds spent on planning, logistics, security, catering, et cetera for exclusively partisan functions.

      And far better - establishing a precedent that ones freedom of movement, assembly and expression is curtailed for the crime of having the wrong bumper sticker or partisan affiliation.

      I say approach such events openly, as Democrats, under the official banner of the Democratic Party, and demand entry.

      If they want to start arresting attendees to taxpayer-funded meetings as Democrats then the Republicans are in for far more serious setbacks.

      They can pay for their own shindigs.

      And yeah -- I want my effing money back, Redshirts. Stealing my taxes to pay for your parties isn't cool at all. I'll see you in court.

      by cskendrick on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:50:55 AM PST

      •  exactly

        To quote a great movie, "Hey mister, I want my two dollars!"

        by AggieDemocrat on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 12:01:02 PM PST

•  Appalling. But par for the course

  This is, after all, the Stage Managed Administration.  No detail is to small to orchestrate, no audience can be filled with enough shills.

  And no truth shall ever be admitted.

  by WWGray on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:39:01 AM PST

  •  OOPSIE

    a hooker in the white house...how did that happen?

    by 88kathy on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:41:20 AM PST

•  well wellstone is dead

  So I'm thinking, NOONE in congress. Maybe Boxer. And where the hell is Salazar on this?

  This is scary. And even scarier that the Secret Service is breaking ranks and letting the info out there. Dissent in these ranks means things are much worse than we think.

  by naderhader on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:39:06 AM PST

•  Arm yourselves

  It's only a matter of time before they start coming for us. Not the SS, but the Moronic Brownshirt Fucks.

  But it is interesting how all the Nazi abbreviations and tie-ins apply here so neatly.

  by Jim J on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:39:22 AM PST

  •  The SS had to eventually put down...

    the SA (Brownshirt) leadership (Roehm), as they were competition.

    by rgilly on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:52:51 AM PST

    •  Well done! n/t

      by Jim J on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:58:34 AM PST

  •  arm yourself

    This was mentioned at my home last week - the gist of the conversation was "Americans have at least 250 million guns around and about their homes, so when the crunch comes, at least we can fight back."

    Another person there stated that "yeah, all those guns out there, but with all those guns of all shapes and sizes,and ammo of all calibers; what happens when the 'loaner' bullets don't fit?"

     Make sure you have enough.  And then some.

    by libbys mom on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 06:58:15 PM PST

•  My prediction:

  No one will call for an investigation.

  I don't find this any more incredible, particularly, than any of the other assaults this Administration has made against freedom of expression or assembly or due process or medical choice or any number of liberties we're supposed to enjoy.  They're all so consistently appalling and incredible, and Congress is so consistently ignorant and/or emasculated to the situation, that I've become desensitized.  Wait, is that what they were counting on?

  I think my eyes are bleeding.

  by The Termite on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:39:24 AM PST

  •  It is way past time to wake people up.

    This should be the rallying cry for ALL progressives, and frankly, every else, too.  We should all be up in arms (figuratively, security folks) about this and doing everything possible to bring it to light.  My conressman, senators, and local papers we be getting my letters immediately.

    by beemerr90s on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:43:26 AM PST

    •  I agree, but for God's sake...

      ...what does it take to convince one fucking Republican that Something Is Wrong?  It's not like some of these people haven't lost a voice too, particularly in the labor sector, and all they do when they hear of these kinds of muzzlings is shrug and write it off to the assumption that the muzzled were "makin' trouble."

      The gate of the pen is still open, y'know?  And I feel like we're standing outside it ringing the bell and screaming at the sheep, "Make a run for it already before they finally herd you onto the killing floor!"  And they're not listening.

      by The Termite on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:50:52 AM PST

      •  the only tme they are gonna care is

        when what happens directly affects them.  that is a fact.  these bible belters that supported bush and still do apparently don't realize that bush is going to gut the farmer's subsidy program.  they refuse to look past the pretty lights the administration distracts them with.  we all should be veryconcerned about what this administration is doing.  but many people choose not to know what theirgovernment is up to.  and what they do know doen't seem to hurt them, so who cares!  

        by ejpoeta on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:26:07 AM PST

    •  They are too busy

      reading Schiavo letters for their inaction there.

      by Dev on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:06:15 AM PST

  •  There will be no investigation...

    So true, because we live in a one-party system. The democrats are parasites living on the asses of the republicans, so they're no help at all. Our system of checks and balances no longer exists.

    by mitchvance on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:03:55 AM PST

    •  it doesn't matter

      There has already been an admission by the government of this nasty conduct.  It just needs to be publicized and rolled up into the democratssocial security narrative.  

      Bush has a lame ass plan which no one wants and he trots all over the country using taxpayer dollars and does everything he can to prevent legitimate discussion of the issue by having the united states secret service kick people out of the event because of the bumber sticker on their cars.

      'nuff said.  While the secret service issue probably would not resonate with the american people, by tying it closely with an issue which they already mistrust the president about will help the issue to resonate.

      by sophiebrown on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:49:52 AM PST

•  Abuse of the Secret Service

  Under Bush, it has become the American version of the Praetorian Guard.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:39:52 AM PST

  •  But the Secret Service was candid in this

    Which is very peculiar.

    I would imagine that SS guys have standing order not to speak to the media, with the spirit of the order being quite broad in scope.

    However, speaking to evictees appears to have fallen outside the letter of that command, and the agents involved either inclined (or ordered) to cooperate, which is passing strange.

    There's a lot of buzz hitting Dailykos diaries today, that suggests that the Pubbies' assault on rule of law isn't going over so well with the law enforcement community these days.

    by cskendrick on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:45:29 AM PST

    •  A cry for help...

      from the Secret Service in memoryholeland. They are in bondage and being kept in line by the Bushite commissars.

      by rgilly on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:56:53 AM PST

    •  Perhaps a bit off topic, but...

      speaking of government agencies that ought to be closely allied with the President, what's up with the CIA (pre-Porter Goss)? No WMD in Iraq? Are you kidding? Was it too much of a stretch to invent some? You're the CIA, you can do anything you want. Why didn't you cover the President's ass on this one? Was it because you wern't feeling the love during the intelligence investigations? Was our nose a little bent out of shape?

      Perhaps the Secret Servive sees the President for who he (they) is (are) and aren't willing to wantonly grab their ankles when the bastard drops the soap in the shower.

      by bobinson on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:58:03 AM PST

  •  SS Agents careful to separate their roles

    In the interview, the Secret Service agents were careful to emphasize that they were not the ones who removed the non-believers.  They were, of course, on hand to remove anyone who was disruptive: e.g. anyone resisting removal by the party's own security force.

    Pretty strange, though, that they'd actually try to explain this themselves. They're supposed to have a P.R. department for explaining such details like: "Please, sir, of couse it's true that the men holding you by the arms are our agents, they're keeping order like they're supposed to. If you wish to complain about the ones kicking you in the stomach, they're from a completely different organization, and you'll have to contact their respective supervisors."

    by chimpy on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:00:59 AM PST

  •  Most Secret Service agents are Democrats

    They only go as far as ordered, and will go AS FAR as ordered. Don't let the GOP blame them for any of this shit. Their official policy is to not do ANY events and just keep the principal under lockdown. But...thats not how it works, so before any trip, they set down practically an encyclopedia of rules and regs on the trip, so anything they do is pre-approved by the White House.

    EVERYTHING, was pre-approved.

    The reason these SS Agents talked, was probably guilt. They don't like doing the shit they have to do sometimes under this Prez, but their job is not to defend democracy ( thats our job), their job is to protect the life of the principal.

    by Dour on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:28:36 AM PST

    •  Can you prove that?

      That is similar to saying Jesus wasa Republican...The military votes Republican...all teachers are liberal...all Blacks vote Democratic...etc....

      by Dev on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:35:15 AM PST

      •  I've worked for quite a number of years as Advance

        Clinton, Gore and Kerry

        I rarely meet that many Republicans and if they are, they are REALLY Conservative Republicans.

        most are liberal leaning independents or Democrats.

        Most don't vote though.

        These are the ones I've had conversations with and if you are not familiar with how advance works. I usually work with SS on advance directives.... so all the rules we are debating, i help write them for the campaign and i work with SS.

        Everything is pre-approved ahead of time and the plan to remove protestors is pre-approved ahead of time.

        Typically, "We" tend to focus not on shirts, intent or bumperstickers. We are worried more about any signs they might bring in, to disrupt the camera shot or if they are overtly aggressive. And we never order the SS to expressly remove anyone, we instead order them to follow them, once they pipe up, our crowds take care of them quite quickly by overshadowing their yelping with our hollering and if they don't shut-up and get aggressive, we move them.

        if they shutup and stand there, SS is ordered NOT to remove them.

        Its just a different philosophy i guess we have compared to Republicans.

        But make no mistake, SS will carry out EXACTLY what the Campaign or office orders them to do, to the letter.  Never doubt that they will not do their job, even if it means tearing up the constitution.

        by Dour on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:50:53 AM PST

        •  So are you one of the people I sue?

          For the assault and false arrest I suffered after bringing a "Grow Hemp, Save Farms" sign to the Kerry appearance in Madison in October?

          This was not done by the Secret Service, who informed me their policy is not to prohibit signs, as long as they're not on poles.

          by ben masel on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:06:34 AM PST

          •  no signs period

            we tell everyone that and our field offices tell everyone that.

            No signs period.

            its a policy of the campaign, because all too often, innocent looking signs can have weapons hiden in them- I am not kidding, we have found razor blades embedded in wooden stakes before at rallies.

            Or with fold over signs, they hide weapons within the fold, or they bring a fold over Kerry sign and then  fold them back the other way and thus how "Kerry is a Nazi" signs get placed up front in front of the national T.V audience, like what happened in July.

            Now...if you REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want to bring light to an issue, you could probably convince a field staffer to put your sign up front ahead of time, and then hand it to you, once your inside.

            All these decisions are made by the field staff though ...

            by Dour on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 03:47:05 PM PST

            •  i should ammend that

              you can use our signs, that we create, for message reasons, to convey a national message to the national media, aka the over abundance of Fire Fighter signs, Pro-Choice signs, Environmental signs etc ...

              again, if you really wanted to make an issue out of something, clear it with the field staff first

              by Dour on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 03:48:34 PM PST

              •  well...

                I attempted 13 calls to the Madison office. A lot of "I don't know, there's no-one here who does..." One volunteer tried to connect me with staff. I overheard him tell her "Say whatever it takes to get rid of him."

                I had no pole, just a foamboard. I wouldn't have objected to a thorough search. The issue was indeed message.

                The Campaign's Street Use Permit, like all City of Madison Street Use Permits, covered the Street itself, not the sidewalk, and had a provision that "normal pedestrian traffic" not be obstructed. I, and my sign, are normal pedestrian traffic on West Washington Avenue.

                All that said, I place slightly more bame on the City police Captain in charge for the event, who failed to return 3 emails and 9 voicemails in the days preceding the appearance.

                nobody tells me i can't carry the sign of my choosing in a traditional Public Forum. Not even my friends.

                by ben masel on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 05:17:07 PM PST

        •  draft debate

          Yeah, thank your minions for shouting me down for challenging a democrat co-sponsor of HR 163 to debate the draft.
          Only thing different from the script you outline above is that 3 good democrats were moving towards me with hostile intent and police moved in to protect me from them.
          I'm glad you're talking about what you did.  I wish I could decipher your feelings about what you did.
          Why shouldn't an elected official be called on to defend her co-sponsorship of a bill that would violate the 13th amendment?
          Democrats are very like republicans in protecting their own.  This is unhealthy.  We need accountability not to the party, but to the people.

          by Mosquito Pilot on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 12:10:22 PM PST

          •  my feelings are very different than how the job is

            done...

            thus why i am writing this ...

            And oftentimes, the police are infact defending the protestor , not removing the protestor, sometimes they don't realize that they are standing in the center of a very angry mob that now wants to physically harm you. Perception is a bitch isn't it?

            And sure, as i said, to bring up an issue, i could tell you a number of ways to bring up an issue, ala, sneaking in fliers and scooting your way up front and waiting till right after the cameras, for the rope line and then accusing that elected official of whatever they did, RIGHT IN FRONT of the rope line cameras, and when they see something like that, its like a stop in time itself, those cameramen are like "WHOA!  OVER THERE! " and all of a sudden the lead story on the news that night is John Kerry blah blah blah blah... and State Senator Wishy Wosh was accused today of voting for blah blah blah after the rally, but you need to go WHERE THE CAMERAS ARE.  And you have to do something the advance team cannot stop nor suspect would even happen. Then hand the fliers to the camera people, the press team will flip out, cause you disrupted their pre-scripted event and will get blamed for it, but if you want an issue brought up, go ahead.

            And i will say something about the crowds, as I've been sort of a student of mob behavior doing all this... and oftentimes, you could be the most hardcore yellow dog democrat , and yell something at a rally and it could be PRO-DEMOCRAT. One person yells at you, and the WHOLE CROWD thinks your a protestor now. I've seen entire mosh pits form between entirely democrat crowds, all over a mistunderstanding.

            Why security is so important,its not just there for the candidate , its for the crowd.

            Thus, again in response to the comments above, no hand made signs , ever. Its caused too many problems in the past, TOO MANY PROBLEMS,  serious injuries and mob like riots.

            im sorry, but its just one of those things...

            If you want an issue covered, talk to your field staffer. The Field Staff job is grassroots and if they deem that its important enough to risk their job to help you get what you want to get done, its their perogative. The Field staff has a blank check inside the rallies, most of them are S pinned, which means are allowed within the security barriers. Field staff can smuggle just about anything in, no metal detector checks or anything, so if you want something done, get a field staff to do it for you.

            by Dour on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 04:04:25 PM PST

        •  Different only in degree

          This post depresses me.  All these events have become hollow, made-for-TV pap whether it's Kerry or Bush at the podium.  Make sure nothing "disrupts the camera shot".  Got to make sure our event is at least as tight and spontaneity-free as the other side's.  God forbid that anyone express a dissenting view, whether it's private or taxpayer-funded.  "Remove the protestors", unless they voluntarily make themselves totally invisible and inaudible.  

          I understand the political calculation, but let's just say it doesn't inspire me.  There's something dispiriting about politicians who can't face those they would (or do) govern.

          by turbonium on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:55:58 PM PST

          •  i agree 1000000%

            man

            i really do

            i don't post here to tell you guys to put you in your place or tell you "the real story"

            I tell you what goes on in the back, behind the cameras, so that if you want to change it, you are armed with all the information possible to make these changes.

            You would not believe the POWER people have to sway a candidate by constantly bringing up , say this sign issue to a candidate.

            There were certain things that had to be changed about Kerry rallies that were done at Clinton rallies, because Kerry heard from one end of Mass to the other, to Iowa and NH about certain practices and Kerry made it a point to change those things and walla! they were changed, but ultimatly, the candidate makes the decisions, especially when people are bitching and he responds and wants something changed, and obviously HE IS AT all the rallies, so he can see if things were changed or not ...

            But if the presidential candidates don't HEAR the message, they just barrel down and keep business the same as it always has been.

            For example, SEIU and their "I'm a Healthcare Voter" signs and campaign all over the place. It was a major reason why Healthcare was made into such a large issue this year... you drove down almost any neighborhood in Iowa or NH and those damn signs were there, and thus WALLA, John Kerry, Edwards and Howard Dean were all making healthcare a MAJOR issue in the campaign- not that it would not have been anyways ( it IS a very important issue), but it took special emphasis, because the people scared the shit out of the campaign and the candidates that they were only voting for the "healthcare candidate"
            

            by Dour on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 03:54:19 PM PST

            •  Thanks for your reports, Dour!

              To act, one must first know what's going on at the ground level.  And I didn't see you as necessarily defending these practices.  As a realist, I even understand why they happen.  

              But I guess I'm still enough of an idealist to want a candidate who doesn't suffer from what I would call "information paralysis".  Candidates today are the "beneficiaries" of an extraordinary amount of field-polling and oppo-research and focus-group testing--an avalanche of feedback and advice, much of it flawed and misleading, some of it downright worthless.  

              When you have this much information at your disposal, you tend to respect it simply because it exists, and you operate on a conservative "best consensus" model that is essentially reactive and fear-based.  But because that tide of information produces many fluctuations in strategy, it also looks very wishy-washy (see Al Gore, 2000 presidential debates, demeanor during the course of--or the same with Bush in 2004).  

              Where all this ties in with your post is, some part of me wishes I didn't have to get together with my friends and "scare the shit out of" my candidates in order to motivate them or get things on their radar.  And if they didn't have this protective bubble of aides and lawyers and insta-polls, they'd have to decide issues the way most of us do: through some amount of research and deductive reasoning (hopefully!), guided by accrued wisdom and core principles.  

              Given the demands of modern campaigning, maybe that's impractical.  But it's what I felt Kerry did very effectively during the Vietnam years, and (ironically) it's the image Bush is cynically trying to fabricate.  I often wonder if the "real deal" wouldn't sell even better, even if it meant being occasionally out of step with the polls and displaying some rough edges to the cameras.  Those qualities are human, after all.

              by turbonium on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:51:50 PM PST

              •  The guy with no bubble

                "And if they didn't have this protective bubble of aides and lawyers and insta-polls, they'd have to decide issues the way most of us do: through some amount of research and deductive reasoning (hopefully!), guided by accrued wisdom and core principles.  

                 Given the demands of modern campaigning, maybe that's impractical.  But it's what I felt Kerry did very effectively during the Vietnam years, and (ironically) it's the image Bush is cynically trying to fabricate.  I often wonder if the "real deal" wouldn't sell even better, even if it meant being occasionally out of step with the polls and displaying some rough edges to the cameras.  Those qualities are human, after all."

                That's how Feingold played his Senate Campaign. You could go to his listening sessions and lay your rap on him. Good for 8% better than Kerry in this State. QED.

                by ben masel on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 12:23:07 AM PST

        •  A question

          Are you talking about campaign rallies or are you talking about taxpayer-funded meetings?

          by SharonK on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 02:25:10 PM PST

          •  campaign rallies

            by Dour on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 03:48:59 PM PST

•  Does anyone doubt

  that there is a serious effort underway in this administration to create a "Fourth Reich?

  by sbj on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:40:05 AM PST

  •  rove is in charge of social security

    remember now -- rove is in charge of the details of the social security plan (whatever they may be).  Talk about blurring the lines between politics and policy.

    by sophiebrown on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:51:47 AM PST

    •  I wonder

      If Rove could have changed his name from "Goebbels".

      by sbj on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:31:42 AM PST

  •  considering that grandpa helped finance the 3rd

    I am not surprised.  
    I mean comeon, think of the business profits if there was slave labor camps... errr...ahhh... I mean Jurisdiction Empowered Work Zones for American companies....
    

    by dukestriker on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:53:13 AM PST

  •  sure

    history has to repeat itself sometime.

    by Renegade Prole on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:26:26 AM PST

  •  I doubt it

    I don't think that they're that venal.  In any evevnt, the Republic is robust enough to take a bad administration from time to time.  

    As Harry Truman said, "the American people can see through a fraud every time - it may take awhile, but they'll see through him."

    by fishhead on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:16:39 PM PST

    •  I think

      that in fact they are that extreme. Venal perhaps is a less accurate word to describe them as just being good ole' fashioned power mad megalomaniacs.

      Many people are reluctant to acknowledge the possibility that such an all encompassing monstrous plan could be in the works, but the vast majority of Europeans in the 1930's couldn't believe such things would happen either.

      I think Truman was wrong. If he was right, FoxNews would not be the number one cable news delivery system, a moron like Bush would not be president, and Ken Lay would be in prison.

      And, as a final point, the architecture of the neocon agenda goes way beyond the ability of our Republic to withstand it. These psychopaths have the power to wreak permanent damage on the entire planet.

      Read the seminal doctrine, (the "Mein Kampf", so to speak), created by the Project For The New American Century entitled; "Rebuilding America's Defenses", then decide where you think the Cheney/Wolfowitz/Perle gang are on the insanity spectrum.

      by sbj on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 03:16:50 PM PST

  •  I don't think that's their intent

    But as they continually pander to their extreme right-wing base, fascism may nevertheless be the result.

    by Mathwiz on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 02:34:53 PM PST

•  ACLU anyone?

  Sounds like the three who posted their story should be getting in contact with local ACLU office.

  They're one of the few who might want to do something about this.

  by compass rose on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:40:43 AM PST

  •  Wrong messenger

    I absolutely agree the ACLU should take this up -- if not I don't know what they would.  

    That said, this has to generate more 'mainstream' outrage, ideally from activists on both sides of the spectrum who care about their right to voice dissent.  With this level of repression, it's a golden organizing opportunity.  

    by red clay dem on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:04:14 AM PST

  •  Exactly my thought

    I think the ACLU would be very interested in this.
    Although they must be stretched mighty thin these days with all the work these Bushies are trowing them.

    by vcmvo2 on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:07:11 AM PST

    •  There's also

      The Center for Constitutional Rights (of William Kunstler fame)

      They're  the ones suing Rumsfeld et. al. in Germany for war crimes.

      Might want to get into contact with them, too.
      http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/home.asp

      by compass rose on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:28:25 AM PST

  •  Well they have a lawyer

    so I'm assuming they will file a "frivolous" lawsuit. I wonder if the taxpayers will have to pay for damages to their civil rights.

    by Little Red Hen on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:38:35 AM PST

•  Who in Congress will step up....?

  I don't know, but I am writing my Congresspeople right now to ask them.

  This is fucking outrageous and I can't stand reading this shit anymore.

  by cscs on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:40:53 AM PST

•  Joe Lieberman will step up

  And tell people that it's inappropriate and rude to show up to hear the President speak if you aren't fully support of him, like Joe is.

  by BoringDem on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:42:26 AM PST

  •  and willing to kiss him n/t

    by jalapeno on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:46:49 AM PST

•  Since when

  does the secret service take orders from local republican party officials.
  More tax payer abuse, if they want bouncers they should hire them out of party funds.
  This is not what the people pay the secret service for.

  by comeon on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:42:34 AM PST

  •  It wasn't the Secret Service.

    That's the whole point. Read the story again.

    by leftilicious on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:25:16 AM PST

    •  Sorry I missunderstood

      I read it as the secret service were making it clear it was not their call, not that they actually were not responsible for the removal.
      My misstake.

      by comeon on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:29:33 AM PST

•  Let's hope the Dems grow a spine

  This is just so UnAmerican.

  If we are supposed to be fighting for freespeech over in Afghanistan and Iraq, why the f**k can't we have it here at "home."

  by jillian on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:42:52 AM PST

•  Any legal recourse?

  This is a blatant abuse of taxpayer monies.  Is there anyway a citizens group can actually sue Bush and Co for using taxpayers moneys for a political event?

  May not be winnable, but may make it higher profile.

  by JAPA21 on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:43:36 AM PST

  •  I agree...

    Lawsuit seems the best way to deal with this...

    by TexasDemocrat on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:54:43 AM PST

•  If no one in government

  objects to this, then no in government is defending America and the First Amendment, and if this turns out to be the case, the no one in government is worth a damn.

  by moon in the house of moe on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:43:37 AM PST

  •  and no amendment

    is worth a damn either.

    by Little Red Hen on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:31:49 AM PST

•  just wondering......

  Can bush possibly become even more of a douche?

  by comrade bert on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:44:10 AM PST

  •  hell yeah

    his douche-essence grows daily

    by nika7k on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:48:58 AM PST

  •  you'd think it couldn't get worse....

    but then it does.  each and every time.

    by ejpoeta on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:30:03 AM PST

•  I have a question

  Taxes are paying for these events, why then are the local republicians even organizing them?

  Might this not be a round about way for the tax payers to pay for the salaries of republician staffers?  

  Also are these same local republicians using the information gained from people who show up at these events to focus campaign fundraising in the future.....sure you can have a ticket, just provide your e-mail address and home address above for security reasons and provide the follow information salary etc....with this information they could focus there campaigning and raise more money and why are republicians only getting this information?
  

  by Mikecan1978 on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:44:46 AM PST

  •  Public pay for campaign staffers

    That could be why the party is playing this so far past the point of obviuos failure. It is not meant to convince anyone to join their side. The whole privatization campaign is a midterm exercise to keep the campaign staffers pumped up, and the astro-turf organizations mobile.

    Social Security: On With the Show:

    ...
    These meticulously staged "conversations on Social Security," as they are called, replicate a strategy that Bush used to great effect on the campaign trail. But instead of appealing to his political base in hopes of driving up turnout, Bush this time is targeting a far narrower audience of swing voters in the Senate -- centrists who so far appear unswayed by the president's public salesmanship. And Democrats, led by their new party chairman, Howard Dean, have begun firing back, belittling the forums as rigged spectacles rather than true town hall meetings.

    The White House follows a practiced formula for each of the meetings. First it picks a state in which generally it can pressure a lawmaker or two, and then it lines up panelists who will sing the praises of the president's plan. Finally, it loads the audience with Republicans and other supporters.

    To help make its case, the White House recruits people such as Mark Darr, 31, an insurance agent from Benton, Ark., who joined the president on stage at a forum in Little Rock last month. In a subsequent interview, Darr said he believes he was chosen because he went to college with one son of Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee and provided insurance for another.

    After the governor's office called, Darr said, he began receiving one call after another from the White House, quizzing him on his thoughts on Social Security and his family history, just as they did all the other candidates. "I'm sure they wanted to . . . make sure they weren't going to embarrass the president," Darr said.

    Not so his mother. At first when he mentioned that she receives Social Security, he said, White House aides seemed eager to add her to the panel. Then they called her. "She wasn't really for the private accounts, so they didn't decide to use her," Darr said.

    The night before the event, the chosen participants gathered for a rehearsal in the hall in which the president would appear the next day. An official dispatched by the White House played the president and asked questions. "We ran through it five times before the president got there," Darr said.

    Erma Fingers Hendrix, 74, a retired nurse who also participated in the Little Rock event, said she believes she was picked because she has been active for years in Republican women's clubs in Arkansas and campaigned for Bush in 2000 and 2004 -- once even introducing him at a campaign rally just before he was elected president. "The ones who contacted me in 2000 probably said, 'Erma's easy to work with,' " she said.
    ...

    Transferring public money to the republican's own security force helps prepare for 2008. More Brooks Brothers Riots. More Sproul and Associates-style capers. More canned protests and phony prayer vigils. Only this time, they'll be on your dime.
    

    by chimpy on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:17:00 AM PST

    •  For me It's just Bush

      Trying to avoid that media filter.

      And put in his own Lefty filter on this issue.  And heck why not go to some states where he thinks he can support the republican party while he's at it.  The thing that I hate is that he's ment to be all American's President not just the president for 51% of the population.

      Call me an idealist but I just am looking at all this and getting kinda scared by it all.  I'm good at looking at things from the big picture and seeing most of the angles and I see what the republicians are doing they are changing the tone of the country to there neads.  They see this period of owning all 3 house as a chance to change the course of Ameerican history toward there ideals and it's scary becasue they aren't honest and forthcoming about them.

      by Mikecan1978 on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:24:40 AM PST

•  Great Stuff

  We should take up a collection for these agents' families.

  by Kudos on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:45:07 AM PST

•  I disagree

  And I'm sure I'll be greeted with zero ratings and cries of "fascist, but I'm saying it anyway.

  "The very essence of the First Amendment is that you can't be punished for the speech you make, the statements you make."

  That's absolutely false.  You can't be restricted from saying whatever you want, and you and these people have not been denied a forum to air your grievances.  That being said, people who disagree with you are not required to invite you to their events.

  Now, a sudden shift to make this a private event is sketchy, to be sure.  And I don't think these events should be private to begin with.  But if they are, then there's nothing that says you have a right to be there.

  The President is under no obligation to make public appearances, and the people who invited him to speak are entitled to restrict the attendance in any way they see fit.

  by RFTR on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:45:33 AM PST

  •  if its tax payer funded

    then isnt it the tax payers who supposedly invited him to speak?

    by comrade bert on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:47:55 AM PST

  •  Hmmmm

    Why is Bush only accepting invitations from Republicians.....are they the only ones impacted by social security....I'd like to see AARP ask Bush to speak with a demographic of it's members rather then Bush speak with people that are loyal to the master.

    by Mikecan1978 on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:49:32 AM PST

  •  You Sure You Really Want To Make This Argument?

    "The President is under no obligation to make public appearances . . ."

    I suppose, State of the Union Message aside, there's no constitutional requirement to make such appearances.  One could argue that there certainly is a moral obligation to do so, and any attempt to do otherwise deserves every raucous horselaugh it gets in response.
    

    "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

    by JJB on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:53:05 AM PST

    •  SOTU

      He doesn't even have to make a public appearance to deliver the state of the union. He doesn't have to go to Congress and give a speech.

      As Aaron Sorkin put it on The West Wing, if he buys Congress a subscription to the New York Times he's essentially fulfilling his duty to report on the SOTU.

      by AggieDemocrat on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:34:30 AM PST

      •  Come To Think Of It

        Nixon, if memory serves, did a SOTU address over the radio (possibly prerecorded), in either 1973 or '74.  I think it was the former, just before or after his second inauguration.  

        "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

        by JJB on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:19:08 AM PST

  •  oh come on now

    That's all well and good but this event was paid for with taxpayer money.  Therefore this is NOT a private event regardless of who is involved in distributing the damn tickets.  Any appearance by a public official which is funded with public money is a public event.  Period.

    Who pays the Secret Service people?  Who pays for Air Force One?  Who pays the damn President?  

    If this were a private citizen speaking at a private event then by all means, limit the guest list however you please.  It's not and all the bullshit in the world doesn't change that.

    by alaffin on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:53:08 AM PST

    •  Well, the taxpayers fund

      the state of the union, and access is restricted to those who are invited.  I think RFTR has a valid point.  It may be immoral and sleazy, but it is not illegal.  The president can address an audience of his or her choosing - and, in fact does so all the time - or can choose to hole up in the White House and not appear in public at all.

      by fishhead on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:20:37 PM PST

  •  Excuse me,,,,,,,,,,,

    FUNDED WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS!

    That is the issue, period.  If I'm paying for it, I'm allowed to be there, PERIOD.

    This son of a bitch considers himself, and his party, above the law.

    by Miss Blue on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:53:15 AM PST

    •  and by the way...

      Even if the "event" per se is not funded by taxpayer dollars (though I'm pretty damned sure it is), more often than not, the taxpayers of that community are PAYING for all the additional SECURITY (local cops, etc.) to handle the event.  One way or another, taxpayers $$$ are being used to support the event.
      

      by Joon on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:23:21 AM PST

  •  Wai-wai-wait a minute

    Ok, so why aren't these "events" being called what they are?  Free-admission, conservative-only, non-dissenting meetings of propaganda?  I would have to say that if entrance is restricted, it is no longer a "town hall" meeting or whatever quaint phrase you want to use.  This is a horrible abuse of power.  There should be no suppression of opinion at a public event, unless they are rowdy and endangering the safety of themselves or others.  C'mon, RTFR.  He sure can restrict attendance, but then it isn't a public meeting anymore.  He can't call them that, bottom line.  He's the President of our contry--he's supposed to represent us, and have the time to hear dissenting opinions.  I think 8th grade social studies still teaches that the President should be, and "is" an honest representative of the people--not some fat-cat unwilling to participate in democracy.

    by NeverSummer on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:58:11 AM PST

    •  oops,

      er, I'm an eigth-grade misspeller--country, not contry...

      by NeverSummer on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:00:14 AM PST

    •  Republican Controlled Propaganda Event

      featuring The So-Called President of the United States!!!

      By gu, let's call a spade a spade!

      by Fabian on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:01:02 AM PST

  •  No

    The president can, of course, attend a private event whose host excludes whomever he likes.  An event that is paid for you by you and me, however, and that is intended to promote the administration's policies, is not a private event, even if it is labeled so. The organizer of this party is not a private actor, in either a de facto or de jure sense.  That's why the excluded parties should sue.

    Look, the people who were kicked out of the event paid for it.  The reason that the president was allowed to use their money is because the event was ostensibly intended for their--that is, public--benefit.  The administration contends that the new SS plan serves a public function and therefore can be promoted with public funds.  But when it comes time to run the event, it is closed to the public. How can that stand?

    by yourcenour on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:03:17 AM PST

    •  Playing devil's advocate

      Is it your contention that, if the taxpayers subsidize an event at which the president speaks, they have the right to attend?  I think it's fair to say that their premise (that this a "town hall meeting") is misleading, but I don't think it's actionable since presidents frequently restrict access to events at which they speak on public policy (say, an address to the Knights of Columbus, or whatever).

      by fishhead on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:25:19 PM PST

  •  You're all absolutely right about

    the tax dollars issue, which I most likely should have addressed.

    But I also find it telling that no one responded to my first amendment statement.

    by RFTR on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:03:51 AM PST

    •  Because it's a red herring, maybe?

      n/t

      by OrdinaryVanity on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:44:43 AM PST

      •  Nah

        now people are responding downstream.

        by RFTR on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:48:05 AM PST

  •  Try Again

    "The very essence of the First Amendment is that you can't be punished for the speech you make, the statements you make."

    That's absolutely false. You can't be restricted from saying whatever you want, and you and these people have not been denied a forum to air your grievances. That being said, people who disagree with you are not required to invite you to their events.

    It is essential to ensuring that "you can't be restricted from saying whatever you want" that the government not be able to punish a person for exercising their free speech rights. You're absolutely right that the First Amendment has no force against private entities; however, a private individual may also be a state actor. These events are being funded at least in part by taxpayer dollars and any actions taken by organizers are at the direction, ultimately, of the President acting in his capacity as President using the bully pulpit to sell his legislative agenda. He is not acting as a private citizen or candidate for public office, he is acting as the Chief Executive.

    by Aneurysm9 on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:06:08 AM PST

  •  You're free to disagree. At least HERE you are.

    But respectfully, I think you're wrong, or at least mostly wrong.  So-called "prior restraints" on speech may be a bit closer to the heart of the First Amendment, but it's well established that the government can't punish a person for publicly disagreeing with the government's view.  That's called viewpoint discrimination, and it's almost never constitutional.  If this really was a substantially taxpayer-funded event (and I'd like to see some evidence for that, which is lacking in the diary), then I think a person can't be excluded from it just because of her opinions.  I don't see how a people that would tolerate that kind of treatment by its government can claim to have free speech.

    by yella dawg dem on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:08:36 AM PST

    •  Exclusion

      I don't believe that exclusion from an event could be contrued as a "punishment" - what right is being taken away?

      by fishhead on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:27:16 PM PST

      •  The right to attend a public event

        on the same terms as everyone else.

        by yella dawg dem on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:04:24 AM PST

  •  Your comment

    RFTR,

    I am a lawyer.  The First Amendment only applies to the government--individuals can suppress speech as they please.  When the presidents uses taxpayer money, he is acting in his government capacity.  Thus your comment--that the first amendment does not require private actors to invite people with whom they disagree--is true but entirely irrelevant.  The Republican party in this instance, is a government actor, and hence bound by the First Amendment.

       

    by yourcenour on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:11:51 AM PST

  •  Would you be saying this...

    If this was Clinton and the offended party was a Republican with a 'Impeach Clinton' bumber sticker?  Didn't think so.  But I suppose '9/11 changed everything'.  So, I guess jack-boot single party control is a-ok in your world.

    by RichM on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:13:01 AM PST

    •  I really love it

      when a few kossacks use that kind of line on me.

      1)Even if I would behave that way, I'd still be wrong, so it's not really a good argument.

      2)You don't know me at all, so presuming to know how I'd react to that is completely illegitimate.  Would I really spend my time on this blog if I believed in "jack-boot single party control?"

      And, in all sincerity, I would say exactly the same thing if the parties were reversed.  I know you won't believe me, but it's the truth.

      And I think it's inappropriate of the event organizers to behave this way.  But I also don't think that they're legally compelled to allow anyone into an event just because they want to be there.  And I don't mind restrictions based on people's views.

      Like I said, this was not a governmental action, and the people involved were, in no way, restricted from expressing their opinions.  But when you say something, you're likely to upset people, and those people are likely to not want you around.  That those people may or may not work for the president makes little difference to me.

      If you're really that upset, stand outside the event and wave a sign.  If they try to prevent you from doing that, then I will immediately rally to your cause.

      by RFTR on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:21:14 AM PST

      •  wrong-

        "Like I said, this was not a governmental action, and the people involved were, in no way, restricted from expressing their opinions.  But when you say something, you're likely to upset people, and those people are likely to not want you around.  That those people may or may not work for the president makes little difference to me."

         Private actions that serve the public, have long been established as a public concern, even if they occur on private property.  

        For example-Privately owned businesses that serve the public cannot discriminate.  (Example, hotels that won't give rooms to black people) landlords or employers open for business to the public cannot discriminate and fire people based upon sex, race, creed, and so on.  So if the bumper sticker, "no blood for oil" was a viewpoint held by conscience, than it is directly discriminating against a creed, held by an individual.  

        Simply saying "we don't like your kind around here" doesn't cut it.  If on the other hand there was a background check, and these people frequently particiapted in disruptive events, I would agree perhaps they should not be allowed in, but there is no evidence of that.

        by lilorphant on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:44:28 AM PST

        •  You're exactly right

          They can't refuse to hire based on such things... except when they can.  Take, for example, the Catholic Church's right (upheld over and over again) to refuse to employ homosexuals.

          And, even if an employer who does business with the public isn't allowed to fire (or to refuse to hire) someone based on those criteria, he can absolutely refuse to do business with those very same people if he wishes.

          by RFTR on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:50:45 AM PST

          •  Homosexuals not a protected class

            
            Unfortunately, as you point out, homoexuals can be discriminated against.  However, creed, race and gender cannot.  

            So we have two issues, the first ammendment issue, whereby the slogan "no blood for oil" is obviously a statement of conscience.  It is no different than "choose life", or a Jesus fish, which is protected.  It says nothing about Bush, Social Security, or any party.  It isn't threatening.

            Then we have an issue of public/private event. We have a state actor speaking at a publically funded function, and tickets were dispersed through state funded actors (congressional offices),  who supposedly represents all constituents.  

            Basically, the president is only president of the Republican Party?

            by lilorphant on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:52:58 AM PST

            •  Creed race and gender cannot?

              So a massage parlor that caters only to men has to hire masseurs as well as masseuses?  I don't think so...

              And no, I don't think the president is only responsible to the people that elected him, but this wasn't a town hall meeting about getting feedback for his benefit.  It was about providing his outlook for people that need to hear it.  If a determination was made (whatever you think of that determination) that these three people wouldn't benefit from it (an action that I disagree with, but understand) then the people in charge have every right to discharge them and let some people in who can actually gain from being there.

              by RFTR on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:58:39 PM PST

              •  please-

                how could anyone have made that distinction prior to the meeting?

                They could have been seeking information for any purpose whatever, a local neighborhood newsletter, their parents, or a disabled friend.  Unless we are prepared to discriminate we live in a totalitarian estate.  

                by lilorphant on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 02:57:18 PM PST

      •  You make good points here:

        2)You don't know me at all, so presuming to know how I'd react to that is completely illegitimate.
        And,
        If you're really that upset, stand outside the event and wave a sign.

        So on the basis of one bumper sticker, outside the event itself, the Republican "staffer" presumed to know these people.  

        by pat bunny on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:45:07 AM PST

      •  Oh boy, where to begin...

        First of all, these `Town Hall Meetings' are supposed to be where Dubya sells his SS plan.  They are publicly funded and supposed to solicit ideas.  Or am I wrong on this?  How are any ideas going to formulate any ideas if everybody who attends is a card-carrying Republican who never questions the President?

        Since when is it OK for a sitting President to be `handled' by his own party for a tax-payer sponsored open forum?  Where the entrance criteria to this forum is "Never said anything that would be remotely distasteful to the Party"?  Do you really believe that the President is under no obligation to those who do not agree with him 100%?  Gee, I guess we just elect a king who doesn't have to answer to the people.  I understand the distinction that you are making, but really, when a President is completely isolated from any dissent, does he really represent the people who he is supposed to govern?  Is that what the Founding Fathers intended?

        Oh, I could go `protest' any appearance.  But I would be miles away from the actual event and not with ear-shot or eye-shot of the Republican handled President.  This is called "Free-Speech" Zones.  If I were to try to get the eye or ear of the President, I would be arrested.

        I apologize for the tone of my response and I appreciate you being civil.  But I think you are dead wrong and your sentiment is contributing to the growing Fascism in America.  That is my opinion.
        

        by RichM on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:46:30 AM PST

      •  It is the fact that you

        "...don't mind restrictions based on peoples views", that constitutes the fallacy of your entire too-clever-by-half argument.

        It is against the law for people to be discriminated against based on their views in any venue, whether it be in a religious context, a political context, or a "going out and being allowed to eat in the restaurant I choose" context. Even if these town hall masquerades were private, even if they charged admission to them, they would not allowed under the law to restrict access based on political perspective, any more than a restaurant can deny service to someone who's color they don't like.

        Fortunately we still have civil rights laws that protect the broader society and the family of man from the deleterious effects of the smallminded and restrictive opinions of a few being  arbitrarily imposed upon them. We may not be able to uphold these rights much longer, given the direction things are going, but we must continue to challenge any and all who want to erode the principle of equality.

        by sbj on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 04:01:19 PM PST

  •  Are you serious?

    How can you keep defending him? I'm not going to troll rate you but honestly not everything is defensible.

    The President, by custom & tradition, is the top people's representative. He's also a politician- a breed notorious for glad handing whenever they can. He just seems scared to hear anyone tell him he's not brimming with good ideas.

    Safety is important but these 3 people didn't exactly seem like lunatics to me.

    by vcmvo2 on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:14:15 AM PST

    •  I don't think they are lunatics

      and I by no means defend every action the president has taken in office.

      But, I also don't think that lunacy is the only legitimate reason for excluding people from an event like this.

      By way of example, the Democratic National Convention was largely funded by taxpayer dollars.  Should I have been granted access to that?  I tried to get it and couldn't.  Are you burnt up about it?  If so, then I commend your consistency.

      by RFTR on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:23:49 AM PST

      •  Yes frankly I do

        & maybe that makes me unusual. But I'm a Democrat,always have been, I couldn't get in either.LOL.

        You seem reasonable it's just some things with this administration defy reason.

        by vcmvo2 on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:32:56 AM PST

        •  The reasoning is

          a bumper sticker like the one mentioned is enough to assume that the owner most likely has made up his/her mind about any policy Bush will put forth, particularly one like social security.

          And since W is on this trip to try and sell his policy, there's really no reason he should be required to include opposing voices in his events.

          You want to express your opinion?  Like I said, stand outside and wave some signs, or talk to people as the go in and out.

          by RFTR on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:36:40 AM PST

          •  No I can't wave signs

            It's just not my style. I'm extremely polite. I'm more concerned that others actually get to hear what the President is saying without the media filter. An honest debate should be just that.

            I really don't want to encourage a mob mentality but that may be what others feel they've been reduced to when the powers that be won't listen at all.

            I live in a Republican sstronghold, I like most people I associate with. They like me but they seriously think I'm kidding when I disagree with any of Bush's policies. In fact, I usually don't try they really don't want to hear it. I escape to dkos.

            by vcmvo2 on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:50:08 AM PST

            •  You absolutely can

              wave signs—you choose not to.

              I live in a Democratic stronghold, and I retreat to DKos.

              I also proudly displayed my Bush bumper sticker during the election, despite explicit threats of keyings (which were carried out) and tire slashings (which were not).

              You pays your money, you takes your choice.

              by RFTR on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:53:04 AM PST

              •  Nope to facile

                Sign waving is hardly free speech since none is involved. There is no dialogue. No chance for the ordinary citizens to ask questions, if they are then disruptive- remove them. Sign waving is primarily for the Media the President pays no attention. Since the Media won't cover the protests, won't in fact report on anything what's the point

                by vcmvo2 on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:03:49 AM PST

          •  "I call you my base"

            _ bumper sticker like the one mentioned is enough to assume that the owner most likely has made up his/her mind about any policy Bush will put forth, particularly one like social security._

            So, anybody who doesn't want to spill blood for oil (or happens to come in a car whose owner feels that way) is presumed to be unpersuadable on EVERY issue that Bush puts forth, including ones that have nothing to do with war or energy policy?  Now, I know Mr. Bush isn't such a hot debater, and he's not so good with words, and the fussy details of public policy bore or confuse him, but this is setting a pretty low standard for the President of the United States.  

            Your precious GOP standard bearer hopes to walk in Ronald Reagan's shoes? I don't think so.  He'd be lucky to inherit the mantle of Dick Nixon.  Herbert Hoover is a better comparison.

            But thanks for visiting dkos and trying admirably to defend that fascist lout.

            by freedc on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:33:17 AM PST

            •  No, but

              anyone who thinks the Iraq war was about oil (a logical assumption based on the bumper sticker) is likely to oppose Bush at all turns.

              Find me a counter-example, if you'd be so kind.

              by RFTR on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:36:53 AM PST

              •  precisely the kind of mentality

                Which Bushco excels at.

                "youre either for us or against us" - as if the job of americans is to check our individuality at the door and follow the pres blindly as an act of faith.

                an example:  I have a good friend who is a libertarian. He was dead set against the war because he thinks it is a boondoggle, a terrible example of "big government" at its worst, and that it has made our national security worse.

                He was also very much against the Patriot Act because keeping the government out of people's private business is important to him.

                But as an economic libertarian, he supports "private accounts"

                by biscobosco on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 12:21:47 PM PST

                •  And he'd never say

                  it was merely "a war for oil," I'd bet.

                  by RFTR on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:59:29 PM PST

              •  'logical assumption based on the bumper sticker'?

                Republicans who've recently bought a used car from a liberal and haven't had time to remove the sticker is also a logical assumption. Pranksters could have slapped it on. Amazingly, however, Republican staffers decided not to raise those possibilities.

                At any rate, this is a side argument.

                (counter-example? You stake the claim, you play the game. Do your own damn research. GW Bush seemingly can't make up his mind on why he invaded Iraq, at least publicly.)

                by Ace Pumpkin on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 12:28:32 PM PST

              •  Counter-example

                anyone who thinks the Iraq war was about oil (a logical assumption based on the bumper sticker) is likely to oppose Bush at all turns.

                Find me a counter-example, if you'd be so kind.

                How about Cheney? :)

                And, there may even be a few among the large majority of Americans who have good intentions toward their fellow citizens. Of all the people who prefer peace, at least a few must be hazy enough at math to be taken in by Bush's traveling actuarial show.

                by chimpy on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 12:53:03 PM PST

              •  where Bush and I agree

                anyone who thinks the Iraq war was about oil (a logical assumption based on the bumper sticker) is likely to oppose Bush at all turns.
                Find me a counter-example, if you'd be so kind.

                Counter-example meaning an example of someone who shares the "no blood for oil" sentiment and is open-minded about Bush proposals?  I can only speak for myself.  Here's where Dubya and I agree:
                

                • shrinking the size of government
                  
                • ending wasteful farm subsidies
                  
                • reducing taxes on America's middle class (including the AMT), even though we disagree on what to do about the top income brackets and capital gains taxes
                  
                • NCLB's school accountability provisions
                  
                • NCLB's priorities for "scientifically based" education reforms

                Now, the list of areas where I disagree with him are a bit longer and I think he's incompetent and has done irreparable damage to our country, but I think I smacked down your attempt to apologize for his Administration's shameful use of brownshirt tactics in his tours around the country.

                by freedc on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:10:21 PM PST

              •  RFTR is Right Again!

                No, but anyone who thinks the Iraq war was about oil...

                Translation:  Anybody who thinks.

                ...is likely to oppose Bush at all turns.

                I will agree with your proposition:

                Anybody who thinks is likely to oppose Bush at all turns.

                Still, being opposed to the President's 'ideas' about Social Security is no reason to be turned away from an event you are paying for to disucss those same 'ideas.'  If the 'ideas' can't be opposed, what's the discussion for?

                Your previous comparison of these events to Kerry 2004 campaign events is illuminating.  Which is a nice way of saying that it shines a bright light on what a troll you are.

                by Thinker on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:10:50 PM PST

          •  Reasoning?

            I'm sorry dude, but this is a pretty pathetic argument.  You have been plenty polite to not be troll rated, but this is among the most specious of your statements yet.

            You say he's out to "sell" his plan.  Why have an audience at all?  He certainly isn't taking a poll of people's positions and weighing them in making up his mind.  He's made up his mind.

            And, if he is really "selling," then by your logic, the only people invited should be those who are undecided or who oppose the President's plan.  Why in the world would you invite someone who has already "bought" to a sales pitch?  And, if bumpber stickers are a proxy for views, the presumption ought to be that such a bumper sticker represents a potential sale rather than presuming that its an impossible sale.

            But of course, this isn't your presumption.  Its just one you've concocted as window dressing for an argument that you probably don't even believe.

            We all know what's happening here.  Many folks have said it:  its a propaganda fest and dissenters are excluded precisely because they are dissenters.

            This is the most basic form of viewpoint discrimination.  Its not even just "content-based" discrimination in the lingo of First Amendment jurisprudence (i.e. discrimination on subject matter regardless of view on that subject).  Its the most insidious form of 1st Amendment discrimination.

            What you might be alluding to in your defense of the this nonsense is "content-neutral" or "tme-place-manner" restrictions, which this clearly isn't.  Of course, the President can limit access based on numbers or based on "rowdiness," etc., but even so, a "prior restraint" (i.e., judging by his bumper sticker, he's likely to engage in offensive speech) is probably the the pinnacle of First Amendment no-nos.

            As for your concluding thought -- how about this:  Mr. Presdient, if you want to "express your opinions," use a content-neutral screen for your audience or do it on your own fucking dime, not mine.

            Vocal dissent is the price we pay for freedom. Stifiling it is anti-democratic.

            by MRL on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:33:41 AM PST

      •  A weak argument at best

        These people were already admitted, hence everything that follows is fallacious.  

        Since they weren't exhibiting any inappropriate behaviour there was no reason to remove them from a public place.

        How is a discussion of policy anything other than political speach?

        Are you gathering responses to prepare talking points for later use?

        by RMeister on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:46:00 AM PST

      •  you're changing the subject

        - and none too deftly. The issue isn't whether or not they were granted access it's that that access was removed in a rather imperious and disturbingly un-American way. If they had simply not been allowed to go to the Bush pep rally this would be as much of a non story as your not being able to get into the Democratic convention. And, yes, if you were denied access to the DNC convention for no good reason then I am burned up about it.

        by iconoclast on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:56:49 AM PST

        •  not quite

          Bush is running these SS "town halls"  as if they were paid for by the GOP

          the problem is that they are not.

          • if these are really "town halls" sponsored by the office of the president then turning someone away because they are a dem or green or independent sounds outrageous if not illegal.

          • if these are partisan GOP love-fests paid for by the GOP, then I agree: non-story. But the hypocrisy of calling them "town hall" meetings when they are really "GOP love-fests" should be made clear.

          by biscobosco on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 12:29:52 PM PST

      •  Really, really

        tried?  I hope you did, and if you were turned away, hell yes I would be pissed.  None of this should happen anywhere for public office.  Will anything get done?  Nah, there's no bulky baseball players or PVS women in the story.

        by NeverSummer on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:20:37 AM PST

    •  It's that whole...

      ...cognitive dissonance thing.

      by OrdinaryVanity on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:45:45 AM PST

  •  How do you define "private"?

    Whether it is private or public should be determined by who funded it.  If the taxpayers are paying for it, then it should be public.

    by Sandia Blanca on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:22:17 AM PST

    •  See my response

      directly above your post.

      by RFTR on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:24:28 AM PST

    •  no

      It doesn't matter who paid for it if it is intended to address a public concern.   If it is open to the "public" than it is a public event they cannot go backtracking now.  That is like opening up a bar, then calling it a private "social club" for the purpose of discriminating.  The government cannot do it.

      There are two issues here, the issue of public concern at a "private"/non-private event, and the issue of the first ammendment, which the bumper sticker clearly expressed a matter of conscience, ("no bombs for oil") which is protected speech.

      They could just as well have had a Jesus Fish and it would be just as illegal to discriminate based upon a declaration of conscience.

      by lilorphant on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:02:02 AM PST

  •  Legally speaking...

    You do raise an interesting point.

    Rove et al. are very adept at operating at the margins of legality, or sidestepping investigation of actual crimes.

    Looks legal, no press coverage. Looks illegal? Come up with a cover story. Need some time getting your stories straight? Dismiss critics as unpatriotic, ignorant, egg-headed elite, or secular humanist. Brief, inconclusive press coverage.

    No press, no investigation. No investigation, we never find the actual violations. If there is an investigation, make sure you get to set the terms of interviews and the scope of the queries.

    Tie up FOIA requests, lose documents, keep presidential papers secret until they're ancient
    history.
    

    by chimpy on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:44:45 AM PST

  •  heh heh

    your quote:
    a sudden shift to make this a private event is sketchy

    Bush wants to privatize everything
    even
    town hall meetings
    on
    privatizing social security

    by biscobosco on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:52:12 AM PST

  •  Sorry, but you are wrong

    If the Republican Party were paying for these events and flying him around for them, you would be right.  But they are NOT.  The US government is paying for these events.  Our tax dollars are.  So they cannot say these are "private" events.  They are NOT. There are rules and regs as to when he is "campaigning" (and he can't be campaigning now), and when he is acting as President.  And he is acting as President now.  These are public events.  So he cannot get away with the bs he pulled last year with not letting people into events based on political beliefs.

    Also, there is something weird going on here.  These people picked up their tickets at their Congressman's OFFICE, not at the local GOP headquarters.  Yet, the SS claims ticket distribution is through the local Republican party?  I don't think so.  If that were true, you would pick up tickets at the local GOP headquarters, not at the Congressman's office.  Somebody is just plain LYING.  I doubt it is  the SS, they are just being told to say this.

    I know some Secret Service from back when I lived in DC.  They are very honorable, decent people, saddled with whatever protectees enter their universe.  They HATE this kind of shit.

    by Mary Julia on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:54:06 AM PST

    •  when bush was here

      tickets were distributed thru senators offices.
      course those senators are republicans.

      perhaps he is carefully only distributing tickets thru repub senators/congress offices, and not dem.

      just a thought.

      by biscobosco on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:00:17 AM PST

  •  I don't think so.

    I really doubt the government can exclude people from a meeting described as a "town hall" based on speech they engaged in in the past.  You can't make the content past speech the criteria in that way without violating the first amendment.  

    And I don't think calling it private doesn't help for first amendment analysis.  There was clearly state action.

    (And by the way, does riding in a car with a bumper sticker amount to an adoption by you of the speech on the bumper sticker?)

    by sophiebrown on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:00:08 AM PST

  •  Ronald Reagan disagrees with you

    That's absolutely false.  You can't be restricted from saying whatever you want, and you and these people have not been denied a forum to air your grievances.  That being said, people who disagree with you are not required to invite you to their events.

    These appearances are paid for with our tax dollars. What part of that do you fail to understand?

    In the words of Ronald Reagan, "I hired this microphone."

    by Ivan on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:19:59 AM PST

  •  Not Facist

    Just wrong. I don't want my dollars going to an event which I, a democrat, couldn't attend. That's just ridiculous. The Republicans would be incensed if the Democrats were to do this to them.

    by DrTree on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:23:01 AM PST

    •  As I said

      the Democrats (and Republicans) both have a long history of doing this.  Take a look at the National Conventions every four years.

      by RFTR on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:39:28 AM PST

      •  This was not a partisan event-

        It was about Social Security- A public concern.

        by lilorphant on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:58:07 AM PST

      •  What's your point?

        I remember Coulter and Hannity at the Democratic National Convention, and Michael Moore at the Republican National Convention.

        The citizens in the diary above were merely spectators with tickets to an event in which they were then removed by Secret Service agents. This was done based on nothing inside the event location.
        

        by pat bunny on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:07:22 AM PST

•  They're probably keeping files

  on everybody, or at least on a whole bunch of people.  Maybe the way to keep it legal is to have it done by a private outfit, like ChoicePoint.

  And they would have us believe they didn't know all about Guckert/Gannon.

  by lysias on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:45:38 AM PST

  •  keeping records via Choicepoint

    is a very scary thought, indeed.

    Think of the retaliatory power of leaking people's info for identity theft "punishment" in much the same way as J.Edgar used to punish his adversaries by having the IRS audit them.

    Creepy.

    by Joon on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:15:39 AM PST

    •  Class Action?

      OTOH, if they really did that, that could provide the opportunity for a really juicy class action by some enterprising lawyer.

      by lysias on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:50:29 AM PST

•  To the author of this letter

  Rather than complaining about it, you should sue.  I think you have a legitimate sec. 1983 claim of a First Amendment violation (if, as you say, the event was taxpayer funded).  This is the only way to move the ball forward--it would create great publicity and force the administration to clarify the rules for such events.  Please at least think about it.

  You can start by contacting your local ACLU:

  http://www.aclu-co.org/aboutaclu/intake2.htm

  by yourcenour on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:45:45 AM PST

  •  Technical Legal Quibble.

    Section 1983 actions are against state and local governments.  Against the feds, they're called Bivens actions.

    The standards for the two kinds of actions are essentially the same.

    by lysias on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:52:11 AM PST

•  I Find It Interesting

  That the Secret Service was so forthcoming about the reason these people were ejected.  It would have been easy enough to lie, or to simply have refused to see these people and give them any explanation whatsoever.  Maybe they're tired of being treated like hired goons.  One would think that at least some of these people would be sick of being forced to intimidate law abiding citizens who pose no security risk to anyone.
  

  "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

  by JJB on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:47:58 AM PST

  •  I think they have a bitter taste

    From what they see at these events and they feel bad when they see the law being broken.  They don't want to play that role and I'd like them to enforce the law against those that throw out valid ticket holders.  

    by Mikecan1978 on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:51:34 AM PST

•  GAO

  Time for the GAO to look into the use of taxpayers money to fund political events.

  We need a Democratic member to request an investigation. The GOP needs to pay this money back.

  by CrazyDem on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:49:19 AM PST

  •  Who the hell cares?

    The GAO has issued any number of extremely damning reports over the last five years. They all come to naught because the Republicans have majorities in both houses. It's all a waste of breath and paper.

    If we can't take back at least one house, we may as well begin the exodus to Canada or Belize or the EU or wherever. 'Cause as bad as things are, things are going to get a whole hell of a lot worse if the GOP stays in total control.

    And by "worse," I don't mean mere insults to our intelligence and dignity. I mean physical controls and detentions based on political affiliation. The blacklisting has already begun, i.e., Michael Moore, no-fly lists, the attack on tenure and professors' academic freedom.

    We might stand a chance if we were the type to band together. But I'm afraid we're really not, as a political group. That's why I mention mass exodus. I just don't see us maintaining enough of a semblance of unity to fight these bastards, who already have all the cards stacked in their favor to begin with....

    by Jim J on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:56:17 AM PST

  •  I like this idea

    Is Congress the only entity that can initiate a GAO investigation or do we as citizens have any power to bring this about?

    In the same way that the Bush administration was called on its propaganda in its faked news reports on its programs, the same arguments can be made about these staged events.

    by sciguy on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:57:06 AM PST

•  I figured that I'd at least drop out an email...

  ...to Diana DeGette, my congresswoman here in Denver, and reference the article in my email prominently.

  She's been around awhile now, she has at least a little clout.  Some of the people referenced in the article are her constituents.  I figured what the hell.

  Sooner or later, critical mass will be reached.  If we work.  HARD.

  by Clark on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:49:27 AM PST

•  Well,

  while this account is distubing to me, and surely to 95% or more of those who frequent this site, I have more disturbing news.

  Most Americans just don't care. It's sad, but it's true. They care about many, many things. Just not civil liberties and any freedoms that are not "on the march".

  If you were to relate this story to 100 people at random, the response of 70 or more would probably be...."So what?"

   

  by Hillbilly Dem on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:50:01 AM PST

  •  right

    Just us legal eagle nuts care.

    That is how they won.

    by lilorphant on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:00:12 AM PST

  •  qweqwe

    ...and there you have it.

    by MetaProphet on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 04:11:21 PM PST

•  Presumably

  the car with the bumper sticker did not belong to all 3 people. So, one or two of them were barred, not for what they 'said', but for associating with someone who 'said' something the administation did not like. Fucking outrageous.

  by JoeWPgh on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:50:31 AM PST

  •  Seriously

    I mean, I can see banning people for their speech.

    But when it comes to banning people for who they hang with, well that's my limit!
    [/sarcasm]

    by Thinker on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:25:04 PM PST

•  Outsourcing = no accountability

  Outsourcing has another effect: diffusion of responsibility. It's the same principal we see at work with the private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. When they screw up or break the law, the Pentagon throws up its hands and says "Wasn't me!" So then the story becomes a hot potato, and it's less attractive to news organizations because there's no straightforward, simple narrative.

  by Septic Tank on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:51:01 AM PST

•  Is it official yet?

  Can we admit that this nation under BushCo is headed toward fascism?  When do we realize that playing politics is not going to make anything better?  What is it going to take to reclaim our country from right-wing extremists, religious or otherwise?

  When do we take up arms?

  by Billy Shears on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:51:38 AM PST

  •  i agree

    Fascism is on the march folks, right here in our own back yards

    by comrade bert on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:53:25 AM PST

  •  Not BushCo

    Bush is the puppet...who is the master?

    by NeverSummer on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:03:56 AM PST

    •  Agree

      Bush is only puppet, a "kind" face on the extremist policies of his handlers.  Its obvious that he does not come up with any policies, stances, speeches, or even words on his own.  But since Bush is the face of the administration, he is the symbol for the administration, very much like how the Queen of England is formally regarded as the British gov't, even though everyone knows she doesnt do squat.  

      by Billy Shears on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:15:44 AM PST

•  Don't wait for Congress

  We shouldn't hold our breath waiting for Congress to investigate this.  It needs to be brought to the attention of the national media.  I suggest starting with outlets that have at least some semblance of fairness in their reporting: NYT, WaPo, NPR, salon.com, (any suggestions for TV?), etc.  

  This really needs to get out for at least two reasons.  First, it continues to show how the Bush administration is acting in a purely partisan manner while pretending to be inclusive.  And, second, since Bush's attempt to privatize SS is loosing favor the more folks learn about it, this would certainly further the decline in folks trust of the administration on this matter.  

  by sciguy on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:52:07 AM PST

•  maybe some lawyers can suggest ways to litigate

  it strikes me that any place that the President is going to speak is a venue for an injunction to PREVENT this from happening

  by globalsol2005 on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:53:12 AM PST

•  GOP = USSR

  
   When are Dems on Capitol Hill going to start Howling about this??!!!

   With the NeoGOP the country and all that the country supposedly stands for (let's begin with, say, the Constitution and Bill of Rights) plays second fiddle to the The Party.  GOP=USSR.

   BenGoshi
  __________________
  

  by BenGoshi on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:53:31 AM PST

  •  Ben

    I think the USSR would be more open than our "government."

    China/North Korea might be a better comparison.

    by Joon on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:10:29 AM PST

•  Let them keep their private events...

  but if they are giving the ticketing and security to the republican party, then the party should be required to cover all expenses.  I'm sure that they kept records of how much this cost.  I'm equally sure that the GAO will be able to total this amount and submit a bill to the republican party.  If they weren't really private events, but were party events, then the party should pay for them.  It seems simple to me.

  by dianem on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:54:30 AM PST

  •  Privatized Presidency

    Instead of just privatizing Social Security, they have privatized the presidency.

    Imagine who the highest bidder must be?

    by TxTiger on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:14:31 AM PST

    •  They like to privatize everything

      They say it's more efficient, but really it simply provides more opportunites for patronage.   We have spent millions on private security officers in Iraq, paying for work that could have just as easily been done by our soliders for much less money.  Ah... but there aren't enough soldiers, right?  Well, there would be if you started paying them the kind of money that private guards make in Iraq.  And the governemnt wouldn't have to pay overheard to Haliburton.  

      by dianem on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:37:27 AM PST

      •  That is presumably why

        -- or at least a lot of the reason why -- Rumsfeld has so stubbornly resisted expanding the military.

        by lysias on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:54:30 AM PST

•  Impeach this piece of pigshit immediately!

  Do it now. He is a disgrace to our nation. I'm talking about President Bush, of course.

  by Seemabes on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:54:59 AM PST

  •  There are so many potential impeachment targets!

    I looked at the law and we could impeach lots of people.  But we need the lawmakers to take action!

    by Fabian on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:03:12 AM PST

  •  And make "Pres. Cheney" official? (n/t)

    by freedc on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:35:24 AM PST

    •  Don't worry. We can impeach Cheney too!

      Don't worry about who would be president if we impeached Bush.  The whole organization will be gutted if that happens. I figure that a good chunk of the Senate has to commit to the impeachment proceedings.  There will be a whole lotta duck&cover, CYA and scapegoating during an impeachment.

      by Fabian on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:49:44 AM PST

•  the SS are lying nazis

  they directed the arrest the couple in west virginia for a t-shirt. not a local staffer. don't believe a word those bastards say.

  by essexblue on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:56:35 AM PST

  •  under direction and order

    from the GOP Staff.

    They cannot and will not act independently. They do not seek out protestors nor partisan hacks. They protect the perimeter and then leave. Any removal of disruptors was at the express order of the sponsering party.

    Don't let the GOP blame them for doing their job. The White House had to approve all of this beforehand.

    by Dour on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:32:39 AM PST

    •  I don't think the White House can legally order

      the Secret Service to lie.

      by lysias on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:55:35 AM PST

      •  do you realize what you just said

        go back and re-read it.

        They can't put it in a memo, but note telling information can be just as useful as lying.

        Putting in an advance directive not to answer any questions, no matter who asks, is restriction the White House can place on them.

        by Dour on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 04:07:59 PM PST

•  the reason that the dem's

  will not get involved is because it will make them look like they are pandering to activists.  and if they do, everyone will forget about these staged "rallies", the loyalty oaths, and all that other bs, and wring the dem's necks for being in bed with the very people they've been trying to seperate themselves from

  by simplefolk on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:59:31 AM PST

  •  avoiding pandering to radical activists

    hasnt been a major goal of the GOP recently.....

    by comrade bert on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:02:23 AM PST

  •  Precisely

    The very last thing a Washington Democrat is going to do is be tarred by association with their constituency.

    by Thinker on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:28:39 PM PST

•  They want a plan??

  Will the ACLU take up this case?

  They mean to restrict access to government, Latin American Style, period.  No taxes for private events.

  We cannot play by the old rule any more.  When they can ID anyone simply by having a bumper sticker, presumably using taxpayer's apparatus to do so, we have been violated.  

  They want to dismantle the SS program to fund their war, prop up the economy, and leave millions of Americans on the streets in 30 years.

  He wants a plan?  He says that we don't have a plan?  I'll give him a plan.

  Instead of Individualized Private accounts, a portion of SS funds gets invested in a publicly held diverse fund.  Companies that want a piece of that portfolio must have transparent accounts, and proven records of earnings.

  Instead of individuals risking all at this point, everyone still becomes a stockholder, it stimulates the economy, and the risk is spread out further than if there were individual accounts.    

  If this increases funds for social security, than everyone benefits.

  by lilorphant on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:59:37 AM PST

•  Frame

  If we can't get any goddamn mileage out of the sheer Constitutional violation this represents, then maybe we need to speak Red.

  This is craven, yellow-bellied cowardice.  This President who paints himself as a man's man, as a cowboy, as a swaggering tough, has neither the guts or the nuts to stand up to a couple of ordinary average citizens with an opinion.  He's so sissy-afraid of having to defend his positions that he wallpapers the press room with ringers and has his goons haul off everybody but the sycophants.  He's so chickenshit terrified of an honest debate that he wears a wire lest he get outsmarted.

  George W. Bush: The Real Girlie Man
  George W. Bush: The Yes Man's Man
  George W. Bush: The Truth Makes Him Tinkle
  George W. Bush: President Pussy

  by The Termite on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:00:48 AM PST

  •  FREEDOM

    If I were going to attend and then be kicked out of one of these farcical events, I wouldn't bother a NBFO bumper sticker or a Kerry shirt.  Instead I'd have a t-shirt with great big letters and underneath it smaller print:

    FREEDOM
    of speech

    The point should be that Bush likes freedom and democracy as long as those exercising it share his worldview.

    by freedc on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:37:26 AM PST

•  Are we frightened yet....

  the alarm clock is ringing kids. It's been ringing for several years now. The country refuses to wake up.

  If it doesn't happen soon...there will be one defining event that will crystallize for all of the public just how much of our individual rights we have ceded to the megalomaniacs in our government, and by then it will be too late.

  It took decades of blood shed for us to gain the freedoms that we now take so cavalierly. If we give them up with nary a word of protest...we truly deserve what happens to us.

  The major bloggers and all of us in here have it in our power to send a clear message to our government. I truly believe that we outnumber those in the extremists groups that sanction the corrupt and unConstitutional actions of this government. We are NOT the extremists. The views expressed in forums such as the Daily Kos are the voices of MODERATES. They are the voices of TRUE conservatism. They are the voices of the majority in this country that know that our country and our government is based on the freedom and free expression of the PEOPLE.

  Letter writing is well and good. But the medium is the message. NO ONE READS in this country. Writing letters makes you feel good, but it doesn't reach or have any impact on the majority if it doesn't get read. And the MSM is NOT going to publish or report on ANY letter written in opposition to the government. The present situation is the same as the proverbial "tree falling in the forest". If it doesn't appear on TV...did the tree really fall?

  Its time to organize. Peacefully. But it is time for the People to be HEARD.

  by Liberal AND Proud on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:01:28 AM PST

  •  a march on washington?

    Patriots Against Bush?

    Tell me and you have all the time and money I can spare. No fucking joke.

    by naderhader on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:21:23 AM PST

    •  Yes,

      a march on Washington. I have limited means of survival, but at this point I would walk, hitchhike, whatever it takes.  Let's roll everybody.

      by Oke on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:23:10 AM PST

  •  yes

    upthread I suggest an action.

    That dems get tickets to these "town halls" en-masse.

    arrive nicely attired, sporting flags. and inquire how they can "ask questions" of the president and "discuss" social security.

    show Bush for the freaking coward he is, afraid to even talk to democrats/independents.

    contact your senators or reps office for tickets if bush is coming to town. contact the republican party also.

    If you are refused for tickets ask why?

    amazing that we live in a time when our president  is so afraid of us that to even talk to us openly is a threat.

    by biscobosco on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:09:49 AM PST

•  Dems silent because they plan to do the same thing

  Here's my pet theory.  Dem bigfoot presidential hopefuls like Kerry, Clinton, et al, are silent about this issue (mention it in passing but don't raise holy hell about it) because they harbor the vest poscket idea that they may well want to do the same damn thing when they get hold of the Oval Office.

  We need an enterprising and bold young reporter (if one still exists) to button hole Kerry, Clinton, et al, and demand they take a pledge not to do the same thing , or failing to make such a pledge, acknowledge that Shrub is just doing what the Dems will also do some day.  Hans

  by hans1944 on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:05:57 AM PST

  •  Odd, very odd

    But we're talking about what Bush is doing NOW. We don't need to cannibilize our own party. There won't be a two party system anymore if Bush & Co keep this up

    by vcmvo2 on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:29:27 AM PST

  •  actually dems have spoken up on this issue

    DNC has a very good summary article

    http://www.democrats.org/news/200503290002.html
    

    by biscobosco on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 03:44:26 PM PST

•  Call in the GAO

  Kennedy was able to get the GAO involved in opening an investigation of the White House propaganda payments, why not an investigation of government funds used for political purposes.
  Since we cannot seem to get any traction in the House or Senate, the GAO is looking more and more like the way to go.

  by jrod on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:06:40 AM PST

•  oil & Social security?

  the most galling thing to me is that the bumper stickers had nothing to do with the speech's topic- social security.

  so much for healing in america....if you disagree with Bush about one policy, you can't possibly be on his side for another?  that's paranoia for you.

  by wgolds on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:08:15 AM PST

•  Daaaaaaamn...

  this is so illegal... no matter how you spin it...

  "Generosity, Ethics, Patience, Effort, Concentration, and Wisdom"

  by Dood Abides on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:10:19 AM PST

•  Iraqi reporter called Bush "US Dictator"

  Funny, last week I saw an article written by an Iraqi reporter that started, "US Dictator George W. Bush..."  Seems they know more about our govt than we are willing to admit.

  by adigal on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:13:35 AM PST

•  good news/bad news

  the good news is that the SS (let's start using the initials, shall we?) was willing to meet with the "detainees" and was forthcoming with clear and unambiguous responses...

  and the bad news...? MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...! <evil laugh from karl - a/k/a the devil incarnate>

  while we shake our heads and wonder whether or not fascism has reared its ugly head, karl and mini-me are laughing their asses off because they know it's already here... the supreme court held the back door open in 2000 in florida and it snuck right in... now how do we get the little bastard out before it destroys the place...?

  by profmarcus on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:14:15 AM PST

•  Police State

  Corporate media is simply GOP's handmaiden spreading their totalitarian agitprop. Republican led government is intent on hiding and obscuring all of its bumbling totalitarian police state tactics. The only delay in the right wing take over is the civil servants in the judiciary and police who are defying the GOP:

  (WED) A federal judge reviewing Washington, DC's recently enacted ordinance banning hazardous material shipments requested that the Transportation Security Administration detail to him plans for preventing terrorist attacks on rail shipments. "How does anyone give the city council and the citizens [of Washington] any assurance that the federal government is doing anything about the problem?", said U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan. A spokesman for the Department of Justice said that TSA policy is not to release "security-sensitive" information to civil litigants. The judge is reviewing an appeal by CSX to overturn the ban and is expected to issue his ruling by April 8. (ffd: Washington Post)

  by Jim S on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:17:17 AM PST

  •  The corporations should know,

    from what happened in Nazi Germany, that a fascist government may enable them to line their pockets for a while, but in the end they too are going to lose their freedom -- and eventually their wealth.

    by lysias on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:57:54 AM PST

•  FYI

  I worked as Advance for K-E during the past election and I find these stories just as deplorable as the rest of you, but I spent almost 72 hours straight with the secret service during one of the debates and i thought you'd like to hear how they opperate and view things ...

  First off, the story is dead on, Secret Service does not care about your rights or the constitution, at least not while on duty. They care about protecting the principal. You'd be suprised, but most SS agents are Democrats, actually. But we even had a hardcore conservative Republican who made the point that he fundamentally and highly disagreed with just about everything John Kerry stood for, but also made the point that he would take a bullet in the head, leaving behind a wife and 2 kids for John Kerry at the same time. They are 900% dedicated to protecting that principal, regardless of party affiliation andor status (not elected).

  BUT, saying that, they will also follow the orders set out to them by the campaignoffice- so if the GOP says we want the right to kick anyone out, then...that is exactly what the SS will do. If they say otherwise, the SS will secure the perimiter but don't really give a rats ass who is at the event. In fact SS official policy is the less events the better. They could have whole room  full of Kucinich supporters for all they care, they want to controll the room ( magnatometers etc) and they want to controll the FLOW of people, so the barriers, gates, stage etc.

  That's it. So the better argument to be made is that the GOP ordererd the SS to institute these horrible rules, and don't let them blame SS because they only follow the guidelines set out to them before the event.

  by Dour on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:18:36 AM PST

•  The GOP Vision - Perhaps SS disapproves

  
  One evening as freedom burned down and the coup’s hot fires were burning
  Along came a band of Pubs who said boys, the times they sure are turning
  You’re headin’ for a land that's far away from these liberal fountains
  So come with me (or else!) and see the Grand Old Party Mountains

  In the Grand Old Party Mountains there's a land that's fair and bright
  Where all goodness comes from Bushes but you’ll sleep out every night
  Where the markets are all empty but the sun shines every day
  On the ‘burbs and the we and the taxcut trees
  Where what liberals stay are now our slaves
  In the Grand Old Party Mountains

  In the Grand Old Party Mountains all the media know their place
  And the police all are on the take and the Prez lies to your face
  The suburb's schools are full of books and the cities’ full of ---t
  Oh, you’re bound to go where you’ll never show
  Any disrespect else you will get hit
  In the Grand Old Party Mountains

  In the Grand Old Party Mountains you’ll never get new socks
  And the fetid slop we feed you comes complete with a pig trough
  You’ll always have to tip their hat;  if not you’ll be made blind
  There's a lake of stew and power, too
  Every last bit of it for the privileged few
  In the Grand Old Party Mountains

  In the Grand Old Party Mountains the hearts are made of coal
  And you can lie all that you want -- soon as you sell your soul
  There ain't no damn trial lawyers, no taxes, laws or courts
  So you’re goin' to stay where you’ll slave all day
  Where we shoot the jerks who won't be serfs
  In the Grand Old Party Mountains

  I'll see you all after freedom’s fall in the Grand Old Party Mountains

  by cskendrick on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:19:06 AM PST

•  re: "No Blood For Oil"

  I always thought GHWB missed an opportunity in the 1st Persian Gulf War ..when the slogan "No Blood for Oil" appeared...he should have adopted it as HIS slogan...since his reason for going to war was Saddam's invasion of Kuwait -- which was at least partly for Kuwait's oil

  but anywayyyyyyyyyyy.......I'm so glad we have this information regarding W's disgusting tactics

  how can he claim to be an AMERICAN president?...he's the Jesusland Emperor

  by RumsfeldResign on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:19:43 AM PST

•  Who in Congress? Senator Kennedy?

  Forwarded this post to my senator, Teddy Kennedy, today. You never know...there may be one other senator (other than Wellstone) with some guts.

  by beckperson on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:27:35 AM PST

•  Since it's not Law Enforcement

  Decline to leave. It the Rethug's thugs lay hands on, order them to remove their hands. If that doesn't work, you're within your rights to knock their teeth out.

  by ben masel on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:36:37 AM PST

•  Sue them?

  Hey lawyers, is there any way these folks could sue either Bush and/or the US Government over this? Might get some airplay.

  by AggieDemocrat on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:36:39 AM PST

  •  Sue the Republican Party, and the

    individuals. The Secret Service has covered their asss, it wasn't govt. action.

    To create  the factual record, refuse to leave when the rethug's thugs give an "order." Otherwise, there's a debate as to whether you left voluntarily.

    by ben masel on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:41:04 AM PST

•  Who Let All of this Riff-Raff Into the Room?

  Or...

  Get them UP AGAINST THE WALL !!!

  Can you say "Nazi Tactics" ???

  Republican = Fascist

  Where is the ACLU on this???

  by LickBush on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:40:22 AM PST

  •  The ACLU

    As a law firm, doesn't have standing until they are retained by a client. The Colorado ACLU's Legal Director, Marc Silverstiein, is an old friend from underground press days. Fearless. I can't think of anyone better qualified to run with this case.

    by ben masel on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:48:06 AM PST

•  anyone thought about this?

  If these events are financed by the government, but apparently operated by the Republican party, is there taxpayer money going to the GOP to provide "security" or anything else for these events?

  Someone else may have commented on this, I apologize if it's redundant, I'm at work and can't take the time to go through the 150+ comments.

  by eebee on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:43:38 AM PST

  •  I said something like that

    But I think it's really really important....think about what these events do for a local party...it would be huge....he basically doing campaign work for the local parties while he's sitting as the president.....is there any history of this type of 60 day type trip to sell a plan in the US?
    

    by Mikecan1978 on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:29:42 AM PST

    •  for some reason this comes to mind:

      http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/10/05/onemoretry.shtml

      Pro-Kremlin Party Seeks Votes in Moscow Schools
      Created: 05.10.2004 18:11 MSK (GMT +3)

      Moscow schoolchildren will soon receive ID cards bearing a logo of the pro-Kremlin United Russia party. Activists of the "ruling party" are convinced that the move will help make city schools safer. United Russia's political rivals have already denounced the idea.
      ....
      Every pupil and teacher will receive a plastic card with his or her photo and important personal data. United Russia's symbol -- a walking bear against the backdrop of the Russian flag -- and the address of the party headquarters in Moscow will be printed on the reverse side of the card.

      Opposition parties denounced United Russia's project as undemocratic and aimed at establishing total control over schoolchildren.

      by mediaprisoner on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:38:25 AM PST

•  More of Bush's bunker mentality

  I'm sorry but the only images that come to my mind are Hitler in the bunker surrounded by yes men moving imaginary Wehrmacht divisions on the map...

  by tiggers thotful spot on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:46:23 AM PST

  •  I hate when people compare Bush to Hitler

    because Bush is personally not nearly that competent. More like Mussolini with a bad hangover IMHO......

    by iconoclast on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:02:50 AM PST

    •  Sorry...

      I know it's horribly bad form.

      I need to come up with another example of a tin-pot dictator who had to have himself surrounded by yes-men who fed his delusions...

      by tiggers thotful spot on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:15:44 AM PST

      •  Mussolini was very intelligent.

        Mussolini had severe character flaws, obviously, but he was a highly intelligent and energetic man.  Good review of a few new books on the man in a recent issue of the New York Review of Books.

        by lysias on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:00:36 AM PST

        •  I wasn't going to pick someone smart

          We should maybe hold a contest or have a poll or something.

          Which tin-pot not-very-intelligent dictator was most like President Bush?

          Winner gets a free "FOX Blocker" device or something like that...

          by tiggers thotful spot on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:03:25 AM PST

          •  actually bush is alot like hitler

            hitler was a delusional moron, just like someone else we know. And hitler was able to gain power through his charisma and supposed charm with the german people. Any resemblance to bush's supposed likeability factor?

            by comrade bert on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:26:25 AM PST

•  More Evidence of the Fascist Nature of

  the Republican Party under Bush, Delay and Frist.

  Historically, when the ruling party uses its own apparatus for the government, countries have ended up with an authoritarian regime.  All indications are that, with no resistance, the Bush regime would be completely authoritarian to the ongoing cheers of the ridiculous radical religious right because they can't comprehend that just because they're on top now doesn't mean they'll be on top forever.  Even with resistance from Dem's and other progressives, the Bush regime is more secretive than any in history including Nixon's.  The Republicans are totally given over to a fascist mentally that equates the right wing of the Republican Party with the country and the government.  There is no substantial difference in the mindset of the people running our country right now and the Taliban.  

  by sww92498 on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:48:47 AM PST

•  Where's MSM

  With all the gnashing of teeth over poor Judith Miller and the sanctity of the First Amendment. Oh I forgot ...

  by never forget 2000 on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:59:42 AM PST

•  Who in Congress will step up and......

  call for an investigation?  Absolutely no one.

  by Fred on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:01:14 AM PST

•  Leni, Come Back!

  Where is Leni von Riefenstahl when we need her? At least, we'd get some good-looking movies instead of these dreary-looking "townhalls".

  by Lupin on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:20:54 AM PST

•  The ACLU is taking this type of issue on!

  Just found these stories on ACLU's website:

  From Indiana, a "protest zone" violation arrest

  ACLU has investigation underway on FBI supported suppression of Free Speech

  ACLU demands that Melbourne, FL police turn over files tracking political protesters

  ACLU Lawsuit over people arrested for anti bush shirts at a political rally

  Some of these links ARE a little old..but anything that "initiated legal action" in civil cases last year could still be in procedures.  They're going at it, but it's hard to move it quickly when the "wrong" is not raised as a criminal case!

  by floundericiousMI on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:21:41 AM PST

•  How much

  How much longer until they all start wearing brown shirts and carrying torches?

  Shit like this just makes me want to leave this shit hole even sooner.

  by threecents on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:23:17 AM PST

  •  dfasfd

    trust your survival instinct

    by MetaProphet on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 04:20:17 PM PST

•  White House, a privately owned

  partner of Halliburton.

  Subsidized by our taxes...

  by lawnorder on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:29:21 AM PST

•  Legal question

  I'm a lawyer, but don't know the answer to this question.

  Is this potentially a violation of McCain-Feingold or other campaign finance laws?  Potentially a criminal violation?  If so, who has standing to sue?  

  If the campaign finance laws are written the way I suspect, this ought to be illegal and the basis for a pro bono or other lawsuit against the Republican Party, George W. Bush individually, and/or the President of the United States.

  by dkmin on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:40:16 AM PST

•  Rapid Response is researching costs

  The Rapid Response Network has been tracking costs for these "private" events -- trying to determine how much each one costs us taxpayers.

  Researching goddess Anne of RR has even figured out what those tax dollars could be used for instead of being wasted on Don Bushote's quest (things like a police officer's salary, etc).

  The Cost of Propaganda
  by Anne Lindsay (NC) and Rod DeVaul (TN)
  Rapid Response Network
  3/26/05

  (long URL for copying + pasting...)
  http://www.rapidresponsenetwork.org/download/costsofpropaganda.shtml

  President Bush is visiting 15 states [1]. To be generous, let's assume that he will fly Air Force One on just ten of those trips. In a continuing spirit of generosity, let's assume that the total round-trip flying time to those ten destinations will be 20 hours. Since most of those states are more than a two-hour plane flight away, the estimate is very conservative. According to the Air Force, Air Force One costs $56,800 an hour to fly [2]. In a positive gush of generosity, we'll eliminate the costs of flying Marine One to get to Air Force One, and of transporting Bush administration staffers in gas-guzzling government owned cars. So, twenty hours of flying on Air Force One while President Bush engages in his Social Security Propaganda Tour is costing taxpayers $1,136,000! That is before security costs and other expenses on the ground are taken into account.

  Since President Bush has supposedly made Iraq and Homeland Security priorities, and he professes to care about the soldiers in Iraq, we've focused on some of those costs to see what that kind of money could buy. So for just President Bush's Propaganda Air Time, taxpayers could do the following:

      1) Buy 757 ceramic plate reinforced Kevlar vests for some of the 40,000 troops the Bush administration said didn't need that critical safety precaution while serving in Iraq. [3,4]

      2) Pay a year's starting pay to 454 new National Guardspersons to replace those who've been sent to Iraq, thus leaving our country woefully under guarded by this service thanks to President Bush. [5]

      3) Pay the starting salaries for 130 airport screeners. [6]

      4) Fund the annual salary of 33 new border guards to replace some of the 9,790 new border agent positions President Bush cut in his 2006 budget. [7,8]

      5) Pay a year of starting base pay of 82 army privates. Or perhaps even just increase their combat pay -- you know, the pay that President Bush wanted to cut. [9,10]

      6) Just 10 hours of Propaganda Air Time would cover the average annual costs of prescription drugs for 490 senior citizens (at 2003 annual rates). [11]

      7) Just 10 hours of Propaganda Air Time would pay 1093 male retired workers their Social Security benefits for a month and would cover a months' worth of Social Security checks for 1423 retired women (year 2003 averages). [12]

  If that money was actually used for states instead of cutting monies going to states, based on average or median salaries, we could cover the annual salaries of 31 firefighters, 25 police officers, or 24 high school teachers. [13]

  (references available at the site)

  by thesill on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:43:21 AM PST

  •  Class Action Lawsuits?

    Once the total is tallied up, can you sue the RNC on behalf of the people that we're kicked out of any of these events as a class action lawsuit?  Would that give them a clear message?  Any lawyers out there?

    by d3n4l1 on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:26:34 AM PST

    •  No lawsuit on this basis

      You'd have to allege some damages under a tort action, which is what you'd be doing.  And there aren't really any damages you can claim.

      However, as I posted above, I don't know about campaign finance laws.  I suspect that these actions are a violation of McCain-Feingold, but don't know that.  However, even if it were a violation, I don't think you could sue in a class action.  It would instead have to be a lawsuit seeking fines or a cease and desist order or criminal sanctions.

      Any campaign finance experts out there?

      by dkmin on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:09:49 PM PST

•  We should not have to protest

  We should have it investigated.  Surely there is something either against the law or unethical about it.  We may need to protest to get heard, but I don't think protesting each town hall meeting is the way.  We need to bring the protest to the people that can do something about it, that can bring on a new law or investigation.

  To any Congressman or Senator reading this, I'm telling you, the two things you'd better have on the front burner are protecting the voting process, and Protecting the right to speak in dissention, because those ARE the things that are under attack now, and if they win, all is lost.  Social Security, Taxes for wealthy people, Unilateral wars are nothing compared to free speech and the ability to vote in daylight.  I would consider all other issues a distraction if I were you.

  To clarify.  Goverment funded meetings with the public should not be partisanly filtered.  In fact campaign rallies should not be filtered.  There should be some sort of requirement towards openess to the public.  And the white house should have no ability to use Government resources to promote a partisan point of view.  And when there is any view promoted by the Government, just to be clear, it should be clearly and continuously labeled as such, by symbols, written disclaimers, vocal declarations, very very clearly stated.  

  Your first duty is to protect the Constitution.  That is the Oath you have sworn.  Not Social Security.  Not the Environment.  Not even your constituents concerns.  Protect our rights to vote and speak freely to be heard FIRST.

  by d3n4l1 on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:05:40 AM PST

  •  We can repair the rest...

    ... if only the first things are taken care of.

    by d3n4l1 on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:07:08 AM PST

•  Who will step up? NO ONE.

  Who in Congress will step up and call for an investigation?

  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  Oh my word I alm- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  Right. Like anything's gonna come of that. Not to be negative or anything, but nothing is gonna happen. And if it does, the republicans and their wurlitzer will start yelling "partisan" as loudly as they can.
  

  by Frenchy Lamour on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:29:58 AM PST

•  WHY DID THEY LEAVE?

  Shouldn't just have stayed and gotten arrested, because it would have been much more visible, and many could have attested that they had done nothing wrong? Wouldn't that constitute false arrest, and wouldn't they have a better chance of suing?

  by DrReason on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:37:04 AM PST

•  You may notice by now

  a stunning difference in how the gop acts in response to the incredibly numerous and accurate criticisms of their overt corruption.. and democrats reaction to flat out false criticisms. And which works.

  Criticise Delay for being openly corrupt and they dont respond, attack the attacker and rewrite the law to protect him. Criticise the democrats for being "mean" and "partisan" by calling the rape of the working classes, the poor, the environment et al and democrats immediately move right and begin doing so themselves. Criticise Bush for lying to start a war for oil and they call democrats traitors and openly suggest imprisonment and worse. The GOP attacks Clinton based on open falsehoods and the congressional dems leave him hanging out to dry.. and even vote to impeach. Criticise bush for being a deserter in time of war and they attack us yet again as being unamerican and then call us liars.. despite the facts. Call Clinton  a deserter and traitor because he was, god forbid, a rhodes scholar and we run for the hills. Call Max Cleland (war hero, veteran) and Kerry (war hero), and all democrats (including at least two congresisonal medal of honor winners among others) unamerican, antisoldier, cowards and draft dodgers and the democratic party whines that the right shouldnt be so mean , sends ineffective twits out to apologise, or sits quietly while scum like Miller and Lieberman repeat GOP talking points on the air.

  Perhaps a few of the weasels in the party should take note.. and get rid of the quislings determining partywide strategy. Or better yet.. perhaps those without the courage of their convictions should be, finally, shown the door (Hello Mr. Lieberman, Breaux, Miller..etc ..etc.. etc).

  by cdreid on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:42:30 AM PST

•  Who in Congress will step up and call for ...

  Or better yet -- When will someone step up and demand the republican party pay for this entire tour? If they are calling them private events, and are staffed by republicans, and can cherry-pick attendees, why in god's name are the taxpayers footing the bill? This is the outrage, let them toss people out it only makes them look like nazis. But that MY tax dollars are being used to fund a series of pricey "private events" promoting the republican agenda is more than I can bear.

  by brendani on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 12:37:26 PM PST

•  Just heard this story

  covered in very, very brief on Air America News. Not much, but maybe its a start.

  by sidnora on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:09:18 PM PST

•  Contact your local GOP

  Not sure if this works. I just tried it. I just sent a slightly fawning email to the NY Repubs asking what is closest that Dubya will get to NYC and the date. Maybe I'll get lucky.

  Crashing these parties en masse is something that could and should be done. Not that the MSM would cover it...

  by Cuddlefish on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 01:16:21 PM PST

  •  Oops! Too late.

    Chris "nuclear" Vance (Washibngton Republican'ts) already knows who I am.  Sorrowfully, I don't think I'll be able to get a ticket to see our salesman-in-chief.

    I think that he thinks that I think he is a moron.

    by waztec on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 07:24:52 PM PST

•  Did you find this story incredible?

  Anyone familiar with the old radio mystery "Lights Out" when the host says, "It's later than you think?"

  We dems and progs are sooo nice...nice enough to give credit to a fascist monolith for caring about integrity. No one got in a position with Bushco by being "good citizens" or by operating within the law. It helps to have a "past", some dark secret,  to insure control over you. The rest of the wannabees who follow in the Bush path are just fellow travellers hoping to cash in.

  We must strengthen our own integrity, stand on the principles we truly believe in. Don't be amazed when you discover how far down the road towards Mussollini's corporate state we've travelled...It's much, much later than you think.

  by hrayovac on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 02:23:48 PM PST

•  Over at RedState,org last week

  there was a discussion of these "town hall meetings" and one Bush supporter did not see anything wrong with, in his words, "political rallies where the participants support the candidates."  Other RedStaters answered that political rallies are one thing, but political rallies billed as town hall meetings are quite another, pointing out that people who attend town hall meetings expect an open and honest discussion of all aspects of the issue, not a one-sided political rally.

  by azindy on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 02:24:31 PM PST

•  Who'd Wanna Go Anyway?

  I have a question; Who the f#*k would want to attend a Bush rally anyways?  I sure wouldn't, my allergies to assholes would kill me before I got in the door.

  Speaking of assholes, if you want to see the Bible re-written before your eyes, check this out.  Now the religious right is defining what the Bible is saying, whatever it's saying.

  Warning...strong language, as Blaghdaddy blows a fuse.
  

  by Blaghdaddy on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 02:43:25 PM PST

•  my oh my!

  people need to vent a little more often!

  my favorite things that i will take away from this thread:

  the essence of free speech is i can't be punished for the things i say - this information is critical to my next conversation with the boss.

  if it's taxpayer funded, i have access!  (no i will not leave your chambers, mr. rehnquist, don't you have a dr.s appointment or something?)

  failing to listen to our president is considered punishment.

  and you need to sue in instances like this.  it's obvious what the remedy is.  i think they should get back the price of admission.  that plus 10%.

  seriously though, i think its terrible that their speech was suppressed.  we should take a collection to get them a new bumper sticker after they were forced to remove it.  or arrange another townhall meeting so that these people can share the ideas that they intended to share that night.    if only they had an outlet so that they could share their tragic story - like a newspaper or even a blog.  but those damn rethug, brownshirt, bush fascists covered all their bases on this one!  damn them!

  by wafflestomper on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 03:30:21 PM PST

  •  a new sticker ..no really..

    "Democrats and Republicans, trying to make peace, have agreed on a bumper sticker: "Run, Hillary!" Democrats put in on the rear bumper, Republicans put it on the front bumper."

    by Rob NC on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 06:51:52 PM PST

•  When Bush did this

  last year, many of us thought he wanted to be surrounded by like-thinking bobble-heads. That he didn't want any dissention at his gatherings. That he couldn't stand criticism and had to be cheered. As it turns out, he/they had an agenda that most of us were unaware of. If we had organized and infilltrated and posted what was taking place at these things, perhaps we could have dealt with it a lot more effectively. These are sneaky and devious people. There is a reason for the secrecy and I've yet to hear anyone who really knows what it is. We need to get people into these things and find out what he's doing. God knows the media isn't going to tell us. If we let this tactic work for him/them again, we deserve what we get!

  Peace is at hand.

  by kitebro on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 03:32:15 PM PST

•  GOP is very organized

  I have a "dummy" email account specifically for "lurking" on freeper sites to keep on top of what they're up to. Have any of you seen the GOP.com site? I was looking for schedules of the SS "Tour" (haven't found it yet) and am just amazed at how organized the site is and how easy they make it for the Radical Regressives to read the posted lies, type in a few numbers and have instant access to email addys, phone numbers and addresses to all the talk shows, newspapers, elected officials - all right there, one click. They've got it down to a science.

  by jen on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 04:34:48 PM PST

  •  Use it against them

    I used the GOP.com mediaspam engine all the time until the Dems came up with their own.

    I think the GOP one is better, though.  And it would hit the fringe media we want to wage infowar upon.

    by agitprops on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 05:27:37 PM PST

•  CNN, CBS, ABC, Faux News, MSNBC

  If this was a private affair, much like the entire Bampalooza Tour, then why is the media covering it at all?  Why isn't CNN and the rest scrapping the tape of his speech and simply saying, "The president was at a private event today," and go on with the rest of the news.

  Why allow Bush's Private Circus more publicity?

  by krj47 on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 05:05:41 PM PST

•  Send this in to the NYT Op-Ed Page!!!!

  That's where this account belongs.  Oh mighty Kos! PLEASE urge them to submit it -- as an op-ed, not just a letter.

  We should all be forwarding this account to every reporter any of us has ever corresponded with, and sending it in to every newsorg's editors.

  CBS Evening News: [e-mail]
  The Early Show: [e-mail]
  60 Minutes II: [e-mail]
  48 Hours: [e-mail]
  Face The Nation: [e-mail]
  Nightline: [e-mail]
  20/20: [e-mail]
  NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw: [e-mail]
  NBC News' Today: [e-mail]
  Dateline NBC: [e-mail]
  [e-mail]
  Hardball with Chris Matthews: [e-mail]
  MSNBC Reports with Joe Scarborough: [e-mail]
  The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer: [e-mail]

  All Things Considered: [e-mail]
  Morning Edition: [e-mail]
  Talk Of The Nation: [e-mail]
  NPRJeffrey Dvorkin, Ombudsman [e-mail]

  Letters to the Editor: [e-mail]
  Readers' Representative: [e-mail]
  Letters to the Editor: [e-mail]
  Write to the news editors: [e-mail]
  Letters to the Editor: [e-mail]
  Letters to the Editor: [e-mail]
  Letters to the Editor [e-mail]
  Letters to the Editor [e-mail]
  

  by agitprops on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 05:22:34 PM PST

  •  Good list!

    I'm always looking to add to my regular list. I generally cut and paste so I'm not sending big group e-mails. Occassionally I add all the editors of particular papers to my list.

    Here are some other good ones:

    Meet the Press: [e-mail]
    Countdown with Keith Oberman: [e-mail]
    Brit Hume on Faux News: [e-mail]
    

    by Bailey Savings and Loan on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 07:28:50 PM PST

•  Suppressing Free Speech

  I'd like to see if any of the Democrats in congress speak up about this.  To me, they are in some ways worse than the Republicans because they sit back and do nothing.

  by Setmefree on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 06:36:32 PM PST

•  further ironic in light of Rice's comments

  There's another diary out there on Sec. of State Rice's comments about the need for rapid change in the Arab world, shunting off the instability we see in Iraq as part of the greater process. And Bush routinely writes off all bad Iraq news as part of the "hard work" (I love his half-laughing, "And it's hard" comments when confronted with a question on Iraq by any reporter) of building a democracy.

  But any sort of internal debate -- even a couple words at a fundraiser, which are easily blown off/forgotten, and incredibly non-lethal -- lead to this sort of stiflement.

  You know, I'm starting to think he might not be that great a President. Just a thought.

  by BushTracker dot net on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 07:06:39 PM PST

•  Had Enough?

  Two words: TEA PARTY!

  by celticgirl58 on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 07:19:40 PM PST

•  Wrote my email...

  Here it is:

  Dear Senator Feingold,
  I am writing to you today in the hopes that you will lead the way in investigating what I consider to be a heinous misuse of taxpayer funds.  It has recently come to my attention, via this AP story:
  (link)
  And this post on the website Daily Kos (I know you've been there!):
  (link)
  that citizens of this country are being ejected from the President's "town hall meetings" on Social Security reform merely because of their political beliefs.  It is my understanding that these meetings are funded at least in part by tax dollars and are billed as "public" events.  I am outraged (though not surprised) that the leader of our nation and his subordinates could engage in such a despicable practice that completely thwarts the very foundations on which this country rests.  I feel strongly that this issue needs to be spotlighted and that the misappropriation of tax dollars needs to be investigated.  I think that if you took up this cause it would benefit the nation and your constituents greatly.  I also think it would be of some value to you in winning the hearts and minds of Democratic and Independent voters nationally, which certainly could not hurt if you are considering a bid for the Presidency (which I hope you are).
  Thank you for your attention.  I continue to be very proud that you are my Senator.

  Sincerely,
  xxxxxx

  This makes me absolutely nuts!

  by MollyM on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 07:45:45 PM PST

•  Good chance that Beauprez will run

  for governor next year.  We need to frame this event appropriately and press him on it over and over again, until he either makes a public statement to reject the sort of tactics used to exclude these people, or pays a political price for it.

  For starts:

  "Rep. Beauprez, as governor would you ever privatize your public appearances in the way the President used you to promote his privatized public appearance?"

  "Rep. Beauprez, will you use public dollars to attend public events, yet exclude attendees based purely on their political views, in the same way that Bush did during the visit you helped sponsor in March?"

  by by foot on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:53:09 PM PST

•  Free Speech Manual and Glass Houses

  First,

  South Carolina Progressive Network - Free Speech Zone has a Free Speech Manual that provides helpful hints on what to do when Bush comes to town and some very intereresting war stories from the first 4 years.

  http://www.scpronet.com/freespeech.html

  Second,

  if we are going to throw stones (in the purely figurative sense) we had better make sure we don't build any more glass houses.  The presence of a "free speech zone" at the national democratic convention was an embarassment that must never be repeated.  We are trying to "control the message" so tightly that we end up giving the wrong message.  What we do speaks so loudly they cannot hear what we say.  

  We can start by practicing what we preach.  To stand against what they are we must bear the cost of standing up for what we are.  Democracy is supposed to be messy.  It is the only way it works.  

  As for the Busheviks' control freak mentality, nonviolent expressions of the people's will is called for across the board.  They are not protecting us from terrorism, they are protecting themselves from democracy.  

  by Into The Woods on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 10:58:46 AM PST

•  The Rocky Mountain News had an article today

  The article, GOP aide ousted three alleges that the GOoPer who tossed Alex Young, Leslie Weise, and Karen Bauer out of the Preznit's Rally committed the crime of battery. IOW, he touched them without permission - simple battery. Since the GOoPer who tossed them was dressed like a Secret Service agent with the MIB suit, earpiece and lapel pin, and the three were told by people at the metal detectors that a Secret Service agent was coming by, it's reasonable to believe this bozo should be charged with impersonating a Secret Service agent. However, unbelievably enough, the Secret Service agent quoted in the Rocky's story claimed that no crime was committed because the GOoPer never "said" he was a Secret Service agent.

  Personally I go with the old adage, "If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, call it a rose. It still quacks." I think this clown should be prosecuted.

  by jakethomson on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 11:02:56 PM PST

•  Ticket Distribution

  Ok, here's a quick question...in all the posts, it seems I'm always hearing "I got the tickets through (republican rep/senator) office".

  So here's my question?

  Are these townhall meetings only being held in states with ALL republican congressmen?

  In other words, is the White House restricting the distribution of the tickets to these PUBLICALLY FINANCED non-private events to Republicans only?  And if so, is calling these town-hall meetings "non-partisan" as totally bogus as it smells to me?
  

  by ltfranklin on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 12:55:11 PM PST