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

[minstrel70.livejournal.com]

...notwithstanding that less than half the country voted for him.

Also true of Gore in 2000, as well as Clinton in 1992 and 1996. What's your point?

Oh, because he thinks God told him to do this.

Nice. Demonize someone for being religious. I'm an atheist, and I'm sick of hearing that line. He says his faith guides him and gives him strength. Never has he said "God told me to do x." Perhaps only atheists should be allowed to be President?

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

You are entirely misreading what I wrote, or selectively reading.

My POINT: that, as I said, Bush ran as a uniter, not a divider. And he has NOT DONE THAT. As I said, he's giving a big middle finger to half the country, despite his not being given a mandate. Which Clinton did not do (Clinton pushed for tough on crime laws, and welfare reform, traditionally conservative pet issues). Which Gore did not have the opportunity to do, as he did not take office.

Demonize someone for being religiois? Mike, that's ludricous--I'M RELIGIOUS. Remember? However, this country has a strong, well-established tradition of a separation of church and state, for good reason--because religion, by its very nature, is based on emotion and not reason. A whole of damage can be justified with "God told me to do it"--look at September 11. Bush's religiosity scares the crap out of me--he brings it up way too much, and he uses it to justify some of his policies. I am sick and fucking tired of abortion and the stem-cell discussion being framed in religious terms--if you think it's the destruction of a life then we can talk (I of course disagree), because murder is against the law, and the discussion would be using the same terms. But all this crap about abortion and stem-cell research being against God's will, and the destruction of God-given life offends me--as a RELIGIOUS person. And as a RELIGIOUS voter, I reject his attempt to pander to people who don't think but feel--and Mike, as a lifelong residents of places like Minnesita and New Jersey, I'm not sure you've run into this mindset the way I have. The Bible Belt is not pretty in that respect.

You know, snitty comments lke "what's your point" and deliberate mischaracterizations of what I'm saying don't do your argument any good. If you must respond, do respectfully, as I do to your posts. Nobody's forcing you to read this.

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

This article discussed Bush's religiosity. (http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/columns/nationalinterest/10116/index.html)

Some excerpts:

..."I bet you every other person or every third person says, ‘Mr. President, my family prays for you.’ It’s not, you know, ‘Good luck, I hope you go tear down your opponent.’ . . . It’s ‘My family prays for you.’”

That doesn't bother me. Nor does this:

Bush, for his part, talked about prayer again: “I pray for strength. I pray for wisdom. I pray for our troops in harm’s way. I pray for my family. I pray for my little girls."

However, this:

Asked to name his favorite philosopher [during a 2000 debate], Bush said “Christ.”

There was silence for a moment, and the moderator ended it by asking Bush to explain. The future president answered, “Well, if [viewers] don’t know, it’s going to be hard to explain. When you turn your heart and life over to Christ, when you accept Christ as your savior, it changes your heart and changes your life.” President Bush does not explain, as he told Bob Woodward in 2002. The writer asked whether he was listening to staff and advisers as he prepared for war. Bush said, “Of course not. I’m the commander. See, I don’t have to explain why I say things. . . . I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.”

Scares the crap out of me. As President, he DOES owe us an explanation. He is not in charge--WE are.

[minstrel70.livejournal.com]

Actually, you would be very surprised to find much of Minnesota is very similar to much of the South. Minneapolis and St. Paul are the only reason the state isn't solidly red. Get outside the urban core of those two cities, and it's no different than most of Texas. Beyond that, you're forgetting that I have also lived in Georgia and Louisiana. So please don't tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about because of where I've lived.

As for "snitty" comments, what do you call "I guess if God is in the Cabinet, he doesn't need to listen to the little people?"

As for Clinton being a uniter, I disagree. His first two years were marked by highly unpopular positions including 1) a major tax hike, 2) "dont ask, don't tell," and 3) the "healthcare initiative," the result of all of which was a landslide for the Republican Party in the congressional elections in 1994. Sensing the national mood, he did indeed support some more conservative positions thereafter, but he could hardly have done otherwise, and he never seemed sincere. Note also that in 1992, Clinton got only 43% to Bush's 48% in 2000, yet for all the alleged divisiveness of Bush, it was Clinton's policies that cost his party the House in 1994, not Bush's in 2002.

But in the end, you're right. No one is forcing me to read this, and frankly, I am so sick of all the animosity and venom directed at the President that I really feel like just crawling into a hole until the morning of November 2nd, and then emerging only to vote. There's no convincing anyone that I speak with on a regular basis, and there's zero chance that I'll change my mind, so what's the point?

[mysticblaze.livejournal.com]

I think that people are completely misinformed as to the duties of the Secret Service when guarding the President of the United States. My guess, based on all the protests that I have seen on television, is that those who get close to the President to voice their disagreement do so in a violent or threatening manner, such as raising their fists. I highly doubt that those people are walking up to the President and expressing themselves in a polite, quiet and non-aggressive manner. As such, they present a threat to the protectee. It is the duty of the Secret Service to keep the protectee safe, and that duty includes removing those who may even pose a scintilla of threat. You cannot and must not fault the Secret Service agents for doing their job.

I should also mention that Kerry also has a Secret Service protective detail. Every major candidate does, as do their immediate family members (My stepfather worked on the Dukakis detail when he ran in 1988). Those agents assigned to their details will provide the same type of protection to their protectees as they do for the President.

It isn't about limiting free speech as you suggest, but keeping the protectee safe from bodily harm. When a protectee is so reviled as is the current President, ANY person coming up to him expressing their dissent in a belligerent, angry, loud manner could be seen as posing a threat. It is a judgment call as to whom to remove by the agents on the detail, not the protectee. If you must, then accuse the agents of limiting free speech... but remember, no freedom is absolute in this country despite what everyone believes.

[jayspec.livejournal.com]

There's no convincing anyone that I speak with on a regular basis, and there's zero chance that I'll change my mind, so what's the point?

This is where you are wrong.

Are you going to convince me to vote for George W. Bush? Hell no. However, I do see the huge chunk that leaves my paycheck every week and goes directly to the government. Seriously, I'm just a hair's breath away from voting Republican, if only they could back away from the religious fanaticsm, nation building, and deficit spending and get back to true fiscal conservatism.

It is important for you to present to the people you hang out with (generally kneejerk liberals (ceebeegee excluded from that broad brush, of course)) the case for true fiscal conservatism. You need to convince them of the cost of the programs they support.

Please, don't go. Don't let our group become an echo-chamber of non-opposing views. You think we "hate" you now, imagine how much we would if we continually vilify (and misrepresent) your views in private without ever actually hearing them.

[minstrel70.livejournal.com]

Are you going to convince me to vote for George W. Bush? Hell no.

That's my point, though I could have been more clear that I was speaking of this specific election. Remember that I have said all along that I would prefer a different Republican to vote for.

In general, I enjoy a spirited political debate with people who disagree with me -- else I wouldn't have the friends that I do. It's just that this election has been so thoroughly draining, and amongst my friends, everyone's position is staked out, that it seems prudent for me to simply avoid the topic. For my own sanity's sake.

You think we "hate" you now...

I never said that. Merely that it's beyond the point of changing anyone's mind for November 2nd, 2004.

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

As for "snitty" comments, what do you call "I guess if God is in the Cabinet, he doesn't need to listen to the little people?"

That was a comment in my journal directed to Bush. Not you. I have no idea why you take it so personally when anyone bashes Bush on their journal, or even in real life, but such criticism has nothing to do with you. Attacks on Bush are not directed at you. You can make all the snitty comments about Kerry you want on your journal, or this one--but don't talk to me that way. You and I are friends--we owe each other the respect I don't owe to Bush. Do not come on to my journal and take that tone with me, or accuse me of demonizing anyone because of their religion (which frankly, really pisses me off--that is a cheap shot, you know me better than that). I won't be talked to that way.

So please don't tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about because of where I've lived.

How exactly did I tell you anything? Please reread: what I said was I'm not sure you've run into this mindset the way I have. I was unaware of your residencies in GA and LA, but as a lifelong resident of the South, I stand by that...especially since you're an atheist! Have you attended many church services down there? Have you heard the rhetoric of the likes of Falwell and Robertson, with their consistent rejection of the ideal of separation of church and state--the ideal itself is rejected, because "America is a Christian country," to that way of thinking. If you have encountered this personally, great, let's talk. But you can't blame for for thinking you haven't.

(And if MN is so much like the Bible Belt South, how come they consistently elect well-known liberal standard bearers, like Mondale (the only blue state in '84, DC not being a state) and Paul Simon? My assessment is based on whom they elect.)

I come from a family of Republicans, and I welcome the opposite point of view--respectfully tendered, as you did to Duncan's post about Bush's flip-flop on homosexuality. *Shrug* I certainly never crawled into a hole with my family. As long as you respect the other person, it's all good.

...


Sensing the national mood, he did indeed support some more conservative positions thereafter, but he could hardly have done otherwise, and he never seemed sincere.

See, I have no problem with this. You see it as insincere; I see it as pragmatic. If Bush took a more conciliatory policy path, if he swallowed hard and said "I won't oppose stem cell research any more," I wouldn't care if it wasn't what he really wanted to do. He's our servant, not the other way around. I don't trust ideologues as Presidents (I loathed Reagan for that reason, although looking back he was more political than I gave him credit for at the time--in fact, you could make the argument he was a Republican version of Clinton), precisely because they always seem to buy into this vague "we're the chosen people on the hill" crap. (BTW, I happen to believe there is something very special about this country, but not because we're chosen by God--it's because our ancestors got off their asses and formed a better form of government.) I'd rather have a good hearty pragmatic politico accustomed to sleeves-rolled-up compromise than someone who rams through their one-sided policies.

You have a point about Clinton's first two years being more divisive, but again, the majority of his policies were much less so. That's why I was always shaking my head at the rabid attempts to smear him. Couldn't figure that one out at all.

[minstrel70.livejournal.com]

I think you may mean Paul Wellstone, not Paul Simon. Simon was a Senator from Illinois, famous for his bowtie. Wellstone was from Minnesota, and was just weird (though not as weird as Sen. Mark Dayton, his successor, who many think will eventually leave the Senate in a straightjacket).

You're right, Wellstone and Mondale (and Hubert H Humphrey before them) were all to the left of the Democrats nationally. But also recall that in 1988, Pat Robertson won the Minnesota Republican caucuses, rather handily. Minnesota is a bipolar state. The Twin Cities and Duluth lean far left; the suburbs and the rural areas lean well right. Each is roughly half the population. Mondale in 1984, incidentally, won by a fairly slim margin, and mostly because we didn't want to see a hometown boy humiliated.

As for religion there, the particular brand of Lutheranism that's dominant in southern Minnesota is pretty seriously evangelical, and sometimes my own relatives scare me a bit. There are good reasons I don't go back there often.

Anyway, I'm sure that was fascinating, but of course it was off-topic. My intention was not to offend, and I apologize for doing so. I just find it very difficult to ignore arguments against my candidate when I feel those arguments are misrepresented, or inaccurate. I'm just to the point now where I'm starting to figure, everyone's decided, so maybe it's time to just stop arguing and wait for November 2nd.

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

I think you may mean Paul Wellstone, not Paul Simon. Simon was a Senator from Illinois, famous for his bowtie. Wellstone was from Minnesota, and was just weird (though not as weird as Sen. Mark Dayton, his successor, who many think will eventually leave the Senate in a straightjacket).

Uh, yeah, that's it. That's who I meant. ;) The one who died in a plane crash recently.

Peace :) We'll drink about this on Saturday, over roasted pumpkin seeds.

[minstrel70.livejournal.com]

I realized I neglected to point out some other Minnesota politicians. Rudy Boschwitz and Dave Durenberger, my senators in the 1980s, were politically something like, say, Bret Schundler. They were both Republican. And my (Republican) representative, Vin Weber, left Congress and co-founded Empower America with Bill Bennett and Jack Kemp.

Minnesota politics is really just...strange. Maybe that's how I turned out as I did :)

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

Don't forget Jesse Ventura, Body-Slamming Independent.

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

And speaking of strange politics (well, strange policy) read up on the Black Market Tax, where dry countries in the South...taxed liquor. Yes, they taxed an illegal product. Florence King talks about this in Southern Ladies and Gentlemn: "Didn't anyone feel a sense of conflict??

[minstrel70.livejournal.com]

I wasn't around for his rise and fall...thankfully. I can't count how many times I was asked how the hell "my" state ever elected him, though!

See, unless you hunt or ice-fish, there really isn't anything to do in Minnesota from about October to May, which explains a lot of what happens out there...

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

You'd think the population would be bigger...

[minstrel70.livejournal.com]

Lutherans aren't terribly prolific, I'm afraid.

[dje2004.livejournal.com]

I can't really agree with this assessment, at least not based on that article, and other ones like it that I've read beforehand. If people were coming right up to the president, that would be one thing, but from what I gather, that's not the case. From what I gather, it's more a matter of if you're in the crowd at a rally, you know, any place where the president might see you in passing, you get hauled off. And really, a guy who doesn't like the president in a rally is no more or less threatening than anyone else in a rally. If you figure someone in a crowd can pull out a gun and take a shot, then you have to figure that anyone in the crowd could do the same. What's more, someone who hates Bush enough to want to take a shot at him probably isn't going to show up wearing a Kerry/Edwards t-shirt.

But even aside from all that, what about the republicans requiring people to sign a pledge of support for the president before being allowed into a Bush rally? That has nothing to do with security, that's just Bush keeping away people he disagrees with so that he doesn't have to hear them. I suppose you could argue that he has a case for not wanting to have his rallies disrupted by hecklers, but I'd say that, as president, no, he doesn't have a case. He's supposed to be a leader for all of us, not just for the people who like him. Yeah, you can throw people out who are disruptive, but forcing people to pledge their loyalty just so they can see you speak... that's seriously fucked up.

[minstrel70.livejournal.com]

I could agree with this in principle if these were public, open-air events, but we're talking about campaign rallies on private property rented by the BC04 campaign or the RNC for that purpose. Yes, they're staged events, but he has every right to stage them so.

It happens on both sides, though. Perhaps Kerry's events are more open than Bush's, but both parties prefer to keep the rallies to the loyalists. I haven't tried to protest or show dissent at a Kerry event this year (haven't been to one at all), but in 1992 and 1996 I received some rather rude treatment at Clinton-Gore events in NJ.

I recall one in particular in 1992. Al Gore was to speak, on public property in the projects in Newark, along with Sharpe James and Al Sharpton. I was there with about 15 College Republicans, with buttons and signs, on the far edge of the crowd, just trying to make sure there were Bush '92 signs visible in all the TV camera shots. Clinton-Gore campaign folks asked us to leave; we reminded them we were on public land, exercising our First Amendment rights. So Sharpe James, Mayor of Newark came over with a few cops, and suggested that there weren't enough police to protect us if the neighborhood turned against us. We thanked him for his concern, but stayed. So he picked up a bullhorn and made sure everyone within several blocks knew we were there, and who we were. Another cop came over to us and said (I paraphrase, it was 12 years ago) "Look, I'm voting for Bush too, and I think the Mayor is an asshole, but he's got a point -- we can't protect you if the crowd gets nasty, and he's trying to rile them up." So we left.

All of this transpired before Gore's arrival. We never had a chance to heckle him.

All I'm saying is, even in public spaces, there are safety and crowd control concerns at large campaign rallies. When those events take place on private property, it's not only the right, but in my opinion the responsibility of the campaign to limit who can attend.

[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.

[dje2004.livejournal.com]

Actually, the point I took away from your anecdote is that there are assholes and petty tryants all across the political spectrum.

And are you sure that all the Republican rallies in question are private fund-raisers, and that none of them took place on public land? According to that article, it sounds like those people were being arrested in public spaces.

[minstrel70.livejournal.com]

My point was that there's more than one way to skin a cat, and it's not only possible to be denied access even to a public event where protesters' rights aren't in question, it's actually not uncommon. I have no idea what the Secret Service response to us would have been, since we left before Gore arrived with the main Secret Service contingent (the few who were there in advance had more pressing concerns).

I would need to read up on it further to say anything with certainty, but I do know that for the past several weeks, Bush's events have been pretty much exclusively large ones, in large arenas (football stadia and the like). Likewise, the legality of excluding dissenters from a public event isn't clear. Perhaps those persons supplying the anecdotal evidence should take ceebeegee's suggestion and sue, if only to establish a legal precedent.

[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.

[minstrel70.livejournal.com]

Rich Lowry of National Review has an interesting, and I think fairly accurate explanation of the politics of the upper midwest. You may not like the overall point of the article, but the analysis is worth a read.