Say Anything Blog

He’s not the President of the “Right” he is the President of everybody.  If it is not a Republican campaign event there should be no list of people who are kept from seeing the President speak.

If it is not a Republican campaign event there should be no list of people who are kept from seeing the President speak.

I’d put all of the trouble-makers on the list who are kept from seeing the President speak. I’d also add people who are known to be involved with these trouble-making groups.

If you don’t like it, then tell your fellow lefties to stop acting like petulant children.

This wasn’t about Democrats being blocked from the event.  I know several known Democrats who attended, some even wearing t-shirts supporting liberal causes.

This was about keeping out some people who were planning to disrupt the proceedings.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

"Petulant children.” “Morons.” “Thugs.” Amazingly, those writing in support of Bush’s staff policy can only name call.  When the only argument one can make is to belittle and name call, there really is no argument at all.

At the heart of this issue is Bush’s inability to deal well with unscripted events.  The Internet is full of sound bites and video clips of various Presidential gaffes over the years.  Fact is, Mr. Bush is not the most eloquent public speaker to grace the Oval Office.  He does not have the strong command of the podium of President Reagan.  Is that a criticism of him?  No.  Bush just suffers from the same affliction shared by a large majority of the population.

However, he IS the President of the United States and all of its people.  Therefore, regardless of the strength of his speaking skills, he should be available to ALL citizens, not just those that he isn’t afraid of speaking in front of.  Sure, it’s always easier to speak to an audience that waves your flag and loves you, but to continually live in such an ivory tower warps your self-perspective. 

No one forced Bush to run for office.  When you choose to pursue the political office of President, along with that comes a lot of unpleasant duties and obligations as the leader of a major world power, including receiving your critics. 

Realistically, one in power or authority should face their critics head on and address their concerns.  The best decisions are not made in a bubble and merely passed down the chain.  This is where Bush’s policy fails.

I strongly disagree with Bush’s exclusion policy, but I’m not going to call someone names.  I’m just going to add this one more thing to my already long list of reasons why I disagree with him.  He will continue to do what he wants to do, but he will be out of office soon.  Future presidents would be well advised, in my opinion, to learn from Bush’s mistakes.

“Petulant children.” “Morons.” “Thugs.” Amazingly, those writing in support of Bush’s staff policy can only name call.  When the only argument one can make is to belittle and name call, there really is no argument at all.

Stop being silly. My comment (the one with “petulant children”) was merely talking about the Code Pink types who go to Bush events to cause trouble.

Additionally, it wasn’t a “name call”. It was a description of their actions.

However, he IS the President of the United States and all of its people.  Therefore, regardless of the strength of his speaking skills, he should be available to ALL citizens...

No. The citizens who shout him down and act like petulant children shouldn’t be allowed access. Their behavior should not be encouraged.

At the heart of this issue is Bush’s inability to deal well with unscripted events.

Given the context, this implies that people have some sort of a right to enter the President’s speaking events and disrupt things.  Which, of course, is patently false.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Given the context, this implies that people have some sort of a right to enter the President’s speaking events and disrupt things.

Right. At the true heart of this issue are a bunch of people who do not know how to disagree and ask questions in a civilized manner.

It is a bit telling that spectraphysics does not see this and instead only sees the story he has created.

If the Pres wants to hold a political rally , that’s his business.
He’s required to gas up the plane.
It’s either a public meeting or a political rally.

Did the secret service deny entrance to troublemakers?
What about whippersnappers, lollygaggers, slackers, hippies, hooples, mooks, Jesus Freaks?
Nah , the Secret Svc had nothing to do with this.

Woof, the President has no duty to admit people who are just showing up to disrupt his event.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

How would you know who was going to disrupt a meeting?
Why bar City Commissioner Linda Coates?
This was a town hall meeting, presumably the people get to speak.

The Boy in the Bubble
And the baby with the baboon heart

I want to see Hillary Clinton’s “No admit list”, and those of all other elected officials, Democrat and Republican and Independent. Because ALL politicians have “No admit list”, and ALL should be held to the same standard.
So, lets us see them all disclosed.

Spec? Do you disagree with all exclusionary policies? Or just one politician’s policy? Lets hear it. Trash your boy Billie Jeff, he had people thrown in jail and sicced the IRS and FBI on citizens for voicing their opinion at his “events”.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Spec? Do you disagree with all exclusionary policies? Or just one politician’s policy? Lets hear it. Trash your boy Billie Jeff, he had people thrown in jail and sicced the IRS and FBI on citizens for voicing their opinion at his “events”.

Care to provide any proof of this?

I love this defense from the ND GOP chairman:

“These kinds of lawsuits divide, they don’t bring people together.”

ie, “can’t we all just get along?” Funny stuff.

Because ALL politicians have “No admit list”, and ALL should be held to the same standard.

You have no idea if that’s true.

Woof, the President has no duty to admit people who are just showing up to disrupt his event.

Absent particularized evidence that they will disrupt the event, I doubt he has that right.  It’ll be interesting to see how this turns out.

Given the context, this implies that people have some sort of a right to enter the President’s speaking events and disrupt things.  Which, of course, is patently false.

Interesting question.  I’d be willing to bet that either there’s a first amendment question here (it is a government event, after all, nominally open to the public) or, at a minimum, a statutory question (ie, I’d be a bit surprised if there weren’t a law prohibiting exclusion of people based on viewpoint for events paid for by the U.S. government.)

And if this event were paid for by the Bush reelection committee, in other words, the analysis could change.  That’s a moot question, though, since this was a US gvt event.

I guess the whole thing falls under the “free speech zone” rubric, which is fairly new and the contours of which are still being devised by the court.