At 11:33 PM 1/9/2003 -0800, you wrote:
http://www.dubyadubyadubya.com/Awwwww, ain't selective memory so cute? The secret service had the exact same policy for Clinton. He spoke at Penn State and the protestors were put in an area where they could barely be seen and certainly not heard. At both conventions, protestors were regulated to a specific area, far from the sweep of any camera pan. (Heck I wonder if the Dems allowed any protestors in? <joking>) How many times have you seen a protestor stand up in the middle of a speech and be escorted out? In fact I know there were Clinton protestors who were also arrested. I doubt it started with Clinton, probably with Reagan* but don't be fooled into believing that it's some new policy dreamed up by President Bush or his staff.
One of the articles referenced: http://www.sptimes.com/2002/10/13/Columns/President_seems_unabl.shtml
President seems unable to bear the sight or sound of dissent
In town after town where Bush has come to raise money or make a speech, his venue and the route leading up to it have been purged of protesters. This is accomplished through the combined efforts of local policing agencies and the secret service, which scour the crowd for any hint of opposition. Anyone with an anti-Bush sign is relegated into what is euphemistically called a Free Speech or Demonstration Zone -- a swath of land usually off the main thoroughfare and chained off so as to make it virtually impossible for the targets of the protest to read the signs or hear the chants. Those with pro-Bush signs are often treated very differently. They are free to cheerlead the president as he rides toward his engagement, which typically is further sanitized by being invitation-only.
This kind of censorship is indicative of a leader who lacks confidence in his own powers of persuasion and the legitimacy of his course. Why else would Bush be so interested in hiding evidence of dissent within the American populace?
Doug
And I like how the St. Pete column starts with a non related comment on the civil rights of the workers at the new Department of Homeland Security without going into real specifics. I didn't know it was a civil rights issue to be fired for not doing your job. Yeah Daschle, the president was making the point that fighting over the passage of homeland security was in effect harming the security of the country not of anyones bravery.
Kevin T.
*Just saying that while there have been protestors for 200 years, Ford and Reagan being targets of assassinations may have raised the secret services hackles too much. Didn't some president within living memory walk the inauguration route? Was it Bush 41, or was it Carter?
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
