Ouster from Bush event blasted (repubs deride "purified" crowds)

Lawmakers criticize bouncing of trio

By Ann Imse, Rocky Mountain News
April 6, 2005

Six of Colorado's nine members of Congress have criticized removing a person from a presidential appearance because of a bumper sticker - the circumstances behind a highly publicized incident last month in Denver. And one of them is calling for an investigation into that and similar incidents.

snip>

White House spokesmen have declined to clarify whether that means intent alone is enough to get a person thrown out of a presidential speech. Nor will they say if an opposition bumper sticker is grounds for removal.

Four members of the congressional delegation echoed the view expressed by Republican Rep. Marilyn Musgrave: "I don't think somebody should be removed from an event because of a bumper sticker."

>snip
Republican Rep. Bob Beauprez called the volunteer's action "momentary authority gone mad."
Beauprez, whose office handed out the tickets to Bush's speech, insisted that his staff demanded "no pledge of allegiance to George W. Bush" to obtain one. "This was in no way, shape or form supposed to be a purified crowd," he said.


http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3677785,00.html

Diana DeGette is calling for a Congressional investigation and is citing the ND and Arizona events.

Does anyone know where the next "townhall" meeting is, and whether it will go on as scheduled?

MKJ

on edit: Beauprez's quote front and center. MKJ

This was common practice for quite awhile and they are just NOW figuring it out?

There were other stories that they weren't covering, but the Gannon thing, which grew over a period of weeks until it was weakly reported in the papers and on teevee, was a wake-up call for them--they were caught flat-footed, and essentially HUMILIATED.

I think they finally started to understand why people tuned them out, didn't buy their papers, disregarded them. They've started to at last realize that they actually have to do some WORK to maintain market share....being court scribes just wasn't moving the product. And, such profound insult to injury, they were showed up by "amateurs" on them there "internets."

The media lackeys will probably have a bit of difficulty walking at first, those balls they're finally growing being a new thing and all. Let's hope they continue to grow, and the sumbitches need a wheelbarrow to get around! Without some vibrant and aggressive reportage and dissemination, this country is done for.

I emailed this to the editorial page editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer (Mr. Satullo, a responsive guy I respect) in response to an article regarding the Democrats being in denial on Social Security.

The article:
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/11238457.htm


My response:


Well, as President Reagan used to say, there you go again.

How can the Inquirer, in good conscience, castigate the Democrats for lacking a Social Security plan while acknowledging that the president, with a majority in both houses of Congress, has advanced only the vaguest of principles with no mention of their costs? How can this paper allow him to be 'coy' about benefit cuts? How can it talk about Social Security at all without mentioning every time that funds which were and should be added to a 'trust fund' are now used in the general budget?

How can the Inquirer mention the budget at all without mentioning every time that the costs of the "war" in Iraq and other items are not included?

Now Republicans are angry because Democrats won't tell them how to 'fix' things. This reads like a poorly-written takeoff of an Ayn Rand idea in which Those-who-don't-know and Those-who-can't constantly implore Those-who-do-know and Those-who-can to 'fix it!', whining, "It worked when you were in charge! Now make it work."

The party in charge of the executive, legislative and, apparently, the judicial branches of our government is doing this in the face of their own 'politics of pull', cronyism and nepotism. Who besides Halliburton gets a profit-guaranteed, ten-year, worldwide, exclusive contract? It all has such an Ayn Rand-like quality to such a degree that an eerie sense of deja vu pervades.

My point is that because important details, which may have been mentioned briefly, elsewhere, are absent during the storm of misinforming articles, such misinformation continues to propagate.

Perhaps you could tell me: Are articles, ideas or points of view with a pro-administration slant pushed during your editorial board discussions? If not, regarding Social Security, given a Republican president and a Republican majority in both houses of Congress how can it assert that the Democrats are in denial? If the article's point is that the Democrats are not addressing Medicare or that the Inquirer is recommending its five-point plan for Social Security, shouldn't it be addressing the majority party?

I would ask that the Social Security discussion not be 'broadened'. Broadening discussions has not served the country well recently. We 'broadened' the power transmission debate into an energy policy debate which bogged down trying to decide how Republican-supporting companies could best loot the national treasury. We broadened the war on terror in to include Iraq in what I consider to be an egregiously terrible use of public lives and public money for private profit.

No, no more broadening for me. Let's talk Social Security, Iraq and the budget. Let's talk clearly. And let's clearly understand who is in denial.

I wish I had your eloquence and directness. And you made a perfect point too. I'll bet there's no way you'll get a reasoned reply (or any reply), but if you do, please let us know!

Mr. Satullo did reply to me, not in the paper. He rebutted my assertion that the Inquirer might have a pro-admin tilt by reminding me that the Inky did run a series of articles over the last 21 days prior to the election listing on each day a different reason NOT to vote for President Bush (dadgum how those words stick in my mouth!), and that the paper endorsed his opponent. He talked a bit about what people want in articles, and a paper's responsibility to the public at large. As I mentioned, he is a responsive guy who has been, in my opinion, placed in an untenable position.

Like in the movie "Network", I expect to see Sybil the Soothsayer at any moment on CNN or MSNBC. And like in "Network", I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!

Of course you can use these poor comments of mine. I think these points should be hammered every time the subject is raised!

and welcome to DU :hi::toast:

From what movie is your nom de plume derived? Or was it a book? I'm sure I've heard or read a character saying that.

Col. Bat Guano asks the Sellers character, "Are you one of them commie preverts?"

You sent this - have they had the balls to run it?

As usual, the ball is now in the media's court. See how they drop it.

The letter was too long to post to Mr. Satullo's site; that has a 1000-character limit. I emailed it to him. He DID respond.


I pay attention to the on-line names of folks. Are you a Mary from CA or referring to an Italian dish or food?

MKJ

I wish the letter had meaning in places other than here!

for many of them so they want to distance themselves from such a radical administration.

The chimperor** only has "purified crowds". Excellent term!

As I've said before, he is somewhat redeeming himself in this democratic constituent's eyes. However, he still toes the party line regarding reproductive rights, so I'll never be completely won over.

MKJ

on edit, I think I'll put that quote in the headline banner, it's terrific! MKJ

I protested an appearance in March 2001 - Freepers were allowed to be placed in front of the building where the "Town Hall" meeting was - protesters were cordoned off a long way from the event - police kept us back - supporters were bused in - I have it on videotape.

:banghead:

What kind of surveillance do they have at these events that they even KNEW which audience member drove the car with the bumpersticker? And shouldn't THAT bother people?

But whatever,

The Plaid Adder

as they claim. If it's not as free as they claim, it's time they start explaining the REAL structure of things like the plain-talking, truth-telling Christians they insist they are.

that they can go to DMV and find out whose car it is and what you look like, but how many "volunteers" do they have working each site to be able to do this work so quickly, and who pays them; pays for their transportation and housing. And if they are not Secret Service, what branch of government is it? Or is it a branch of the Republican Party like the old SA of the National Socialists? Creepy.

happening at his SS events. I didn't know how to put it into the right words.

How DO they match the face in the crowd with the car?

:scared:

in my small town (7500) to * and Hitler. At the grocery store no less.

I believe parking lots in many places now have surveillance cameras. It is very disturbing.

I was on a grand jury and we were presented with a lot of evidence from cameras.

For instance: When you park in the Wal-Mart parking lot, you are filmed. When you enter Wal-Mart, you are filmed. When you are in the aisles, you are filmed. When you checkout, both you and the cashier are filmed. When you go back to your vehicle, you are filmed. When you drive to the bank ATM, you are filmed. When you drive to the gas station/quick shop, you are filmed both in the store and at the pump. And so on and so on...

I didn't even mention traffic cameras, downtown police security cameras and private home and business security cameras.

the proliferation of porn. People are "doing" each other in "private" only there's no "private" left anywhere, so instead their "privates" are worldwide on the Web.

You know right now I am reading a novel that takes place in 1939 Germany and Hitler and his henchmen are in it. The book is excellent but I constantly keep thinking of bushco** similarities while reading it. I may not finish it if it keeps creeping me out so badly.

:scared:

Do you think you could point someone out to security in a crowd of 2,500 people? I had assumed that they were simply "turned in" by a staunch right-wing attendee who didn't want anyone making "Fearless Leader" look bad.

put Democratic bumper stickers on cars at Bush events and then report them to the SS. Fun and frivolity is sure to ensue :)

Oh, jeebus, would that be great. Create your own uber-Democrat stickers, order in bulk, then hit the Fundamentalist Baptist Church one Sunday morning. The next day they'll all be keying each others' cars at the Piggly Wiggly! LOL!

omg the chaos that ensue! I am in a red state that chimpy** frequents. I will remember this one rooboy! :)

Would't the brownshirts then swoop in?

I like the idea; I just think it would backfire. :)

The more of us that go to these events and get turned away, it will:

a) challenge their surveillance and "interdiction" personnel to have to deal with many more people to "get rid of" than they had before and perhaps to the point where they cannot "get rid of" them all.

b) make the activity of them "getting rid of" us a lot more difficult for them to hide if we show up in *numbers*!

c) if they do "give up" and allow more people in than they were before who aren't alligned with presidential policy, our visibility to cameras, questions, etc. will be a lot harder for the media to hide to do the president's bidding to give those watching news reports the impression that America supports "social security reform"!

We need to get out there in force more folks! It sounds like it worked quite well the other night against Arnold and his efforts to do a fundraiser for his special election in SF.

This was standard practice during the campaign. As we all know, attendees had to sign a loyalty oath. The thug congressmen and their sheeples didn't even blink.

This is purely an example of political CYA. All politics is local.

about the indignation. Maybe the Republicans never thought the press would cover it, and the Democrats would say anything about it.

but they've said over and over that the SS effort would be run like the presidential campaign - and it is. It's a pattern of arrogance that started well before the '04 campaign - and continues today. This IS partisan politics. (not yelling - just for emphasis)

As long as no one put up much of a fuss and the corporate media didn't run with the story, these guys didn't object.

The emperor's wearing no clothes!

They think we live in a democracy or something? :sarcasm:

The Republican Revolution

Even before they impeached Clinton, the revolutionairies have been working to make sure only pure piglickers feel free to exercise their free speech.

Everybody else is to be considered second class citizens in their neo-republic.

:thumbsup:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/democracy_starts_at_home.php?dateid=20050406
<snip>
The Bush administration has put expansion of democracy at the center of its foreign policy. This is a far nobler calling than simply expanding American hegemony. The question is, does Bush really mean it, and does he genuinely understand what democracy means?

I think it is authority gone stupid!

Considering there are reports of this happening all through the campaign last year (IIRC, even before that), it's a hell of a loooooong moment, no?

Even if it is mainly local CYA politics, as an astute poster said a couple posts up (on edit: credit to ohtransplant), I still enjoy seeing these cracks in the repub facade.

looks like some republicans are starting to at least act like they remember what freedom is... and the media's finally deciding to report about it.

Will wonders never cease?

This was in no way, shape or form supposed to be a purified crowd

First, the use of the word "purified" disturbs me. And Mr. Beauprez is not really denouncing purified crowds in general, just saying that this event was not supposed to have one. Strikes me as odd.

he doesn't even want to be our president unless we agree with him

where has this dilusional bastard been? They've always been purified crowds. :grr:

presidential election, when it was occurring on a daily basis? Little late, huh?

IMO, although it is a good thing for rethugs to finally say something about this, they surely should not be getting any brownie points for it.

Democrats have been carrying the torch of protecting rights and liberties for years while the republicans have been doing everything in their power to extinguish it.

Especially coming from a repug, whether contritely or not. If the MSM were really liberal, you'd hear this quote more often than "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."