Ugh

[ceebeegee]

Just another reason I can't stand our current Emperor with No Clothes. God forbid he be confronted with the knowledge that some of his constituents (you know, the people who pay his salary and to whom he is beholden) disagree with him:

As Bush has traveled the United States during this political campaign, the Secret Service and local police have often handled public protest by quickly arresting or removing demonstrators, free-speech advocates say.

...

"It's clear that some of these security zones are not based on legitimate security concerns. They are based on the idea of the president not seeing someone who disagrees with him, which basically undermines the whole idea of the First Amendment."

...

The Kerry campaign says it does not limit attendance based on political views, a point Kerry has made frequently when confronted by hecklers on the campaign trail."

If this happened to me, I would sue the shit out these people for false arrest. Arrest should not be a political tool to suppress dissent--it should an enforcement of the law. What law is there against telling the President you disagree with him? But I'm disgusted, not surprised--it's clear from Bush's policies that he intends to give the big middle finger to half the country's population, despite his running as "a uniter, not a divider" and notwithstanding that less than half the country voted for him. Why can't he talk to these people, why can't he acknowledge that a lot of voters disagree with his policies, why can't he reach out? Oh, because he thinks God told him to do this. I guess if God is in the Cabinet, you don't need to listen to the little people.

Comments

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

It's not really a question of legality, or whether or not Bush or the RNC has the right to stage them thus (if the events are on private land, then of course they do). It's the broader question of the President--the ostensible servant of the people, only this one admits he rarely reads the newspapers, and seems to think he "doesn't owe anyone an explanation" (per the article quoted above)--further insulating himself from contrary opinions, and only hearing the adulation. It really does disturb me. He needs to hear the bad stuff, not just the good stuff--it's like that story Pat Robertson's been telling lately, about his meeting with the President before the Iraq invasion, where Bush denied there would be any casualties. He just didn't want to hear it. Didn't want to believe it.

That really scares me. If you don't want feedback, get out of public service.

[minstrel70.livejournal.com]

I could be wrong about the Woodward Bush quote, and am prepared to be corrected, but it runs in my mind that the context of it was a question about advisers cautioning him that the "Axis of Evil" verbiage in his SOTU address was too harsh.

I haven't read the book, but it does bring up an interesting point. Both Woodward and O'Reilly have asked the KE04 campaign for a Kerry interview, which to date has been denied them. So far, Kerry has only done "friendlies" -- Couric, et al. He hasn't been much more forthcoming with explanations than the President. I think it's a symptom of presidential politics more than a specific flaw of either man. But that's just my two cents.

As for Bush insulating himself from contrary opinions, I'm sure he's aware of the polls, and knows that he doesn't have 100% support, even if that's what he sees at his rallies.

Campaign rallies aren't meant to be fora for political debate, anyway -- they're meant to energize the supporters. Now, having been to a number of Bush '88 and Bush '92 events where dissenters were allowed in, I would have to disagree with the campaigns tactic on this one basis: nothing energizes the party faithful like a handful of hecklers being shot down by the candidate, or out-heckled by the mass of supporters. So perhaps BC04 ought to let a few in after all.