rideside.net

home | archive | comics | about

*the* place for collaborative e-snowboarding

archive / 2004 / 08 / 01

Posted by edward on 2004-08-01 19:15:19 +0000

Oath to Cheney?

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/07/30/news/wyoming/63b4fcb928fe8e6987256ee10054e715.txt

http://www.abqjournal.com/elex/205176elex07-31-04.htm

The most telling part is from the Albuquerque Journal:

"Yier Shi, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee in Washington, D.C., said today's rally was meant to reward and enthuse Bush-Cheney supporters, not to be a forum to preach to skeptics.
Democrats, independents and others were welcome to attend the speech, he said— as long as they like Bush and Cheney."

Not allowing an undecided voter hear the Vice President speak at a public high school (unless she signs an oath to the GOP) shows exactly what's wrong with the Bush/Cheney campaign.
Posted by on 2004-08-02 02:36:55 +0000
Not really anything new. In 92 I attended Clinton rallies where people with Bush signs (and the people holding them) were quickly removed from the camera's eye.

You certainly have the right to free speech, but if it is a sponsored event by a certain political party and they lay out those ground rules, you might have to wear your Kerry shirt from across the street or something. (Especially when we are in the age of terrorism and the beefed up Secret Service)

Similar also is Disney/Miramax deciding not to show Moore's Farenheit 9/11. (Which was announced by Disney one year before it's release By the way, and convieniently trumped up by Moore about one month before its release..) If you own a grocery store, you get to decide whether or not you want to sell Cheerios. If you don't many other grocery stores are happy to sell them. Hardly a deprival of freedom of speech. (Although a bad business decision if you ask me - I'm sure Disney wishes they had the $$$ they could've made by showing it.


Christopher Hitchens, a very smart (and liberal I should add) writer from slate.com has more to say on this in his article "Unfarenheit 9/11"



http://www.slate.com/id/2102723
Posted by on 2004-08-02 03:09:30 +0000
I missed your point about the oath in my knee-jerk reaction to more anti-republican sentiment. my bad. I just read the text of that oath and it is pretty bogus. I would stick with my point of any political party having the right to screen or even exclude "suspicious" people if it is a place that that political party has rented out and is taking security measures, but making people sign loyalty oaths is a bit absurd.

I suppose If I was dissenting and I wanted to be let in I would give dummy info (do they verify all that stuff on site? If not, you could get in without any incident if you didnt mind being John Doe at 555 main st for a few hours...

I guess an argument would be drawn up about the "principle" of having to do such a thing as lying about your name and intentions, but you would also probably draw unnecessary attention to yourself if you were visibly and vocally Democrat at a Republican rally. Just my 2 cents.

Thanks!
Posted by on 2004-08-02 04:07:14 +0000
Points taken rladew, and I was a bit knee-jerk myself after I read those articles.

Counterpoints:
1) Clinton was not in office in '92. Cheney is.
2) I don't believe these people were wearing Kerry shirts or the like. I might be wrong here.
3) Christopher Hitchen's Slate article is getting it's milage, and it is from the Slate.
Posted by on 2004-08-02 13:13:50 +0000
People complain when an incumbent uses the power of the office during an election campaign. Just how many policy trips can one make to Ohio? So it's sort of refreshing when the Vice has a purely political gathering.

The critique of the DNC is a bit disingenuous, how many Dems will be at the RNC?

They paid for the auditiorium, and they have a right to admit the people they want.

Moore did just as good at promoting his movie as Gibson did with his.
Find me on github.