Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 21, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

A UNITER, NOT A DIVIDER....What happens when a command sergeant major just home from Iraq is denied entrance to a George Bush rally and threatened with arrest because he's brought a couple of his students with him and one of them has a John Kerry sticker on his wallet? Answer: He gets mad. And then he decides to run for Congress. As a Democrat.

The chickens are coming home to roost....

Kevin Drum 12:01 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (128)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

But soldiers are Republican!

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on February 21, 2006 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

Schweet :):):)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 21, 2006 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

Telling people how to think really is unAmerican

It's time they found this out.

Posted by: craigie on February 21, 2006 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

It's not news that Bush's people are stupid.

Posted by: Ace Franze on February 21, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

So, a Democrat decides to run as a Democrat. And this is a story ... why?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

Soemthing tells me there is more to this story than Kevin Drum lists here.

"Iraqi soldier comes home, denied entry to a Bush event, decides to run for Congress as a Democrat."

Great headline. Gotta be more to the story.

Posted by: MountainDan on February 21, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

> Gotta be more to the story.

Well, Kevin left out the part about how the student was knocked down by Republican "event security" and then stomped by Bush's Secret Service detail, but that doesn't seem to be important in today's kinder, gentler, 'have a beer' politics.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on February 21, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK


Yeah, so he's going to run against a strong Republican incumbent. BFD.
He's not going to get any support from the Dem powers-taht-be, and he's going to lose.

Why can't our side get serious about security?
Could it be because deep down Reid, Pelosi, Dean, etc. don't want to be serious about security?
How are the American people going to trust us with the levers of power if we show that we don't really have the guts to use the levers properly.

Complaining about how the Bushies are using their power is one thing; convincing people that we both want to and can use it properly is something else altogether.

I foresee a bad November, at least in historical context: We'll lose a Senate seat and at best pick up three House seats.

I don't know where to turn.

Posted by: Hacket Supporter on February 21, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

For six years I've been reading these stories of gestapo-like tactics at the president's "rallies". Hasn't anyone challenged the legalities of barring someone from a speech by a public official payed for with taxpayer dollars. Of course if someone seems to be threatening the president's well being they should be barred, but then again if somebody is truly threatening they should be arrested. I don't see any of those who simply have a T-Shirt or a "John Kerry Sticker on their wallet" being arrested. So the goons at the gate know they aren't REALLY a threat. How can they justify this blatant disrespect of constitutional rights? How come the opposition hasn't called them on it?

Posted by: Lamonte on February 21, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks to the internet, we should know alot more about Walz in the next few days.

We already know he is a Democrat.

Posted by: MountainDan on February 21, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

The sergeant is a terrorist-coddling America-hating traitor, just like all you here.

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on February 21, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

Who puts stickers on their wallet?

Posted by: Vladi G on February 21, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

What's wrong with expelling an opponent from your poitical rally?

He should be thankful that he was not beaten to the pulp by the Bush supporters.

If you want to oppose the President during the time of The Long War, you might as well join the sunnis in Fallujah.

Posted by: lib on February 21, 2006 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

That's right, they kicked his teeth in, burned down his house, and killed his family. But then, we all know that Bush is just like Hitler, so why should we be surprised?

Posted by: Dario Siteros on February 21, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

And then they chopped off his head and sent the video to Al Jazeera.

Posted by: Monkey See on February 21, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

> Hasn't anyone challenged the legalities of
> barring someone from a speech by a public
> official payed for with taxpayer dollars.

You may note that they hold these rallies in true-red areas in front of true-red crowds. Oddly enough the police will not take statements, the local DA will not investigate or indict or refer to the feds, the Federal Atty will not investigate, and no one will agree to testify in a civil lawsuit. Funny how that works.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on February 21, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Hasn't anyone challenged the legalities of barring someone from a speech by a public official payed for with taxpayer dollars.
Well now, given the actions of lefties when conservatives speak:
- Threw pies at Coulter
- Threw salad dressing at Buchanan
- Threw pies at Horowitz
- Threw pies at Kristol
You'd have to admit that you're not the most well-behaved bunch that could be allowed in. Possibly if you want to be let in, you lefties should behave in a civilized manner.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

That's right. So long as GOP is not as bad as the Nazis, its tactics should be OK. Those who don't like this should go to Russia.

Posted by: nut on February 21, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, the Swift-boating is starting already.

I was going to make a joke about that earlier, but I see that real life is infinitely more preposterous than anything I could dream up.

Posted by: craigie on February 21, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

- Threw pies at Coulter - Threw salad dressing at Buchanan - Threw pies at Horowitz - Threw pies at Kristol

Libs really do not have a good taste in food. Perhaps burritos and chimichanga would have been appreciated better.

Posted by: lib on February 21, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

I would like to know on what charges Bush's Gestapo wanted to arrest Mr. Waltz. I'm an attorney and I am not aware of any state or federal law that makes it a criminal offense to refuse to tell anybody whether you support or oppose George Bush, nor is it a crime, as far as I know, to carry a John Kerry-stickered article of clothing concealed in a pocket. (Maybe they equated that with carrying a concealed deadly weapon?) The sad truth is, this kind of thing goes on all the time at Bush's so-called public appearances; only strictly pre-screened Bush supporters are allowed in, all others either do not get tickets in the first place or, if they are later deemed undesirable, like the two students, they are forced to leave. And while this arguably may be acceptable at actual campaign events, this is standard procedure at any Bush appearance in any venue, and that is not remotely acceptable. It is way beyond stupid, it is simply appalling. People this happens to or who know about it should be screaming at the top of their lungs about this until the rest of us start paying attention and do something to stop it.

Posted by: Kristine Collins on February 21, 2006 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

Conspiracy Nut nails it! Liberal Micky Kaus warned us of left-wing violence several years ago, and this pie throwing is a perfect example.

President Bush posted here just yesterday, so I don't understand what you liberals are complaining about.

Posted by: HappyConservative on February 21, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

Something tells me there is more to the story.

No soldier would run as a Demonrat because they know Republicans won't cut and run into the arms of France and Bush has their backs 100%.

The party of Al Bore and Hitlery is no place for a soldier.

Posted by: fromage de pnis on February 21, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

Who puts stickers on their wallet?

You noticed that too, huh? One wonders if the sticker had been there before he knew he was going to this event. Certainly anyone would know they'd have to show ID.

I can't get at the Atlantic article without being a subscriber, but I think the quote covers almost everything they said about Walz.

Remember, look closely when "veterans" are discussed in the context of running as Democrats. It doesn't always mean "Iraq" veteran, or even "combat" veteran, although both of these are true for Walz's case.

Is the assumption here that Walz was a Republican or a Bush fan before this happened?

Hey, I just noticed, I have relatives in that district.

Posted by: tbrosz on February 21, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

cn: So, a Democrat decides to run as a Democrat. And this is a story ... why?


because the commander in chief....couldnt cut and run during the rally....

so they had to stop and check americans beforehand...

and all it took was a sticker on a wallet....

how's that for resolute...

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on February 21, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

"> Hasn't anyone challenged the legalities of
> barring someone from a speech by a public
> official payed for with taxpayer dollars."

Aren't these campaign events paid for with campaign contributions?

Posted by: jefff on February 21, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

Not sure what the hoopla is all about, the guy is just doing his right to participate in a democracy. That's fine by me.

Although he does do one unpatriotic thing, by allowing your lib students to join you in a rally, instead of enlisting them for war. We need all your young men/women for our War. Don't you know that already?! Know what you vote for sergeant major!


Posted by: Mini Al on February 21, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

If we don't stop them from putting stickers on their wallets over here, we'll have to stop them from putting stickers on their wallets somewhere else.

Posted by: adios on February 21, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

fromage de penis nails it! The American people know that our armed forces in Iraq have been fully provided for, in particular with body armor, by President Bush. None of our returning soldiers would ever run against him. This story must be another liberal lie. :(

Posted by: HappyConservative on February 21, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

"Remember, look closely when "veterans" are discussed in the context of running as Democrats. It doesn't always mean "Iraq" veteran, or even "combat" veteran, although both of these are true for Walz's case." ~tbrosz


What kind of vet are you?

Posted by: Ace Franze on February 21, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

thisspaceavailable
Are you really that dense that I have to explain why this is a non-story?

First, they look over people coming to see the President. The recent reasons for that are Kennedy and Reagan. So nothing to looking them over.

Then, the sergeant is allowed in, the kids are turned away. Now why would that be? The sergeant is likely well behaved regardless of political affiliation. But the kids. Carrying a John Kerry sticker in his wallet? This long after the election? In his wallet? The kid was clearly up to no good. And given the list of fun things that lefties do to conservative speakers, no wonder they were turned away.

But on the thrust of the post, you know and I know that if the sergeant have even claimed to be Republican, it would have been splattered all over that article. So as to Kevin's post, a Democrat running as a Democrat doesn't really support the contention that the chickens are coming home to roost for Republicans.

This whole post had to have been a joke, and it isn't even April Fool's day.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

re: "Threw pies at Coulter" etc: Bad behavior such as this is never acceptable, but the record shows that conservative attacks on liberals are historically far more serious, to the point of murder: Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers, Robert Kennedy, radio talk show host Alan Berg, various abortion providers -- all murdered by people opposed to their "agenda." On the opposite side, all one can point to is the attempted murder of President Reagan, which was done to impress a woman, not for any political agenda.

Posted by: Joel Rubinstein on February 21, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

are historically far more serious
Your selective history shows this.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

What kind of vet are you?

He's a veterinarian.

Posted by: adios on February 21, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

Another Right-wing hero emerges to torture our soldiers . . .

. . . anti-gay protests held by the Rev. Fred Phelps at military funerals.

Phelps believes American deaths in Iraq are divine punishment for a country that he says harbors homosexuals. His protesters carry signs thanking God for so-called IEDs -- explosives that are a major killer of soldiers in Iraq.

Why does the Religious Right and their political sponsors in the Bush administration hate our American soldiers so much?

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 21, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

Ace:

I was pointing out that some articles are sliding the word "veteran" across the table with the clear implication that this means "Iraq veteran." Not always true, and you have to look out for that.

I'm not a veteran. I drew a high draft number.

Not sure what difference it makes. This isn't "Starship Troopers."

Posted by: tbrosz on February 21, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

This whole post had to have been a joke, and it isn't even April Fool's day.

Every day is Fool's Day for the LiberalQueadas. It's like it's in their genes or something - they can't go a day without being somebody's fool. Somebody should round up a bunch of them and do some medical tests to see what makes them so infearior.

Posted by: fromage de pnis on February 21, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

cn: recent reasons for that are Kennedy and Reagan.

so are you saying.....the vet and his students were armed?


.
cn: Carrying a John Kerry sticker in his wallet? This long after the election? In his wallet? The kid was clearly up to no good.


especially in light of kennedy and reagan....


.


cn: you know and I know that if the sergeant have even claimed to be Republican, it would have been splattered all over that article.


the liberal media?

and are you saying you have to declare your allegiance in order to be admitted to a speech by the nations president?

.
protecting the c-in-c....that's what its all about

if only the ports and borders had the kind of protection gwb has at his speeches...


Posted by: thisspaceavailable on February 21, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

Bush administration wants many military retirees to pay more for health care . . .

IF the Bush administration and the GOP are so pro-military, why do they continually abuse our soldiers and veterans . . .

Why do they attempt to balance the budget deficits that they themselves created with unsound fiscal policy, unsound economics, tax cuts for the rich, and a dishonest and failed invasion of Iraq on the backs of our soldiers, and veterans, and their families while Bush's wealthy oil executive buddies reap windfall profits from price-gouging?

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 21, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not a veteran. I drew a high draft number.

A high draft number would not stop you from becoming a veteran, if you felt the patriotic duty to either enlist or become an officer.

Posted by: Alf on February 21, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Remember, look closely when "veterans" are discussed in the context of running as Democrats. It doesn't always mean "Iraq" veteran, or even "combat" veteran, although both of these are true for Walz's case.

Well, so much for the GOP and it's "support the troops!" meme.

Tell ya what, tbrosz -- I'll stack those veterans against the chickenhawks of the GOP any day of the week. Shame on you.

Posted by: Gregory on February 21, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

But the kids. Carrying a John Kerry sticker in his wallet? This long after the election? In his wallet? The kid was clearly up to no good. And given the list of fun things that lefties do to conservative speakers, no wonder they were turned away.

Irony alert: This would be the same conspiracy nut railing in aother thread about the so-called "echo chamber" of these forums and claiming that Democrats aren't in favor of free speech. Consistent much, nut? Not when there's GOP water to be carried, I guess.

Posted by: Gregory on February 21, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

afg.....soldiers dont seem to mind being used....the lack of armour, lack of bullet proof vests...

2007 budget has a 13-percent cut in vets health care...

bush knows he can talk the talk....

and NOT have to walk the walk...

gwb's #1 rule: rules are for suckers


Posted by: thisspaceavailable on February 21, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

Jonathan Zasloff writes on www.samefacts.com:

It's bad enough that the administration has caused a manpower crisis in the United States armed forces. After it has created a completely incompetent bureaucracy unable to defend the country, it now has decided to outsource homeland security to the United Arab Emirates--a country not likely to see its interests as dovetailing with the United States.

Why do conservatives hate America so much that they will support a president and Congress that abuse our soldiers and endanger national security?

Are conservatives so rabidly partisan that they will kiss the GOP's buttocks and suck at Bush's teat no matter how horrendous their actions?

I guess the answer is yes.

Just ask rdw, conspiracy nut, and Jay.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 21, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

so are you saying.....
I said what I meant. You can, however, read it again; and if necessary you can get some help in comprehending it.

the liberal media?
It wouldn't even require a liberal media for this. Because a Democrat running as a Democrat is not worth mentioning. A Republican suddenly running as a Democrat would make a story (however small of one...).

and are you saying you have to declare your allegiance in order to be admitted to a speech by the nations president
Again we find you reading, but not understanding what you read.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

I was pointing out that some articles are sliding the word "veteran" across the table with the clear implication that this means "Iraq veteran."

I call, tbrosz. Cite, please?

Not sure what difference it makes. This isn't "Starship Troopers."

I dunno, maybe it's that people are starting to notice that when it comes to military service, Republican politicans and various water carriers (I notice you referred to a high draft number, tbrosz...didn't volunteer, didja? Now, did you support the Vietnam War?) are conspicuously absent compared to their Democratic conterparts?

You love the "Republicans are strong on defense" marketing, tbrosz. Do I detect a little cognitive dissonance here?

Posted by: Gregory on February 21, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory
Take a break, you're becoming as incoherent as AoG.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

"He gets mad. And then he decides to run for Congress. As a Democrat.

The chickens are coming home to roost...."

Just like Paul Hackett. Who had the Democratic Party cut his legs out from under him. Talk about "Fighting Dems" and roosting chickens!

Posted by: Campesino on February 21, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

cn: I said what I meant. You can, however, read it again; and if necessary you can get some help in comprehending it.


yeah.....trying to link a sticker on a wallet with assasination attempts...


another example of fear being the guiding neocon principle....


.

cn: It wouldn't even require a liberal media for this. Because a Democrat running as a Democrat is not worth mentioning. A Republican suddenly running as a Democrat would make a story (however small of one...).


again....the nations president makes a speech...

but not all americans are allowed inside to hear it..


interesting take on freedom...

i bet the iranian mullahs would agree with you

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on February 21, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

I had a high draft number, too. 361.

I served anyway.

Posted by: class clown on February 21, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

infearior.

Yes yes, Dick Cheese we're inferior.
Trolls just have to inject F-E-A-R into everything.

Posted by: ckelly on February 21, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

Take a break, you're becoming as incoherent as AoG.

Translation: I got nuthin....

Posted by: Gregory on February 21, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

but not all americans are allowed inside to hear it
Mercy but you guys are clowns. Remember the "free speech zone" for the 2004 Democratic Convention?

FleetCenter access promulgated tight security measures that frustrated even the news media.
Tell me, have you ever visited the real world?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

Translation: I got nuthin
It's true, when you read anything you want into what I write instead of paying any attention; I have no way to respond to your delusions.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut is, at least, smart enough to know the difference between a party convention (and, speaking of bad behavior, need I remind him/her/it of the protestor who was kicked on the floor by a GOP thug?) and a taxpayer-funded event. conspiracy nut is also, of course, dishonest enough to pretend not to know the difference.

Posted by: Gregory on February 21, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

I have no way to respond to your delusions.

Translation: I got nuthin'...

In the other thread, you chortle -- dishonestly, of course -- that complaints about well-known serially dishonest trolls like yourself amount to calls for an "echo chamber" and a blow against free speech.

Here, you say that it's just fine for a presumed dissident to be excluded from a Bush event.

Admit it, c.n. You got caught in an inconsistency. Oh, but that'd require honesty, wouldn't it? too bad.

Posted by: Gregory on February 21, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

cn: Mercy but you guys are clowns. Remember the "free speech zone" for the 2004 Democratic Convention?

so your argument for keeping an american soldier and his students from hearing the speech of...the

nations

president

is that some people who were not the nations president kept others out of a political rally?


gregory is right...


you got nuthin....

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on February 21, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Tell me, have you ever visited the real world?

Tell me, have you?

Or are you just mendacious by nature?

Well, clearly the latter is true.

This was a privte event for the Democrats.

They were under no obligation to allow any kind of speech nor did they prevent anyone from speaking or even punish anyone for doing so.

Indeed, they merely limited the time and place, something allowed under the First Amendment even for government action.

On the other hand, the GOP has routinely thrown out protesters at PUBLIC events which they had a right to attend on the basis of the content of their speech, in many cases arresting them or posing as secret service agents or using similar tactics that are preventive and punitive.

You, however, will continue to lie about this issue, I'm sure.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 21, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory
Let me make sure I have this straight, because one of these days we'll have a Democratic president and I want to know what's acceptable.

Is bad behavior automatically tolerated at taxpayer funded events? Can I like, throw pies and shit at Democratic presidents with impunity? Can I freely disrupt their speeches with no threat of retribution?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

so your argument for keeping an american soldier and his students from hearing the speech of...the nations president is that some people who were not the nations president kept others out of a political rally?
You guys aren't even clowns, no sentient being could arrive at that conclusion. Here's my advice: vote Democrat, it's easier than thinking.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

Hey CN, what is the legal reason for barring someone with a John Kerry sticker?

If there is none then they had no right to prevent the students from accompanying him.

Oh, and where does it say he was a Democrat to begin with? Neither the story that Kevin links to, nor the local paper it links to states his political affiliation prior to running.

Oh yeah, opposing Bush is what defines a liberal for the tiny brain brigade. I forgot.

I guess that makes Michael Malkin a democrat because she criticized Georgie boy's decision to let the UAE government run the security for several US ports.

Yup, I can see the "logic". Tell me again what principles conservatives stand for?

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on February 21, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK
Let me make sure I have this straight, because one of these days we'll have a Democratic president and I want to know what's acceptable.

What is not acceptable is presuming that because a small minority of the people associated with one of the two "sides" of the "left/right" political divide do bad things, all members of that side (or, a fortiori, all people for whom there is some indication might be members of that side) should be treated as if there mere presence at a political event was conclusive evidence of intent to do the same bad thing.

Hope that clears things up, nutball.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 21, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: I have no way to respond to your delusions.

It's doubly hard when they aren't delusions you are responding to and you are in fact suffering from you own.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 21, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

CN, what disruptive behavior. Neither Tim Walz, nor his students engaged in any disruptive behavior.

None, zip, zero either before, during, or after Bush's speech.


YOU.GOT.NOTHING.BUT.STRAWMEN.

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on February 21, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Here's my advice: vote Democrat, it's easier than thinking.

This from a proponent of faith-based, as opposed to thinking-based, political philosophy.

Again, cn, looking in the mirror.

Must be one of those carnival mirrors too, given the delusional and thoroughly twisted state of your comments.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 21, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Doc, they're members of a group known to disrupt conservative speakers. They are kept out to prevent the disruptions, just like the Dems kept potential disruptions out of their convention. They didn't wait for actual occurances, either.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

cn: bad behavior automatically tolerated at taxpayer funded events?


bad behavior: - a kerry sticker on a wallet?...

that's as opposed to reading the pet goat...

.

cn: Can I like, throw pies and shit at Democratic presidents with impunity?


what gop president has had a pie thrown at them?

.

cn: Can I freely disrupt their speeches with no threat of retribution?


so you think being arrested or thrown out after actually disrupting is

not acceptable?

.


cn: Inquiring minds want to know.

another straw man?

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on February 21, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: . . . when you read anything you want into what I write instead of paying any attention . . .

Yet another example of gazing into the mirror.

You gone cross-eyed yet from all that mirror-gazing, cn?

Can I freely disrupt their speeches with no threat of retribution?

Yep, wearing t-shirts with slogans and carrying signs with words printed on them is truly violently disruptive - well, if you are cn or the GOP.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 21, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

What groups? The armed forces? How would security know whether or not they were members of any group whatsoever?

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on February 21, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

Hope that clears things up, nutball.
Not really, cm, you forgot to work in the "free speech zone" at the Democratic Convention. People were kept out wholesale there because of the actions of a minority.

It just seems like a pretty routine thing to do, to me.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

cn: prevent the disruptions, just like the Dems kept potential disruptions out of their convention

so you cant see the difference between

a political convention which is not generally open to the public...

and...

a president speaking to his employers?

again....interesting..

perverted ... but interesting..

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on February 21, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Hey Doc, they're members of a group known to disrupt conservative speakers.

Ahhh, cn approves of guilt by association and preemptive action against protestors prior to any actual bad act, meaning anyone can be banned based on the most specious of speculations meaning that free speech has no more meaning in GOP circles.

I guess that means he will be caterwauling at the GOP for defending the sale of US ports to the UAE by claiming that opposition is based solely on guilt by association.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 21, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut is right. You have to learn to generalize. And there are worse things than throwing pies. Did Lee Harvey Oswald put a Nixon bumper sticker on his rifle? Did John Wilkes Booth run around saying "Vote for McClellan"? Of course not.

A common characteristic though is that all presidential assassins had functioning brains. Deluded perhaps, but obviously functioning enough to kill the president. Therefore all people with functioning brains should be banned from Bush events (Secret Service excepted). I doubt that it will significantly affect attendance.

Remember: free speech is ok as long as the powers that be condone what you're saying.

Posted by: alex on February 21, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: It just seems like a pretty routine thing to do, to me.

Of course it does.

Tyranny fits you and your fascist ilk like a glove (and not the OJ kind, either!).

Public event = don't get to determine in advance who will be disruptive, even assuming such determinations were in good faith, which they were not in the case of the GOP's actions.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 21, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK
Not really, cm, you forgot to work in the "free speech zone" at the Democratic Convention.

Thanks for demonstrating that Gregory, at 2:16, was correct.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 21, 2006 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

alex: I doubt that it will significantly affect attendance.

Best hoot I've had all day and so close to the actual truth.

Bravo!

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 21, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

"He will continue to court independent votes, even though his stance on Iraq might alienate some Democrats. Walz opposes an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and says he's not sure when the soldiers should be pulled out."

Are the libs sure that they want to support this guy?

"Shortly after this Walz retired from the Guard."

He retired from the gaurd because of a sticker on a wallet!? He wants my support because what drove him into politics was a sticker?! This is good judgment? I generally support candidates who have something to offer, not those who merely react to some minor incident. Vote for me because I support wallet stickers - doesn't sound like a winning slogan to me - it sounds asinine.

"He did something that until recently was highly unusual for a military man. He announced he was running for Congress as a Democrat."

This is unusual? There aren't Dems in the military? The retired vets who are dems just don't run? This statement in the linked article is just plain stoopid.

Let's sum up, he retired from the Guard because of a sticker. He's running for office because of a sticker. He blames the military for this incident so he retires the guard even though the Secret service is the group that didn't admit his students and the military had nothing to do with it. The article makes the man sound like a moron. What's his platform? "A sticker on every wallet, a foot in every mouth!" "I retired the Guard to make a point." "Protect your right to attend a rally with a Kerry sticker."

No, my favorite: "Support a dem who supports the war."

One normally, I presume, chooses to support a candidate based on their stand on some important issue(s). If this is the best reason he can offer, wallet stickers, then I'm sending my check to the Republican. Dems need serious candidates, not reactionaries who get into politics for the wrong reasons.

Posted by: sunbeltjerry on February 21, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

I'm actually kind of fascinated by this. Because apparently the potential for disruption of a political convention must be avoided at all costs, whereas the potential for disruption of a president's speech is of no concern whatever.

Interesting take.

And somehow I get the feeling that when we get a Democratic President, I'm going to find that your convictions don't run too deep on this.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Because apparently the potential for disruption of a political convention must be avoided at all costs, whereas the potential for disruption of a president's speech is of no concern whatever.

No, you aren't fascinated, unless it is by your own strawman.

A convention is a private function. The private organization gets to say who will attend and who will not attend.

A president's speech is not a private function. It is being funded on the taxpayers' dime and the government doesn't get to decide in advance who can attend, unless they can prove an actual danger to the president, which they could not.

That you are being deliberately dense or mendacious on this issue is not surprising, however, given your take on most every other issue is equally dense or mendacious.

Of course, if it had been Clinton speaking and the government had prevented certain parties from attending with false claims that those parties intended to disrupt the even and defined "dispution" as any criticism of the president no matter how undisruptive (as that term normally is defined in every dictionary except that special self-serving one that conservatives use).

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 21, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: And somehow I get the feeling that when we get a Democratic President, I'm going to find that your convictions don't run too deep on this.

Again with the mirror, cn.

You need to quit talking about yourself so much.

People will start to talk and may send you off to the looney bin.

Or, are you there already?

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 21, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

Sunbeltjerry,

"He retired from the gaurd because of a sticker on a wallet!? He wants my support because what drove him into politics was a sticker?! This is good judgment? I generally support candidates who have something to offer, not those who merely react to some minor incident. Vote for me because I support wallet stickers - doesn't sound like a winning slogan to me - it sounds asinine."


This is completely idiotic on your part. Its pretty obvious that it was the Bush security/event organizers that had a problem with a sticker on a wallet. They forceably removed people from attending due to a sticker on a wallet.

What Walz had a problem with was the barring of his students merely because of a wallet sticker. That is indeed something to get upset about.

You look so silly jerry, making this argument. You're right about one thing though: a sticker on a wallet is nothing to get up-in-arms over. I question the judgement of anyone who thinks it is as well. That's one of the points that people on this board have been making over and over again.


Posted by: Dismayed Liberal on February 21, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut is truly nuts. What a maroon. You need a brain tranplant!!!

Posted by: GOD on February 21, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

And somehow I get the feeling that when we get a Democratic President, I'm going to find that your convictions don't run too deep on this.

Actually, during the 2004 campaign Senator Kerry was dogged by pro-Bush protestors who would show up at his speeches. Unless they were actively disruptive, they were let in and allowed to stay. There was no attempt to censor or harass those wearing Bush t-shirts or campaign buttons.

Posted by: Stefan on February 21, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

You need a brain tranplant!
Ya, but I'd have to get another Repub brain, Democrat's brains cost too much. They're all brand new, never been used.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

No, Republican brains are defective. The thing is, they do what they proclaim to abhor (increase the size of government, radically increase presidential powers, corrupt the very government they wanted to clean up, extend huge government bread and circus programs), but still fight vehemently as if they were following their principles. However, the seller doesn't provide a warranty, cause that would be helping the terrorists.

Posted by: Boorring on February 21, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

so its your contention....cn.....


that a political convention is the same thing as a public speech by the president who isnt running for office....

is that your position?

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on February 21, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

Flanders: I'm not a veteran. I drew a high draft number.

So what? He could have volunteered -- though since he didn't volunteer, I have to assume Flanders was one of those free love hippy anti-war pro-VC protestors, since any true-blue freedom-loving American would have volunteered to fight the Communist menace in Vietnam. Unless, of course, he had "other priorities" like Dick Cheney or was a physical coward like Bush, O'Reilly, Frist, DeLay, Limbaugh, etc.

Posted by: Stefan on February 21, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK


OFF TOPIC:


bush has been talking about renewable energy since his sotu....but then word gets out....that 32-workers at the national renewable lab got laid off....


gwb damage control....


President Bush has apologized to workers at a renewable energy lab in Colorado -- especially the 32 who were temporarily laid off. During a visit there today, he blamed a budget mix-up.


temporarily...nice touch karl...

at least no one died this time....

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on February 21, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

The rally was during the campaign, so the student wasn't doing anything bizarre. Walz wasn't turned into a Democrat by the treatment he got from Bush, he's been a solid Democrat for a long time. He's running in a competitive district, and is getting a campaign manager shortly with good connections to national money. It's definitely a race to watch.

Posted by: Drew Miller on February 21, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

is that your position?
I'll make a deal with you: you manage to ask a reasonable question, I'll provide an actual answer. If you want to keep doing the moonbat vs wingnut thing, I'm game for that, too.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

what happened ! are the indian wars over ?
did george custer get elected president ?

Posted by: RIP VAN WINKIE on February 21, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

I got some bad news about Custer....

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

Reminds me of the poster I saw, Gen Geo Custer pointing at you in the classic Uncle Sam pose with the caption:

Join the Illustrious 7th Cavalry and help put down the Sioux

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK


cn: I'll make a deal with you: you manage to ask a reasonable question, I'll provide an actual answer.

cn..up thread...Because apparently the potential for disruption of a political convention must be avoided at all costs, whereas the potential for disruption of a president's speech is of no concern whatever.

again....


so you equate a political convention with a speech given by the president...

is that a yes?

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on February 21, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Reminds me of the poster I saw . . .

Which reminds me of an imagined poster showing George Bush pointing in the classic Uncle Sam pose and proclaiming . . .

"Join the US military and help put down terrorism around the world, mostly in countries where there won't be any terrorists until after you arrive."

In very fine print at the bottom of the poster, I also imagine the caveat "Don't expect to receive the benefits of military service promised to you when you sign up or to receive the training and equipment necessary to do your job. Do not expect to receive my respect or that of my fellow conservatives for your service after you retire, assuming you are not killed by my foreign policy incompetence. Do expect that you will be used for partisan conservative purposes while your families' expenses are increased in order to pay for my tax cuts for the rich. You've been fairly warned! But vote GOP anyway!"

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 21, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

One normally, I presume, chooses to support a candidate based on their stand on some important issue(s)

Unless you're a Republican.

Posted by: ckelly on February 21, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

so you equate a political convention with a speech given by the president...
is that a yes?

Here's your hint: it isn't about the venue, and it isn't about the speaker; it's about the potential for disruption.

You can compare and contrast the two '04 conventions. The Dems corralled potential disruptions, the Repubs chose to deal with disruptions as they happened. So you had protesters confined to compounds, and you had mass arrests by the police. The ACLU screamed about both. Which was worse? Do you support the decision of the RNC or the DNC?

Apparently disruptive protesters have become a way of life, so you don't get to wish them away. Your options are to deal with them proactively or reactively.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

To paraphrase Dismayed Liberal commenting on myself: "You are silly and completely idiotic."

Dismayed, I know you are, but what am I? Sticks and stones ... Very classy, very civil discussion - indicative of the quality of content here in whole?

In case you missed the point, well, not in case, if the most important thing that drives one into politics is the notion that a minor can't get into a rally because he is profiled as a potential disruptor, then you should not be in politics. Something bigger must drive a politician, I think. It's an important job - no? They get to vote on war and peace, on life or death issues, on wallet sticker rights, etc. But if you feel the most important issue that determines your vote is someone's stance on stickers, then, by all means, vote for the sticker man. I will give my vote and suport to someone who can articulate what the grand issues are and propose some reasonable, progressive paths. There are far more important things at stake right now and someone who is 'bursting' onto the scene because of a sticker on a wallet, well, I feel that the candidate should be a little more concerned about the larger issues.

Secondly, the man supports the war and won't set a date to get out - why should lib dems support him, even if he is for stickers' rights?

Thirdly, Dismayed, go name-call someone else, okay? I won't call you names and I keep my posts civil. If I posted a "Your post is moronic" everytime someone posted something moronic, I wouldn't have time to get any work done at all. (Don't you agree?) Disagree and move on, don't name call. Offer an opinion and if it intrigues me someone might post a comment, and I promise not to call your post silly or call you a moron.

[Channeling Rumsfeld] Gosh, how rude ...

Posted by: sunbeltjerry on February 21, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

"...the fact remains that politics has become one our most abused and neglected professions. It ranks low on the occupational list...Yet it is this profession, it is these politicians, who make the great decisions of war and peace, prosperity and recession, the decision whether we look to the future or the past...."

JFK

It is not known what his stance was on wallet stickers ...

Posted by: sunbeltjerry on February 21, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

cn: it isn't about the venue, and it isn't about the speaker; it's about the potential for disruption.

they dont check political affiliation at movie theatres....or concerts....and disruption there would not be acceptable..

politics seems to be the link..

so...

conventions are for party business

the president -sometimes- works for the people..not his party

so in those instances...wouldnt restrictions be unamerican?

especially if they are based not on disruption per se...but opposition party affiliation..

so a gop member would have an easier time of getting in...but could be disruptive...no?

also

in your view....is that why jeff gannon was allowed into the white house briefing room....without any journalistic credentials?

because conversly...

he wouldnt cause

any disruption?

.

cn:The ACLU screamed about both. Which was worse?


so....two wrongs make a right?...

Posted by: thsispaceavailable on February 21, 2006 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

thisspace
You have a question put to you: Do you support the decision of the RNC or the DNC?

I've boiled it down, removed all the things that seem to be confusing you. And we can move on after you've answered this question.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

You can compare and contrast the two '04 conventions. The Dems corralled potential disruptions, the Repubs chose to deal with disruptions as they happened. So you had protesters confined to compounds, and you had mass arrests by the police. The ACLU screamed about both. Which was worse? Do you support the decision of the RNC or the DNC?

Actually, this summary is a bit dishonest, and conflates and confuses several different instances. For one thing, the infamous "free speech zone" in Boston was set up not by the DNC, but by the local Boston authorities. I participated in the protests against the RNC convention in New York, and I was similarly corralled (we were kept away from Madison Square Garden, the site of the convention, by metal pens and lines of police officers, and were only allowed to march in front of the Garden, out of earshot of the convention itself, for one block before being herded away.

Second, neither the Democratic nor the Republican conventions themselves let in any uncredentialled persons, so both of them dealt with potential disruption "proactively" (which was their right, as private events organized by private organizations). It is simply a lie to say that the Republicans let any protestors anywhere near the convention floor itself; any protestors who did get in did so by subterfuge.

Apparently disruptive protesters have become a way of life, so you don't get to wish them away. Your options are to deal with them proactively or reactively.

Finally, this continues the lie that the young man who was harrassed and turned away was in any way "disruptive." By all accounts he and his group were perfectly behaved, and the only "disruption" was that he displayed a political message, which was his perfect right as an American.

Posted by: Stefan on February 21, 2006 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

By the way, kudos to sunbelt jerry for his impersonation of a progressive voter. It's a very funny parody if not, on the other hand, at all persuasive.

Posted by: Stefan on February 21, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

cn.....so the president is always partisan in your view?...

the president cannot speak in any venue or on any subject...where anyone from the opposition can be allowed to attend...

because there would be a risk of disruption...

sounds like resolute cowardice to me...

to each his own right cn...

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on February 21, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK


stefan....exactly...

conventions are not like the presidents speeches..

unless...

the president is unable to be anything more than partisan..

which is the hallmark of a convention...

the president is employed by the people...

he should at least have the courage to on occasion confront those who may disagree with him...

after seeing him in action...i understand why bush prefers his bubble..

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on February 21, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan:

Thanks

Posted by: sunbeltjerry on February 21, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan
Surely it was the city that set up and enforced the "free speech zones". The political parties don't have the authority to do that. And the handling may or may not have been coordinated with the parties. But for the Repubs it was done one way, and for the Dems it was done another.

And apparently NY does a pretty poor job on their "free speech zones" given the number of arrests. The ACLU's complaint was the number of arrests, so functionally the protesters were loose.

The question stands.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

thisspace
I'm not talking about conventions and presidential speeches, I'm talking about conventions and conventions.

Do I smell the fear of taking an actual stand?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

Surely it was the city that set up and enforced the "free speech zones". The political parties don't have the authority to do that. And the handling may or may not have been coordinated with the parties.

But that's not what was said before. Prior posts, such as "Not really, cm, you forgot to work in the "free speech zone" at the Democratic Convention. People were kept out wholesale there because of the actions of a minority." were clearly meant to imply that the "free speech zones" were the work of the Democratic Convention itself, not of the Boston police.

But for the Repubs it was done one way, and for the Dems it was done another.

No, it was done one way by the city of New York, and one way by the city of Boston. Their approach was dictated more by their police department's comfort and ease with dealing with protestors (which the NYPD has a lot of experience with), not whether it was done "for" Democrats or "for" Republicans. And again, in neither case were demonstrators let anywhere near inside the conventions themselves. I was never able to get within a block of the Republican convention, myself, and even when I got that close I was still faced with metal gates and rows of police and security.

Posted by: Stefan on February 21, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Here's your hint: it isn't about the venue . . .

Here's your hint: if cn can't win the argument on logic, cn will change the logic with false equivalencies . . .

You know, Iraq was not about the WMDs, it was about [insert whateever conservative-serving meme cn feels comfortable with Iraq being about] . . .

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 21, 2006 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not talking about conventions and presidential speeches, I'm talking about conventions and conventions.

No, actually, the subject of this thread is presidential speeches (which are public), despite some people's effort to hijack it to the subject of conventions (which are private). However, they can't quite keep that effort straight, as in this quote from 2:55 PM when cn wrote:

Because apparently the potential for disruption of a political convention must be avoided at all costs, whereas the potential for disruption of a president's speech is of no concern whatever.

Posted by: Stefan on February 21, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

Yep, I definitely smell the fear of taking a stand. Have a nice day, girls.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

Here's your hint: it isn't about the venue, and it isn't about the speaker; it's about the potential for disruption.

This actually refutes your earlier contention that the kid being turned away from the Bush speech and the convention security measures being the same in kind. What's the potential for one supervised college kid on a field trip with a Kerry sticker to disrupt an event?

Insignificant at best.

So you while you were running your mouth about this were actually wrong, which you proved later by switching sides in your own argument.

Then Stefan handed your fat ass to you on the subject of convention security. Admitting that the cities handle security is the second time you refute your own point, when earlier you implied that it was the Democrats who were at fault for the (poor anarchists) not being allowed to protest from the podium.

Hazy, hazy thinking. Bad thinking. Inconsistent.

Oh, and by the way, ultra-conservative Bob Barr also thinks you're full of shit. He remembers the "fun" of the good old days when we DID have a Democratic President and conservatives routinely showed up to his speeches wearing shirts with anti-Clinton slogans and were not removed by the Secret Service if they did not interrupt the event.

That Bob Barr, why does he hate trolls so?

I guess that answers the question of "how deep our convictions run" on this matter. Strike three.

Here's a hint for you: "lefties" aren't your problem, your problem is you.

In your frenzy to crap all over these threads you've really just looked like you're shitting yourself, clinging to semantics and throwing out false comparisons like crazy to try and win arguments.

Desperation much?

Do you envy us Americans, is that it? It's true what they say, our penises are quite large.

It can't be because you see yourself as either intellectually superior or possessed of more self-awareness because your allegations are disproven all the time, your logic shot full of generalizations and fuzzy thinking (that is really where you are the weakest) and any self-awareness is virtually non-existent if your performance on these threads is any indication.

When you're tripped up you try and obfuscate the issue, appear serious for a moment, and eventually predictably grumble something that ends in "...lefty moonbats anyway...." or "...that's why you'll always be losers...." and leave.

Yeah, that makes you look impressive. Who could fail to be impressed by such a performance?

My advice: lose some weight (lose a LOT), try and learn to treat people with respect, deal with some of those anger issues from your childhood to help yourself develop some self-control and maybe -- just maybe -- you'll develop some healthy relationships in the real world that will satisfy your need for human interaction. Then you won't feel compelled to spend your valuable time here doing what is the essentially the equivalent of farting as long and loud as you can during church because you don't like the homily.

I know you're at least smart enough to know the truth of this.

Posted by: Windhorse on February 21, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

Windhorse
At the first sign of this blog becoming something other than the cesspool it is, I will behave myself. Until then...

But in this case, I don't seem to be able to get a clear answer on whether, in general, potential disruptions should be handled proactively, or reactively. I would think it relevant.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

As Windhorse noted, ueber-conservative Bob Barr seems to feel that simple common sense would be the best method to use when dealing with the crowd at presidential speeches:

"Who can forget the great costumes and Nixon face masks that appeared at many political rallies and other events during the 1960s and early 1970s? Reagan and Clinton masks, the latter sometimes adorned with long, Pinocchio-type noses, added color and a bit of levity to political demonstrations throughout most of the 1980s and 1990s. There was, in a word, tolerance.

"Reagan, with his constant good humor, almost always disarmed protesters with his wit. Conservatives wearing anti-Clinton T-shirts frequently showed up at Clinton rallies. The worst they might face from the then-president's supporters were scowls.

" This atmosphere didn't mean security was absent; it was very present. In the 1960s through the end of Clinton's second term in January 2001, everyone knew if you caused disruption, Secret Service agents would be on you in an instant, as they should be.

"But during that period, you didn't feel you were doing something criminal if you simply decided to show up at a rally with a protest T-shirt on, or lugging around a sloppy paperboard sign criticizing the president. You didn't feel intimidated."

Posted by: Stefan on February 21, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

Years ago I attended a reelection campaign speech by GHWB. Near the end some guy started shouting "Stop Nuclear Testing" at the top of his lungs, and I joined in, with gusto -- we were petitioning our president for a redress of grievances, and nobody laid a hand on either one of us. Apparently GHWB had a lot more respect for the First Amendment than his fortunate son does.

Posted by: Doctor G on February 21, 2006 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK
Here's your hint: if cn can't win the argument on logic,

I.e., if cn is in an argument...

cn will change the logic with false equivalencies

Bingo.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 21, 2006 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

The whole story sounds fishy. Does a guy really make a life decision to run for office on such an insignificant incident or is it made up/exaggerated to help his campaign get off the ground? Anyone know about his background/qualifications, or do they not matter?

It also is amusing how dems are so proud about getting a handful of basically unqualified veterans to run in mostly unwinnable districts. My guess is few, if any, win. But the whole emphais on their "fight'in dems" pitch is another example of the dems pretending to be tough on security. The "support" [see Hacket] of these guys has virtually nothing to do with any principles or policies, or even any assessment of their qualifications, and certainly nothing to do with support of the military -- the dems want to use these veterans to help attack the Iraq war effort.

While the vets service should be totally respected and appreciated, the dems attempt to use them is almost juvenile [see the crowing at Kos] and the candidates use/emphasis of their military record a bit exploitative [I realize politicans of both sides have used military records in the past, but not so brazenly as these fight'in dems quickly falling in line with the anti-Iraq war party]. It seems like one of those dem arguments [like the Kos' dozen] that ultimately will amount to nothing.

Posted by: brian on February 21, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

Conspiracy Nut:

I don't know why I bother, but sure, I'll take a stand. I don't think people should be barred entry into political events until after they try to shout things, throw things, rush the stage, or threaten violence.

What you're wearing should be automatically excluded unless it's a Kalashnikov.

The Dem protesting box was bullshit, although it was NYC. I wonder who they were channeling?

Kevin runs an intelligent blog. It deserves better commentary than this. I'm openly sympathizing with tbrosz at this point.

Is that your point, conspiracy nut? "Everyone on this blog makes snarky ad hominem arguments, so I'll amuse myself making it worse?"

How are you helping to solve the focus of your little running satire?

Posted by: glasnost on February 21, 2006 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINK

Is that your point, conspiracy nut? "Everyone on this blog makes snarky ad hominem arguments, so I'll amuse myself making it worse?"
That's a fine turn of phrase, and remarkable accurate.

How are you helping to solve the focus of your little running satire?
I'm not. But let me return a question: Since no one else seems to care that this is a cesspool, why should I?

But since you took the time to take a stand, I'll behave momentarily. I agree with you, proactively addressing potential actions is a loser. Therefore, Bush is a wrong for controlling his attendees like he does.

That said, questioning prior to entry is defensible. That is how the Israelis prevent hijackings, simply asking people questions. Given the threat level that Israel faces and the absence of any hijackings, it must be a very powerful technique. But turning the kids away for a Kerry sticker is wimpy, wimpy, wimpy.

As for the rest of you clowns, I know why you didn't have the stones to take stand; your only principle is: Bash Bush. Beyond that, you have no principles. Gotta have the freedom to bash Bush from any direction, right?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 22, 2006 at 9:03 AM | PERMALINK

Glasnost
Doctor G said that during their interaction with GWHB that

Near the end some guy started shouting "Stop Nuclear Testing" at the top of his lungs, and I joined in, with gusto
That is acceptable behavior in my mind because they did not interrupt the talk. But today I see that Scalia was heckled during his talk. Now couple that with the food throwing.

Are protesters driving the issue to where the only answer is to keep them out?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 22, 2006 at 9:15 AM | PERMALINK

It also is amusing how dems are so proud about getting a handful of basically unqualified veterans to run in mostly unwinnable districts.

Uh, it's the First District of Minnesota. It has traditionally been a conservative yet Democratic district. Rep. Tim Penny held the seat before Rep. Gil Gutknecht was swept into office on the Gingrich coattails in 1994. It wouldn't be unheard of for the First to send a Democrat to the House.

As for unqualified, I think you better check up on the qualifications of some House members--not exactly the winner's circle of strong resume holders.

Here's a blog entry that you might find informative:

Tim Walz moving up the DCCC's targeting list

According to Roll Call (via House Race Hotline), the DCCC's targeting list may be changing in Minnesota...

"If" Dems "are to succeed at expanding the playing field" in '06, "they will need to find good second-tier seats to compete for in states such as" MN. "But in the Gopher State," the DCCC's "targeted races may be changing." After a lackluster start by FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley (D), other Dems began looking at taking on Rep. John Kline (R-02). And now, "little-known high school geography teacher and Iraq war veteran" Tim Walz (D) "is beginning to generate buzz that his challenge to" Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-01) "might provide" Dems "with a better opportunity for an upset."

MN-01 certainly has more friendly demographics than MN-02. In 2004, Bush won the 1st with only 51% of the vote compared to 54% in the 2nd. Rochester, the largest city in the district and formerly a Republican bastion, has been trending blue in recent years; in 2004 the city dumped two GOP incumbents in the State House and a third barely escaped. Gutkneckt also hasn't had a tough race in a while (the Almanac of American Politics claims his last tough race was in 98, but even then he got 55% of the vote), and his campaign skills might be a bit rusty. Though he claims to be an independent minded Republican, Gutknecht still voted for the budget reconciliation bill a few weeks ago, which contained cuts devastating to Minnesota farmers.

If Rochester continues its march to the left, Gutknecht could be in serious trouble. The DFL candidate, Tim Walz is superb. An educator and Iraqi War vet, Walz has the perfect resume to appeal to moderates in southern Minnesota (who, we should not forget, we're represented in Congress by a DFLer before 1994).

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 22, 2006 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

At the first sign of this blog becoming something other than the cesspool it is, I will behave myself.

said the man dumping more shit into the cesspool...

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 22, 2006 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider,

Yeah, but Gutknecht has a campaign war chest of over $800,000. Still, the 2004 elections showed that door-to-door canvasing had some success against big money.

The two main employers in Rochester, Mayo Clinic and IBM have been screwed by the GOP lately. The Mayo Clinic detests the expansion of the DM&E railroad through town to transport Cheney coal to the east coast, and IBM employees have been screwed by outsourcing and pension grabs.

Gutknecht and Coleman say they might see what they can do about the rail expansion, but they have done nothing so far and the project has been approved by the Feds. These tracks go within 400 yards of a Clinic hospital and they don't like the idea of 35 highspeed coal trains rumbling by every day.

Posted by: Tripp on February 22, 2006 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

I think you need to look at the map--Southern Minnesota is farm country.

Gutknecht isn't too popular with them right now.

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 22, 2006 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

office hardware, oa equipment
IT办公硬件外设IT办公硬件外设咨询
复印机传真机打印机一体机投影机收款机碎纸机考勤机多功能一体机
夏普复印机东芝复印机京瓷复印机美能达复印机佳能复印机理光复印机三星打印机联想打印机爱普生打印机
三星传真机夏普传真机佳能传真机兄弟传真机松下传真机飞利浦传真机惠普打印机佳能打印机彩色打印机
松下一体机三星一体机联想一体机佳能一体机惠普一体机理光一体机理想一体机得宝一体机基士得耶一体机
东芝投影机索尼投影机日立投影机三洋投影机松下投影机夏普投影机三菱投影机3M投影机飞利浦投影机
海斯曼碎纸机科密碎纸机奥士达碎纸机密理碎纸机福尔特碎纸机多功能一体机激光打印机喷墨打印机HP一体机

影印機
复印机大全
影印機
夏普
佳能
东芝
京瓷
理光
施乐
工程复印机
数码
彩色数码
传真机
传真机
传真机
传真机目录
传真机
panasonic松下传真机
samsung传真机
brother传真机
sharp传真机
canon传真机
philips传真机
理想一体机
理光一体机
得宝一体机
基士得耶一体机
三星多功能一体机
佳能多功能一体机
松下多功能一体机
联想多功能一体机
惠普多功能一体机
一体机
办公设备
东芝投影机
ask投影机
3m美投神投影机
飞利浦投影机
plus普乐士投影机
sony索尼投影机
普乐士投影机
税控收款机
点钞机
科密考勤机
支票打印机
碎纸机
美能达打印机
松下打印机
施乐打印机
佳能打印机
惠普打印机
爱普生打印机
联想打印机
三星打印机

Posted by: 34343 on February 22, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider,

I think you need to look at the map--Southern Minnesota is farm country.

Were you talking to me?

Posted by: Tripp on February 22, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

CN, my point isn't that I didn't disrupt the speech, because I did. It's that I was not arrested or hassled at the time, and I was not blocked from entering based on my party registration, or my history of organizing and getting arrested at demonstrations, or my very long hair and beard. The Secret Service made sure I was an unarmed hippy, and that was all.

Posted by: Doctor G on February 22, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly