quote:GOP Volunteer Probed on Role at President's Speech 3 Democratic Observers Were Ejected From Event
By Jim VandeHei Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, April 23, 2005; Page A06
The U.S. Secret Service is investigating whether a Republican volunteer committed the crime of impersonating a federal agent while forcibly removing three people from one of President Bush's public Social Security events, according to people familiar with the probe.
The Secret Service this week sent agents to Denver to probe allegations by three area Democrats that they were ousted from Bush's March 21 event. The three did not stage any protest at the rally and were later told by the Secret Service they were removed because their vehicle displayed an anti-Bush bumper sticker.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the man who removed them was a GOP volunteer, but he refused to divulge his name or whether he works in Colorado or Washington. "If someone is coming to an event to disrupt it, they are going to be asked to leave," McClellan said.
The Secret Service knows the man's name, one of the people familiar with the probe said, and has interviewed him. Secret Service spokesman Jim Mackin refused to comment for this article.
This is not the first time the White House has faced scrutiny for ousting critics from Bush appearances or trying to stack audiences with friendly Republicans.
In Fargo, N.D., earlier this year, a local newspaper reported more than 40 residents were put on a list of people who should not be let in the door; the White House blamed the incident on an overzealous volunteer.
Several people reported similar treatment at other Social Security rallies, as well as during the 2004 presidential campaign, when the Bush team reportedly required some people to sign forms endorsing Bush to get into the events, and removed dissenters.
The Justice Department recently moved to dismiss a case filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of two West Virginia residents, who were arrested last year after refusing to remove anti-Bush shirts at a Bush campaign event at the state capitol. The lawsuit was filed against a White House advance staffer and Secret Service Director W. Ralph Basham. The ACLU is investigating other incidents to determine whether it can show a pattern of unlawfully silencing critics. "The incidents occurred in so many locations, it's hard to believe individuals in each local area are coincidentally making the same decision," said Christopher Hansen of the ACLU Foundation in New York.
Bush travels to events with a protective guard of Secret Service agents, but the White House relies on paid advance staff members, who organize and oversee travel, GOP volunteers and local authorities to police crowds. They monitor people as they enter, scan the crowd while Bush is speaking and remove anyone seeking to disrupt the event. Usually, they wait until the person starts protesting, but McClellan said staff members can remove people if they think they are present only to disrupt. The White House typically distributes tickets to events through local party politicians or organizations, as a way to maximize the number of Bush supporters.
In the Denver case, Alex Young, 25; Karen Bauer, 38; and Leslie Weise, 39, say they were forced out even though they never verbally protested or displayed anti-Bush shirts or signs. The White House has not disputed this.
The three are self-described progressives who arrived at the Denver event with a "No More Blood for Oil" bumper sticker on their car and thoughts of protesting. Young said they had T-shirts saying "Stop the Lies" under their business attire, but decided beforehand not to display them.
When they were entering, they were pulled them aside and told to wait for the Secret Service, Young said. A few minutes later, a man who refused to identify himself warned they would be arrested if they staged any protests. They were allowed to take seats, only to be forced out without explanation about 20 minutes later. The man, who Young described as muscular, about 30, with close-cropped hair, again refused to provide his name or affiliation. A local Secret Service agent told a lawyer representing the three they were targeted because of the bumper sticker.
McClellan said the volunteer had a reason to believe they were planning to protest and rightly removed them. "My understanding is the volunteer was concerned these individuals were going to disrupt the event, so he asked them to leave," McClellan said.
The Secret Service initially launched an investigation in late March to determine if its agents were involved in the incident. It was quickly determined they were not. This week, Mark Hughes, who works for the Secret Service here, contacted the attorneys representing the three people and said agents were flying to Denver for a new phase of the probe.
A person familiar with the probe said the agents are trying to determine whether the man McClellan described as a volunteer was impersonating an agent, a federal crime that carries a maximum sentence of three years in prison.
The Secret Service stepped up its probe after a member of Congress contacted the Department of Homeland Security's inspector general to request a fuller investigation. If the agents decide a crime was committed, they would forward the information to the Justice Department or U.S. attorney for Denver.
The incident and the identity of the man have become news in parts of Denver. The three Democrats have started a Web site-- denverthree.org -- to press their case, and a local columnist has been hounding the White House for the identity of the "mystery man." "It's day 31. The White House stonewalling continues," Denver Post columnist Diane Carman wrote Thursday.
"I don't think it serves any purpose other than to further their political agenda to get into discussing the volunteer," McClellan said.
There are several things that bother me about this incident in particular, and the pattern of audience filtering that is apparently the norm these days.
1) Having events be "invitation only" just seems wrong in our pluralist society. Bush is by no means the only one to ever do this. Usually, it's a fund-raising opportunity. But when it is for discussion of public policy, events that are GOP-only or Democrat-only shouldn't be the norm, they should be the exception.
2) Tossing people out because they have a bumper sticker or t-shirt that you don't like is just plain un-American. Dissent, even noxious dissent, is part of our culture. Grown up politicians of the past knew how to deal with hecklers. It wasn't to have them removed. The way to do it was to use your voice, your superior position at the podium, and get your message across. Score some points. These things used to be viewed as opportunities.
Look at the British system. They have open vociferous arguments with each other and THEY survive. Is American politics so namby-pamby that we can't have a few people face their detractors in the open? Especially the top-level leaders? IMHO, they NEED to hear the opposition's points every once in awhile. If only to know that their message isn't winning ALL the hearts and minds. And that maybe there's another way to look at things.
3) The idea that events should be stage managed is just sickening to me. I know politics has become all about appearances and sound bites, but this goes to a whole level beyond that I think. I think its not unexpected for politicians to want to manipulate and control the coverage they get, or the exposure they have to "the public." It's all about image, right? But at some point, I think you hit positions where that is no longer an option. At some point, the position demands access whether you like it or not. Even if the people getting to you hate your guts, you took on the job of representing them and ALL in your state, or your country.
Oh well, I'm really not trying to turn this into Bush bashing. I think he's not the first to do this kind of thing. I don't like it no matter who does it. I think it's a bad precedent and I've seen it getting worse over successive administrations. I do think Bush takes it to an extreme I don't recall from his predecessors. But maybe I'm just mis-remembering the way things used to work.
At any rate, I've read accounts of how politicians were treated in the old days. Two guys would debate each other, and the crowd would enter into the debate.
I want that!
I want people who take on these offices to have to face the people. All the people. All the time. Not just when they choose, and can control it.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if these people legitimately wanted to hear what Bush had to say?
I'm not being naive here. It's equally likely the guys in question were planning to stage some sort of disruption, but to my mind it isn't right to assume someone's actions because of a bumpter sticker or t-shirt.
I can understand it if people are being disruptive. I mean, if the dissent gets so out of control that the event can't continue. But really...waving a sign or wearing a t-shirt that expresses disagreement is not all that disruptive a thing. What's your problem with allowing people to peacably protest public policies at the public events where they are announced and/or promoted?
We (all of us) are paying the bill for those events to happen in the first place.
If they were party fund-raising events, then I see how that should be run just as the party wants it. But when a person like the President appears in public at a supposedly "public" event playing to a hand-picked crowd, that should give us all something to worry about.
Maybe these events were never intended to be public? Maybe they are actually fund raisers and the press is just not telling us?
The President is NOT the party. He's the President of the United States. He works for all of us. Whether he likes it or not, he is supposed to be answerable to all the people.
posted
Okay, I guess it depends on the forum. If a public figure is invited to speak somewhere it is his right to agree under what conditions he will do the speech (dissent being one of them). If he shows up at the park and starts speaking on a soapbox, anything goes.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Private business sure. Private citizen sure. Public official or someone running for public office, hell no!
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Okay, I guess it depends on the forum. If a public figure is invited to speak somewhere it is his right to agree under what conditions he will do the speech (dissent being one of them). If he shows up at the park and starts speaking on a soapbox, anything goes.
So what would you define the president going somewhere to speak on public policy as? Soapbox or invited? Often he invites himself as it were.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think McLellan should be required to publicly disclose the name of the staffer responsible to non-law enforcement interests.
Just because a newspaper wants the name is no reason to comply with its demands.
However, McLellan should cooperate fully with the Secret Service investigation and any pending other criminal investigation, including divulging all details and the suspect's name is so requested.
I'm not particularly surprised by his statements generally - he is, as he should be, biased towards the White House and his statements reflect as much. And this administration has taken spin control to new levels - although I don't believe they have the legal means to displace people attending a public function.
A private luncheon at the Waldorf, sure. But this was described as a public function, not a private one.
posted
I don't know if anyone has heard these urban rumors, but I will share what I have heard:
The Secret Service and other gov't organizations will canvas a public speaking location that the POTUS will speak at weeks in advance. They will ask pointed questions to people in the area such as "Who did you vote for in the last election?", or what party they are registered with....etc.
Those found to be of dissenting opinion or belief are not allowed to be present when POTUS arrives and/or speaks.
I have heard canvassing of everything from hotels to universities, and this rumor goes back into the early 90s.
As far as conspiracy theories go, there is one that described where there were supposed to be agents everywhere when JFK was assassinated, but there was an order given prior to the event that cancelled the presence of agents on site...
If only for the fact that the demographic of a given area is likely to change drastically prior to a President's arrival and interrogating people on or near the location seems to be an expensive waste of time when the event is weeks away.
Granted, I haven't been in close proximity to a Presidential speech, so I can't speak to these rumors first-hand.
quote:McClellan said the volunteer had a reason to believe they were planning to protest and rightly removed them.
Excuse me? Since when is it against the law to protest in the presence of the president? Okay. Forget the fact that they've (and I'm not just talking Republicans here) taken to putting up what are basically "protest pens" sometimes up to half a mile or more away from where a president is going to speak so that the king...excuse me, the president, won't have to be offended by having to see evidence that not everyone agrees with him.
The big problem that I have with all of this is that ever since 9/11 - maybe even before, I don't know - the secret service and the president's men (and in this case I am talking pretty much exclusively about the Bush administration) try to promote the idea that anyone who disagrees with the president wishes him physical harm. Which is just ridiculous. So the current policy, as far as I can tell, is to treat any and all protestors as if they are terrorists. I have a huge problem with that.
And, yes, the name of the volunteer (and I'm having to resist putting that word in quotation marks) should be made public, I think. I like to know which people in my country do not believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (which I had to swear to uphold just to get a job as a tutor in a public community college). If he thinks his actions were so correct, and if the administration thinks so, they should be proud to announce his name publicly. Anything less smacks of the incipient installation of a secret police. I don't think that's a road we really want to go down, do we?
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not as quick to condemn the Secret Service with the same brush as the Republican party.
However, releasing this staffer's name would be subjecting the person to a firestorm of public scrutiny.
If the three affected parties want the name badly enough, they can file a criminal complaint because this civilian violated their civil rights to peaceably assemble.
If the Rublican party or the White House refers to disclose the staffer's name, charges can be brought for impeding a criminal investigation.
However, barring legal action, I don't think this staffer should be handed over to the court of public opinion for essentially following orders.
Assuming, of course, that he wasn't singularly responsible for monitoring the parking lot, spotting the bumper sticker, pulling the three people out of line and then proceeding to order them out.
If he was, I think we have a nominee for "Employee of the Month."
posted
I'm trying to see where the secret service is the appropriate agency to investigate the "republican volunteer." The secret service is there to protect the president. Someone who impersonates a federal officer should be investigated by the FBI, as far as I can tell.
The republican party, certainly at the higher levels, has a definite bunker-style paranoia. They don't want to hear the other side of any issue. Period. It's intellectual isolationism.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It sounds like the Secret Service began an internal probe to determine if any of its agents acted inappropriately.
After the DoJ was contacted, the reports of the Secret Service will be forwarded to the appropriate agency for further review and action, if deemed appropriate.
If the DoJ or the US Attorney for Denver feel the need to pursue action, a formal investigation will probably be pursued by other investigators not directly connected to the case in order to avoid the appearance of bias or impropriety.
posted
Somehow that strikes me as wrong and it should be illegal. A truly powerful politician could handle dissenters with grace and style. Unless it's a security issue, but I doubt that is the case.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When someone is determined to deny someone else the right to speak their mind, then it is FOR freedom to keep them from being disruptive.
To say that public officials or public figure should never be able to make public statements without the presence of their noisy, disruptive enemies - to say that they can NEVER speak to an audience that is either neutral or agrees with them, but must ALWAYS have their opponents present to shout them down or distract - what kind of freedom is that?
We do live in a country where speakers of certain viewpoints or parties are regularly banned from universities - in the name of "tolerance" and "diversity." And here we are also having a strong expression of the idea that if you are a "public figure" you should never have the chance to actually develop a thought and speak in peace - you must always allow your opponents to chant and shout and demonstrate during your speech, and disrupt it.
I prefer to live in a world where people of every view are welcomed in civilized society and given a peaceful chance to speak their piece - until and unless their "piece" consists of silencing others by their disruption or actively soliciting or conducting criminal acts. These exceptions are long enthroned in law. The right of the people is to PEACEABLY assemble, for instance. Freedom of speech has never been absolute.
And if pursuing public office meant that you gave up your right to speak PEACEFULLY to a polite audience, and instead had to submit to being hounded and vilified at every appearance - who would seek public office?
For that matter, I'm a public figure. Are you seriously suggesting that I should not be able to have a book signing or speak to an audience of readers without a member of one of the various hate groups that want to silence me being able to shout me down, and the owner of the bookstore wouldn't have the right to eject them, even though it is private property, because I am a "public figure"? Just guess how many public appearances I would bother to make, if that were the rule.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But is it OK to do a preemptive strike, based on someone's bumper sticker?
"The three did not stage any protest at the rally and were later told by the Secret Service they were removed because their vehicle displayed an anti-Bush bumper sticker."
I agree that a person who has a history of disruption might be singled out, but does that mean anyone who is not pro-Bush needs to be filtered out? That is very frightening to me.
[ April 23, 2005, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the issue that many of us have is that according to what has been written about the event, individuals have been denied the ability to attend due to their political views. Not because of an intent to disrupt or deny someone the right to speak, but because of what they believe. Some of these people may have planned to yell and scream and shout the speaker down, but to assume that from simply a shirt or slogan is where the problem lies.
posted
I supposed it's different at a book signing. A politician such as a president is supposed to represent the entire country, not just a select group of individuals who see things their way. Plus, such actions lose him potential supporters who might have been wearing the shirts and sporting anti-Bush bumper stickers, but perhaps they could have been swayed before being dragged off by the police JUST for wearing a t shirt. That's ridiculous and illogical.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, if they were wearing an Anti- Bush t-shirt I would sympathize a little more with the people involved. Generally if you're going to politely listen to someone speak you don't wear t-shirts dissing them. Not that I'm saying it'd be alright, mind, just more understandable.
A bumper sticker though... It's not like that's something you change, and unless Bush is planning to go walking about the parking lot it's not disrespectful. Heck, maybe they were borrowing the car for the day from their hippie cousin who they're staying with while they're in town. It's ridiculous to throw them out because of it.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"To say that public officials or public figure should never be able to make public statements without the presence of their noisy, disruptive enemies - to say that they can NEVER speak to an audience that is either neutral or agrees with them, but must ALWAYS have their opponents present to shout them down or distract - what kind of freedom is that?"
Scott, that's a straw man; no one here is making the argument that dissenters, no matter how disruptive they are, must be tolerated.
What people are saying is that impersonating a Secret Service agent to throw out three people based on their bumper sticker is beyond the pale.
posted
Tom already wrote my response to OSC's post. I just want to add that deliberately disrupting a lawful public assembly is usually considered grounds for arrest. And I think it should be. Nobody has to or should put up with that. I don't want that as a taxpayer.
But... If my dollars are used to fund the President's trips, I should not be barred from those events simply because I'm not on the GOP's "favorite locals" list, or because I dared to express an opinion contrary to that of the Administration via a bumper sticker, t-shirt or placard I carried to the event.
If I'm there peacefully listening to the President's speech, they have no right to keep me out and I have every right as a citizen to be there.
But, really, I wasn't starting this to bash Bush. I think they're all doing it. We have a crop of wimpy politicians who can't seem to handle any dissenting voices in their midst. They arrange situations where they are always addressing their party's faithful and managing the press accounts. It's gotten to be where probing questions can't be asked because:
1) the people there would never dare ask, 2) the people who would ask them aren't invited or allowed in, 3) the press is either paid for reporting, or afraid if they say something negative they'll "lose access."
I don't recognize this as political debate.
I also don't recognize the divisive, partisan "shout the other guy down" as valid political debate either.
Both are just opposite sides of a single coin -- appearances. Carefully managed, staged events that are designed to make a person/position look good (or bad) and communicate as little as possible.
I'm not so naive as to expect truthful disclosure from politicians, but at least when things could get "edgy" in an open press conference or public appearance, one could see more than just "the script."
By the way...if you need someone to impersonate some vague government agency in order to rid your book signings of undesirables (assuming I'm not ON that list already), I'd be happy to volunteer. I can look officially imposing when I really try. Especially with the ear bud from my phone curled around my ear and wearing mirrored sunglasses.
posted
blacwolve, these folks had anti-Bush t-shirts on under their business attire and their cars had anti-war slogans on them.
I don't think that's grounds for removal, though, even if they walked in wearing the t-shirts openly. They weren't doing anything to stop the guy from speaking, and their tax dollars paid for his trip just like yours and mine did.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, one other thought...maybe I should change the title to "Should <politicians> be allowed..."
I really didn't mean anyone who is a "public figure." I think politicians and appointed public officials are in a special class of folks who either sought or accepted positions of public leadership. They take an oath to serve, uphold the Constitution, etc. But I think there's also an expectation that they will be accessible that is not expected from others who have a public persona.
posted
You know that stuff about free speach, it's not ment to be taken seriously. People have no right to express their opinions in a puplic area, if they have opinions they should keep them decent;y hidden. If you allow these hippy-commie-pinkos to say what they belive, the communists/terrorists will win!
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it depends on how much power the person has or wants.
If the person is a politician and either has or wishes to have power over me and my life, it's open season on policy issues. S/he has a right to physical *safety,* and to personal privacy, but a person who wishes to have power over any aspect of my life should not be "protected" from my opposition to that in any way. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
A public figure/celebrity is different. The person's opinions are no more nor less important than mine, and the only the control over me the person has is what I choose to give him/her. Therefore, the more social rules of "not rocking the boat" apply (unless someone is being hurt, of course, and I'm in a position to stop it). If it looks like it's going to turn into a fight, I can always liberate myself from the situation by going home. There's no law against that. Posts: 745 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certainly there is a difference between a "public figure" - an actor, writer, scientist, and so forth - and someone who holds power over the citizenry. And in honesty, I wouldn't even say that someone like a president should never have the opportunity to speak in front of an exclusively friendly audience.
But there have been times when Bush has held what are billed as "Town Hall Meetings" which have had attendance restricted to proven supporters of his policies. Now, maybe it is just me, but when I think of a town hall meeting, implicit in that concept is an exchange of ideas and an opportunity for the people to express to the president the things they are concerned about. Those meetings should be open to the public at large, with appropriate security precautions, or they should be called something else.
And it isn't just Bush that has done this. I can think of at least one "Town Hall Meeting" with Governor Schwarznegger, held here in my area in California, where attendees were screened for their support of the Governor before they were issued tickets. Maybe I'm living in another century or something, but I believe that people like presidents and governors are our employees and should not have the right to insulate themselves from all evidence that someone disagrees with them.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
The politicians, in this case the President of the US, is not trying to bar protestors and dissenters because he does not want to hear their views.
He is not being kept in the dark that there are many people who disagree with him.
This is being done for only one reason, so that the press can show a room packed full of people supporting whatever cause the politician believes in.
Its a marketing gimmick.
Its cheap and oily, like whenever they show a car dealership on a commercial, its full of people buying cars.
They are using this to say, "See, all these people agree with us. You should join the crowd."
And having that one person speak up, scream, throw a pie or what ever, would just ruin the whole marketing plan.
One unhappy face or guerilla tactic could totally ruin the "We are all happy happy" facade.
So if we have to get rid of this idea of "Innocent until proven guilty" thing in order to get the commercial--er--photograph we desire, so be it.
The photo and video will show the politician supported by everyone around. It may not be a outright lie, but it definately is not the truth.
So to sum up, remember...This is not a First Amendment/Freedom of Speech Issue. Its a "How far from the Truth can the politicians go" issue.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
With Bush it goes deeper. He admits that he doesn't read the newspaper, and only reads articles that are pre-screened for him.
The whole thing with Gonzales writing reports based on what Bush wanted to hear takes it to another level.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you are right, Dan, at least partially. But after the President's baffling display at the first debate, I had to wonder if there isn't some effort to keep him in a bubble.
posted
It just bothers me how the Bush administration seems to only be interested in their own perspective and not any others. It's disturbing because how do they know they are right? Dissent is useful because it gives us the other side of the issue so that a whole can be formed... So one can figure out the truth easier.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So calling removal from the presence of someone they don't like is being call a suspension of "innocent until proven guilty?" Good thing ya'll are fair and even in your application of the "strawman" label. This, of course, is a topical application in the form of a transdermal patch.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: So calling removal from the presence of someone they don't like is being call a suspension of "innocent until proven guilty?"
Well, um, yes. It is. By definition. If you are removing someone from a public place, by definition, they have to have done something to merit the removal.
Presumably, then, the people being removed are in fact "guilty" of something.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you think about cities forbidding what otherwise would be "normal" parade routes to people they don't approve of for some reason? Even if the group has filed for a permit etc. etc.
posted
Like the KKK or something? Odious as their cause is, I still think that it would be a mistake to stop them from having their parade or march or whathaveyou. Not doing so sets a pretty nasty precedent.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No I'm talking actual routes. Admittedly any parade in Chicago causes a giant traffic snafu. However certian routes are more traditional parade routes and certian routes aren't. I heard this on the radio a while back, and don't have a link, but my understanding was that the city was forcing a peace march to take a much less visible route, on the anniversary of the begining of GulfWar II than the parade organizers requested. The traffic screwups didn't appear to be that much worse on the less visible route, only that the route was less visible. I believe the organizers after negotiating for a while with the city, went ahead and took the original route down Michigan Avenue in violation of the City's parade permit. I'm not sure if arrests were made or not, but that to me seems like a valid form of protest. Walking one street over causes pretty much the same traffic snarl so there was no advantage, other than that the rich people didn't have their view marred by protesters.
(Sew Corny might be able to verify the veracity of this, since she works down there.)
posted
To add to what's been said, there are plenty of ways to express disagreement at a public event without disrupting anything. How did this "secret service" man presume to know that the people he threw out didn't just plan to stand there wearing their anti-Bush shirts and keeping quiet? That's what I'd do if Bush came to my home town. Certainly that's not "disrupting" the event by any reasonable measure.
It does seem like an innocent-until-proven-guilty issue.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If President Bush came (back) to Daytona Beach and I had the opportunity, I would like to go see him.
I didn't vote for him, either time. I disagree with many of his policies, and am actively bothered by his governing style. I have posted here and elsewhere a great deal of my opinions on his works and his likely legacy. And yet...
I have no animosity towards the man. I feel he is doing the best job he can, under his own beliefs and using the materials and information he is given, and that he is justifiably proud of his accomplishments (even though those same accomplishments bother me no end). And, when all is said and done, he is the president of the United States. It would be an honor to meet him, to shake his hand. I would not heckle or yell or disrupt the event, and would even be willing to sign an agreement to that effect (unAmerican though that would be).
But I would never be allowed in. I have posted publicly against him. I have voted in opposition. I work for a newspaper that supported The Other Guy, and the fastest background check or Googling would reveal all that. My status as an American, a voter, and a taxpayer gets me nothing, apparently.
It has been many decades since I felt this was a representative government.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
