op/ed: Bush rally was sad day for democracy [Archive]

View Full Version : op/ed: Bush rally was sad day for democracy

zimv20

Aug 4, 2004, 11:43 PM

link (http://springfield.news-leader.com/opinions/today/0803-Bushrallyw-147362.html)

The phrase "this is what democracy looks like" changed meaning as the protest of President Bush's appearance in Springfield unfolded. Initially, the phrase described the thousands of people lined up with tickets, waiting to enter the field house, being reminded not all people in southwest Missouri thought this president deserved four more years of leadership that had launched wars resulting in thousands dead and tens of thousands wounded, a national debt increasing at $1.69 billion a day, and an atmosphere of secrecy in America.

The Secret Service told protesters where to gather; the location was excellent. Democracy was working: People were exercising their right to assemble while others exercised their right to protest.

But when police told protesters they had to move about 200 feet away, while the people supporting Bush remained in place, the atmosphere grew tense. When protesters complained to local police, they replied, "We're just following orders." Then the protesters called the media: It was time for citizens to know how democracy was working in Springfield, as protesters had been herded into a "free speech zone."

When gatekeepers announced final seating for those with tickets, protesters with tickets tried to get in, but their tickets were grabbed and torn up, and police threatened them with arrest if they argued back. One woman screamed, "You're tearing up my ticket," and hit back at the man when he started shoving her with his chest, trying to shut her up. The police arrested the woman. Two other people were "taken down": a young girl who could not back up fast enough because there were so many people behind her and a man who is charged with trespassing because he was standing on property his own tax dollars partially funded.

All this, while the Bush supporters passed by, granted access to the president of us all because they would shout his praises at the appropriate moments.

When "this is what democracy looks like" arose from the protesters this time, it had an ominous tone. People were being taken down, and the picture was not pretty.

blackfox

Aug 5, 2004, 01:52 AM

I believe the quote says it all...

As a note to those who might think this was merely to keep "order", I do not hear of any similar events happening to Kerry at his rallys (and I looked)...

debate ensue...

Spizzo

Aug 5, 2004, 02:14 AM

Our democracy died when the Patriot Act went into effect. :(

Leo Hubbard

Aug 5, 2004, 03:45 AM

blackfox

Aug 5, 2004, 04:07 AM

Leo Hubbard

Aug 5, 2004, 09:36 AM

I noticed your thread leo...and if you can't tell the obvious difference in both meaning and substance between the two, then no amount of me (or anyone) trying to explain it to you will do any good...
So if it comes from a left wing media source its an unbiased site, but if it doesn't its obviously biased and doesn't count. No I don't know if the Springfield news service is left wing biased, but apparently people only care about those news sources that make Bush look bad while ignoring any news stories by calling them biased or whatnot if they make Kerry look bad. :confused:

Desertrat

Aug 5, 2004, 09:37 AM

IJ Reilly

Aug 5, 2004, 10:15 AM

I don't like being shunted away from a logical place from which to shout my displeasure. But how do we tell a nutzoid from a legitimate protester?

By the way they spit up blood when hit in the stomach with a nightstick?

Taft

Aug 5, 2004, 10:29 AM

I dunno why it's so hard for people to understand that the Secret Service teams for protection of the president have absolutely no sense of humor, or (as near as I can tell) trust of any person who's physically near any "El Prez".

They were pretty serious before the JFK assassination. Squeaky Fromme and Hinckley pretty much created quantum jumps in the SS negative attitudes.

Most folks who post here seem reasonably common-sensical, but I've seen some pretty vituperative posts about Dubya. This ain't DemUnder, but there've been some pretty rough comments. Just think what the daily input of "You're gonna die!" garbage is into the White House, and then remember the job of the protection team is to keep the president upright and breathing, not democracy.

I don't like being shunted away from a logical place from which to shout my displeasure. But how do we tell a nutzoid from a legitimate protester?

'Rat

Good points, but here's what I don't understand...

Let me start by asking you a question: if you were going to try to kill a top government official, would you go around protesting him and shouting protests at him? Would it not make more sense to pretend to be a supporter of that official? Or better yet, avoid the for/against scene alltogether and try and get him some other way?

There seems to be an implicit assumption that those protesting the President are more dangerous to his safety than those who appear to be in support of the President. This story suggests that protesters had legitimate tickets to the rally and were denied access because they were protesting. The easy excuse for the denial is that those protesters could have been "out to get" the president, but why is that anymore likely than one of his supposed supporters being "out to get" him?

I liken it to the racial profiling issue since the Sept. 11th attacks. People say, "Of COURSE we should apply racial profiling because the 9/11 attackers were all Muslims with Arab lineage." Thats true. But, in a historical context, that attack was but one of many against the US. Timothy McVeigh wasn't Muslim and he attacked our country. So have countless other white-boys, blacks, etc. etc. Further, there are Islamic fundamentalists on every continent in the world. Islam is a very popular religion in Africa. If the real threat is from radical Islam, then RACIAL profiling will do no good, as there are so many races which espouse radical Islamic beliefs.

To me, both of these situations reek of scape-goating and the use of a real threat to limit the voice and position of opponents. If you can prove to me that Arabs as a whole, or protesters as a whole, represent a greater threat than the rest of the population through statistics, then I'll accept this. However, I have a firm belief that this is NOT the case.

Taft

mischief

Aug 5, 2004, 10:39 AM

There's also likely an element of a PD being caught out of their element.

Police agencies that aren't adequately trained for crowd, protest and riot duty often create riots and use unneccessarily agressive tactics because they're intimidated by the size of the crowd, quickly becoming all-too aware of their lack of contextual training.

California POST studies have found that most riots are, in fact initiated by the appearance of Riot gear on the scene and the initiation of more traditional crowd control tactics. The current training at POST is that if you want a riot, show up decked out for one. If you don't, keep your gear handy but under wraps.

This sounds like a similar, if less severe version of the same form of phenomenon. I'm sure the command staff on the scene and the officers in general were quite nervous: intimidated by the presence of a higher-ranked police agency, the size and volatility of the crowd and their own lack of context.

Cops get pretty highly tuned to each other's moods so if a few get nervous it spreads pretty fast. Normally that's OK, even good but in a crowd-control situation it can be catastrophic.

LeeTom

Aug 5, 2004, 10:40 AM

Do me a favor, let's not get started on the left-wing/right-wing media thing. We're not discussing an Iowa newspaper's reporting, or the media as a whole. What's at stake here is much more important. Where do we draw the line between security and freedom? Can we draw it, in this case, across party lines? The security of our president is a serious matter, even if you hate him, but on the other hand, these "Free Speech Zones" are a horrible joke to me.
Welcome to 1984 people, 20 years late, but that ball is rollin'.

Lee Tom

Bobcat37

Aug 5, 2004, 12:33 PM

So you think it's bad that people of the opposite spectrum had to stay 200 feet away from each other? Man, I don't. Just yesterday I went to see a speech by Vice President Cheney and of course, there were Kerry supporters on a few street corners waving their signs (this is besides the point, but do these people seriously think by waving a sign I am going to miraculously change my mind about who I'm voting for? Riiiiiight) and there were Kerry supporters at the entrace to the place where the speech was being given, but there weren't any Kerry people up waving signs where the long line was gathered. Why? I'm going to assume it's because they weren't allowed to be (police were everywhere of course). So, why wouldn't this be a good idea? Do you seriously think it would be wise to let 10 Kerry supporters (this is how many were gathered at the entrance to this place yesterday) get within 200 feet of about 1000 Republicans? No, that probably wouldn't be the greatest idea...

Anyway, the whole riot thing reminds me of the lyrics to a song... "you want riots, get your riot gear, you want violence, then shoot some tear gas in the air". Of course, I don't think that statement is always true, but it raises some valid points.

Taft

Aug 5, 2004, 02:50 PM

I liken it to the racial profiling issue since the Sept. 11th attacks. People say, "Of COURSE we should apply racial profiling because the 9/11 attackers were all Muslims with Arab lineage." Thats true. But, in a historical context, that attack was but one of many against the US. Timothy McVeigh wasn't Muslim and he attacked our country. So have countless other white-boys, blacks, etc. etc. Further, there are Islamic fundamentalists on every continent in the world. Islam is a very popular religion in Africa. If the real threat is from radical Islam, then RACIAL profiling will do no good, as there are so many races which espouse radical Islamic beliefs.

Not to divert this thread too far from its topic, but I thought this bit of news from today's Chicago Tribune was relevent to this point I was making.

(This link requires registration. Sorry.)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-040805arrest,1,6713315.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Federal agents arrested a Chicago man Thursday on charges of plotting to use a fertilizer truck bomb to blow up a downtown federal courthouse, but prosecutors said he never actually had explosive materials.

Prosecutors said Gale William Nettles, 66, was arrested with a pickup truck containing 1,500 pounds of fertilizer that he intended to sell to terrorists and allegedly thought was volatile ammonium nitrate, the farm chemicals used to blow up the Oklahoma City federal building.

Nettles was working alone, U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald said in announcing the charges Thursday.

...

Nettles, previously convicted of counterfeiting, had been released from prison in 2003, had lived in Chicago and apparently had a grudge against the court system, Fitzgerald said. The Dirksen Federal Building in downtown Chicago houses federal criminal and civil courts and the U.S. attorney's office.

Racial profiling wouldn't have helped much in this case, would it?

Taft

Taft

Aug 5, 2004, 02:58 PM

So you think it's bad that people of the opposite spectrum had to stay 200 feet away from each other? Man, I don't.

Nor do I. But they could have set up a seperate section for these people inside the rally, couldn't they?

The reason they don't (which, incidently, is the same reason Kerry doesn't allow protesters into his rallies) is to keep the fact that people are protesting under wraps. Its bad PR.

(this is besides the point, but do these people seriously think by waving a sign I am going to miraculously change my mind about who I'm voting for? Riiiiiight)

Care to pour a little of that cynicism over the Bushies with their placards? Or the anti-abortionists? Or the anti-gun-control crowd? Or the gun-control crowd? ...

EVERY "side" of EVERY debate has members willing to make signs, charge up their bullhorns and yell at members of the opposing side. On a small scale it is surely useless. But on a large scale, it can definitely influence public opinion. THAT is what these people are going for, even if it is unrealistic that they will ever acheive it.

Taft

Bobcat37

Aug 5, 2004, 03:42 PM

EVERY "side" of EVERY debate has members willing to make signs, charge up their bullhorns and yell at members of the opposing side. On a small scale it is surely useless. But on a large scale, it can definitely influence public opinion. THAT is what these people are going for, even if it is unrealistic that they will ever acheive it.

Oh I know, like you said, on a LARGE scale (like a rally, or large organized protest), it definitely can have an affect. I was merely referring to the fact that there were like maybe a total of somewhere between 15 and 25 kerry supporters on 3 different corners waving signs. THAT will probably change no one's mind. It was a situational comment, if ya know what I mean.

blackfox

Aug 5, 2004, 03:53 PM

Whether or not a particular grouping of protesters has any effect (regardless) of size, is it not within their rights to protest? To organize peacefully? In my mind, everyone pro or anti-Bush (in this instance) has equal right to attend the rally and be treated the same, provided they bought a ticket (if needed) and in the course of any act of demonstration, do not incite violence or an extreme level of disruption to the rally's discourse . It seems that in this case, the Bush handlers acted pre-emptively, which while perhaps preventing a major disruption, definitely impinged on regular people's liberties...

You can draw a larger parallel if you wish...

skunk

Aug 5, 2004, 03:59 PM

and do not demonstrably cause an unacceptable disruption
Love it! :D

blackfox

Aug 5, 2004, 04:01 PM

uhh...you know what I meant...let me rephrase (see edit)

Desertrat

Aug 5, 2004, 04:40 PM

I wasn't particularly thinking of Arabs/Al Qaida or Bush/Kerry in the context of protesters and locations at political events.

Squeaky Fromme came out of the crowd and tried to shoot Pres. Ford. Hinckley did the same on Reagan. These two were purely nutzoid; no amount of profiling would have helped. Basically, they looked "just like us".

Something that keeps paranoia in the hearts and minds of the protection folks is the knowledge that if a guy has a knife in his hand (ceramic, e.g.; no XRay signal) and is within some 21 feet, the attackee is stabbed or cut and it can't be reacted against in time.

How far can somebody throw a rock--or a grenade?

All this sort of stuff goes into setting up the where-and-when around VIPs.

As to cop-induced riots, are any of you old enough to have watched the live TV of the Democratic Convention problems in 1968? While the cops, themselves, didn't actually begin things, they "lost it" when being assaulted with balloons of urine and feces, and with tennis- and golf-balls studded with nails. IMO, the National Guard guys were so terrified, themselves, that they were more of a problem than most of the rioting protesters...

'Rat

pseudobrit

Aug 5, 2004, 05:30 PM

Good points, but here's what I don't understand...

Let me start by asking you a question: if you were going to try to kill a top government official, would you go around protesting him and shouting protests at him? Would it not make more sense to pretend to be a supporter of that official?

Clint Eastwood asked the same question in In the Line of Fire, where, IIRC, the assassin was a campaign donor at a fundraising dinner.

Ugg

Aug 5, 2004, 05:37 PM

Squeaky Fromme came out of the crowd and tried to shoot Pres. Ford. Hinckley did the same on Reagan. These two were purely nutzoid; no amount of profiling would have helped. Basically, they looked "just like us".

Something that keeps paranoia in the hearts and minds of the protection folks is the knowledge that if a guy has a knife in his hand (ceramic, e.g.; no XRay signal) and is within some 21 feet, the attackee is stabbed or cut and it can't be reacted against in time.

How far can somebody throw a rock--or a grenade?

So anyone who doesn't agree with the propaganda machine is to be viewed as the enemy?

I understand that presidential security is a big deal and needs to be taken seriously, but this is obviously a case of rove telling the secret service what to do. If the SS is forced to continue in this vein I don't think its far off from being the SS of yore, if you get my drift.

I was six in '68, so no clear recollection of what went on, although for some reason, Kent State sticks in my mind. Perspective is good but I think it's important too, to remember what led to those demonstrations. It wasn't just a bunch of whacked out potheads, but people who seriously thought, and rightly so that something was wrong with the system. Cause and effect, cause and effect....

mactastic

Aug 5, 2004, 06:45 PM

'Rat, my question to you is: What makes an apparent Bush supporter any less dangerous than a Bush basher? As Taft pointed out, wouldn't it make more sense for a potential asassain to pretend to be a Bush supporter if that gets them closer access?

The real problem is how both campaigns deal with protesters. If they were herding everyone off into seperate 'free speech zones' I wouldn't be as upset, but both camps seem intent on showcasing the supporters and banishing the detractors. That's not how it's supposed to work IMHO.

Desertrat

Aug 5, 2004, 11:44 PM

mactastic

Aug 6, 2004, 10:56 AM

"What makes an apparent Bush supporter any less dangerous than a Bush basher?"

From what I'm reading on the Internet, it's about six of one and a half-dozen on the other. This campaign go-round seems about the most rabid and polarized of any I can recall. There are crazies who are as likely to go after Kerry as Bush, and I'd not be surprised if an alleged supporter of either turned out to be an enemy...

So why should one get treated any differently than the other? Unless, of course the primary motive isn't presidential security...

"...both camps seem intent on showcasing the supporters and banishing the detractors. That's not how it's supposed to work IMHO."

Pardon my cynicism, but it comes across to me as all show and no go. Both camps would have us believe they mostly have beaucoup supports, but few detractors.

Isn't that what I said?

I ain't a happy camper.

'Rat

And what if you wanted to express your unhappiness, per your 1st Amendment rights? And when you tried to express your displeasure you were herded off to an area where you wouldn't be seen by the person you are unhappy with? Do you see any problem with that?

Chip NoVaMac

Aug 6, 2004, 04:50 PM

It only matters what is seen on the evening news....

the RNC and DNC must go. They are only concerned about their pockets.

patrick0brien

Aug 6, 2004, 06:41 PM

It only matters what is seen on the evening news....

the RNC and DNC must go. They are only concerned about their pockets.

-Chip NoVaMac

Agreed.

And all, let's not forget there was a "free speech zone" at the DNC, there will probably be one at the RNC as well (though that could be way the heck in Jersey - ok, bad joke.)

Desertrat

Aug 7, 2004, 06:09 PM

Mac, I'm not particularly disagreeing with anybody about the way protesters are controlled. I'm just trying to point out that there are several reasons for it; some make sense, others are merely self-serving.

A lot of it is fear. The SS fears for the candidates, and they're pretty darned correct in their "paranoia". They worry about proximity, as I mentioned earlier.

The parties fear bad PR and they try the best they can to avoid it. They try to control the media's coverage of the protest groups to the greatest extent possible. The parties remember Chicago, '68, for darned sure.

One detail about "peaceful protest": Both in Austin, Texas, in a protest near the capitol building, and at the Kent State debacle, those in front were actually peaceful protesters banded together. The rock/bottle throwers were to the rear, causing the trouble, and these creatures faded back as the protests became seen as no longer non-violent by the authorities. It's a known pattern (just as at the WTO meetings, or the G7 or (now) 8 conferences) and is of great concern.

You're peaceful. I'm peaceful. But, how about that guy standing behind you?

It's a bitch.

'Rat

patrick0brien

Aug 8, 2004, 03:18 AM

You're peaceful. I'm peaceful. But, how about that guy standing behind you?

-Desertrat

That's just about the most profound thing I've ever seen you write.

Well said.

mischief

Aug 9, 2004, 10:15 AM

A lot of it is fear. The SS fears for the candidates, and they're pretty darned correct in their "paranoia". They worry about proximity, as I mentioned earlier.

The parties fear bad PR and they try the best they can to avoid it. They try to control the media's coverage of the protest groups to the greatest extent possible. The parties remember Chicago, '68, for darned sure.

One detail about "peaceful protest": Both in Austin, Texas, in a protest near the capitol building, and at the Kent State debacle, those in front were actually peaceful protesters banded together. The rock/bottle throwers were to the rear, causing the trouble, and these creatures faded back as the protests became seen as no longer non-violent by the authorities. It's a known pattern (just as at the WTO meetings, or the G7 or (now) 8 conferences) and is of great concern.

You're peaceful. I'm peaceful. But, how about that guy standing behind you?

It's a bitch.

'Rat

Bingo.

It's always frustrating for me when folks get into the "us and them" mentality in regards to Law enforcement. They're people too, they've chosen keeping the peace (to serve and protect) as their mission in life. They're trained as well as their department can afford. They're given explicit instructions to AVOID violence as long as possible.

It must be kept in mind that they're also trained to defend themselves and each other.

I guess what I'm getting at is: Don't forget compassion.... really think about what they're doing and that they can only be there because they BELIEVE in doing what most other folks don't want to. This applies to the protesters every bit as much as the Police.

Just because I don't believe what you're saying is right doesn't give me the right to abuse you, alternately; just because I'm standing here charged with protecting some stuffed shirt or other doesn't give you the right to lump me in with the guy and abuse me. I'm doing my job as a cop, you're doing your job as a citizen. Let's all pretend we can be professional about it shall we?

Desertrat

Aug 10, 2004, 09:00 AM

Patrick, nothing profound about it. It's not particularly different from airport security, going back to the first days of hijackings. Really, it's the whole purpose of terrorism: Create fear and distrust, so TPTB become harsher on the citizenry at large.

Multitudes of examples: Spikes in trees creates a certain amount of fear in loggers and causes Forest Service "cops" to hassle hikers. A rock-thrower in the back of the crowd may precipitate violence, and cause the segregation which is the subject of this thread. And we have decades of nervousness about air travel.

Fear is a helluva strong political motivator, whether induced by nutzoids or by politicians seeking more power.

'Rat

skunk

Aug 10, 2004, 09:36 AM

Fear is a helluva strong political motivator, whether induced by nutzoids or by politicians seeking more power.

'Rat
Why is it that fear appears to be the principal motivator in US politics?

Taft

Aug 10, 2004, 10:02 AM

Why is it that fear appears to be the principal motivator in US politics?

Because we are (as a whole) lazy, comfortable and complacent. A terror attack on our soil spit in the face of our perceived security. This caused us to fear for our very way of life. After all, a lack of security makes us far less comfortable.

The government did a great job of convince us if this supposed fact, as well.

Taft

mischief

Aug 10, 2004, 10:37 AM

Because we are (as a whole) lazy, comfortable and complacent. A terror attack on our soil spit in the face of our perceived security. This caused us to fear for our very way of life. After all, a lack of security makes us far less comfortable.

The government did a great job of convince us if this supposed fact, as well.

Taft

Just to play Devil's Advocate for a second here.... (or go off on a rant... whichever :p )

In any biological system involving herd/troop/schooling (whatever) critters, when there's less than a certain amount of predation the bulk of the group is easily manipulated, cannot recognize danger until it is imminent, does not maintain appropriate vigilance and is far more tolerant of social predation within it's own ranks.

I guess what I'm saying is tha in the long term all this instability will only be a good thing if we (as a people) choose to take responsibility for our own security rather than letting the cattle-dogs of government do it for us. If we sit back and stay out of the process I guarantee that we will only be more restricted in otherwise unneccesary ways.

Ditch the Nimby and take some responsibility you goddamn sheep! :eek: :D ;)

Or there will be only one thing on a great many fat-walletted minds: " Mmmm.. Mutton..."