The first paragraph reads:

MEDFORD – President Bush taught three Oregon schoolteachers a new lesson in irony – or tragedy – Thursday night when his campaign removed them from a Bush speech and threatened them with arrest simply for wearing t-shirts that said “Protect Our Civil Liberties,” the Democratic Party of Oregon reported.

So, although I realize that many consider the democratic party to be a perfectly unbiased source for this sort of material, I'm going to have to disagree on a few points:

1) Did President Bush do this directly? I doubt that he personally went down into the crowd and asked these ladies to be removed. The article makes the implication that he was directly responsible for the decision.

2) Given the constant, shall we say, infiltration, of the RNC in New York, it's most likely appropriate to have such a system set up.

3) Like it or not, RNC meetings are private. If you aren't a member of the organization and don't plan to play ball with them, then you will be expected to leave or escorted out. It'd be something along the lines of me getting up and shouting down a pastor in a church of a different faith. I would expect to be escorted out of the hall or arrested.

The DNC wanted a little publicity stunt out of these three ladies and they got it. Plain and simple.

Since when does a simple statement on your shirt constitute a heckling protest? It may be appropriate to try to screen attendees, but the problem here lies with what they considered appropriate grounds for throwing them out. Its a nonpartisan statement and they weren't yelling or disrupting a single thing. If it is a publicity stunt, the point is to give the RNC enough rope to hang themselves. Nobody forced the RNC to take offense to a message of protecting our civil liberites. Btw, your last statement implies the DNC is somehow directly involved in what these ladies did. Not very unbiased of you.

Since the first paragraph in the article states that this report originated from the DNC, I don't believe that to be an entirely unfounded assumption. If they were such staunch republicans and supporters of president Bush, why run to the DNC with this information?

The point of screening people is to prevent the shouting and potential protests. People wearing shirts with something like "Protect our Civil Rights" could easily be planning to lead a protest against the patriot act, etc.

Is it possible the campaign people overreacted? Absolutely. But keep in mind, the actions of those who are most likely volunteers who have probably never met Bush or any higher-ups in the campaigns do not necessarily paint the entire campaign, nor its candidate.

It's also not very unbiased of you to ignore what the article said, squee. The report originated from the DNC.

And when did I say I was unbiased? I'm a Bush supporter. Plain and simple. But I also see beyond the simple story here.

Associated Press

The ousting of three Southern Oregon teachers from a Bush campaign rally last week has drawn the attention of national Democratic Party officials.

KGW

The teachers' T-shirts read: Protect Our Civil Liberties.

Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe pointed to the incident to charge that the Republicans are putting unprecedented restrictions on who can attend the president's campaign rallies. The three women were ordered, under threat of arrest, to leave the president's rally in Central Point. They said a volunteer objected to a statement on their T-shirts, "Protect Our Civil Liberties."

McAuliffe called the action "beyond outrageous" and said there has never before been a presidential campaign that is so determined to "keep people away who have a different view."

"The president has stripped his events of anyone who might disagree with him, which is completely un-American," McAuliffe said in a conference call with reporters Sunday.

Tracey Schmitt, a Bush campaign spokeswoman, said no one on the campaign staff "can remember the incident or understand why they would have been removed unless there was reason to believe that they were disruptive or were planning to be disruptive."

Tonia Tong, a Medford schoolteacher who was one of the three women removed from the rally, also participated in the conference call. She said the trio had agreed to remain quiet during the event and had successfully passed three security checkpoints.

But she said a volunteer helping with security stopped one of the three women, Janet Voorhies, when she tried to go to the bathroom.

The volunteer told her they were no longer welcome and would have to leave the event. The women said they were escorted out of the Central Point fairgrounds by police officers and threatened with arrest if they did not comply.

I think you need to sign in to get the link to work. Here it is anyways: [link]


PS I love bugmenot

The report came from the Associated Press. It says right there in the middle of the article, "The AP reported:" The democratic party of course cites it and ad libs with satyrical commentary thats very obviously not meant to be taken seriously that Bush asked the ladies personally to be removed. But there's no evidence there that the DNC cooked up the scheme, and a serious news organization reported the facts of the matter pretty objectively. It seems like a red herring to complain about direct accusations toward Bush, in lieu of the issue the "publicity stunt" brought up.
At face value, you can objectively compare the way the campaigns for both Bush and Kerry are being run. Kerry (pardon me, the DNC) puts up with hecklers rather than use their private status to suppress any freedom of speech. The other side demands loyalty oaths in return for admittance.

Yup... that's what happens when you get a campagin volunteer in on a situation like this.

If you've ever been to a rally and seen some of the volunteers... you'd understand. Yikes. One would think both parties spent most of their time campaigning in psychiatric wards.

It's a private event, and they have the right to boot whoever they want for trespassing, though... of course this will promote responses from the other side but, hey, that's politics.

OK.

1. Provide a good example of hecklers at a DNC rally that were not asked to leave.

2. If these women were stauch Bush supporters, why immediately go to the press with information they knew would be damaging to their candidate? That does not reflect the behavior of the average person who would go to such a rally, unless they wanted to cause some trouble.

3. There is no supression of freedom of speech in this act. Freedom of speech rights have to do with public actions, not private. Calling on the first amendment here is ridiculous.

4. The first paragraph of the article states: MEDFORD – President Bush taught three Oregon schoolteachers a new lesson in irony – or tragedy – Thursday night when his campaign removed them from a Bush speech and threatened them with arrest simply for wearing t-shirts that said “Protect Our Civil Liberties,” the Democratic Party of Oregon reported.

I would personally hold that there's several factors at work here, including an overreaction from a campaign volunteer and people who may have been looking for trouble. In any case, I'd argue they aren't exactly staunch republicans.

The DNC brought this story to this particular paper, that's true. But you've attempt to portray this as an obvious sign that they staged the whole thing. There's absolutely evidence of that.

Let's address some of your points:

1) Did President Bush do this directly? No, but his campaign clearly did. And since we tend to hold our candidates responsible for the actions of their campaign staff, and Bush supporters are constantly lauding his leadership qualities, and he never sanctioned his staff for this action (or these [link]) is it wrong to suggest he should bear some responsibility? If not for the act itself (even though a pattern of silencing critics is well established in his administration), shouldn't we expect him to come out and say: this isn't in the spirit of our democratic values?

2)Given the constant, shall we say, infiltration, of the RNC in New York, it's most likely appropriate to have such a system set up Democray can be messy. But people DO have the right to speak their minds in the political process, even if it isn't something nice. Now, as for the constant "infiltration" of hecklers at Kerry rallies ... you don't hear many Dems saying, these people should be barred and arrested.

3) Like it or not, RNC meetings are private. If you aren't a member of the organization and don't plan to play ball with them, then you will be expected to leave or escorted out From what I saw, these women WERE members of that organization and were even Bush supporters. They simply wore the shirts to raise awareness of an issue they thought the President should pay attention to. It was not rude, it wasn't even vocal in any way. Certainly it didn't equate to screaming and running around.

There's something very disturbing about your line of thinking with this last point. Are you suggesting that all those "average Americans" at Bush rallies only be permitted to attend if they swear total, unwavering allegiance to him? If they promice, in thought and in deed, never to question his decisions, and never to disobey him? To only be granted admission if they swear to Praise Him?

Do you think maybe this goes against everything a democracy stands for? That the whole Constitution and the Rights (which Bush has said belong to Man by decree of the Almighty) should only apply when Dubya says so? Questioning our leaders, even when we support them, is not unhealthy and certainly shouldn't be illegal. Demanding and expecting unbending allegiance, with nary a peep of disagreement, is deeply unhealthy, not to mention, unsettling.

I'm sure when they heard this story, the DNC practically fell over themselves to get press attention about it, but I don't see any evidence that they staged it, or used these women as their own stooges. The fact is, there's nothing defensible about how the President's campaign staff handled this. If these woman had worn shirts that read "No peace without victory!" (a shirt worn by Bush supportors) at a Kerry rally, there would be no story because those women would never have been kicked out and threatened with arrest. And you know this too.

1. [link] "The campaign of John F. Kerry, the Democratic nominee, has had to deal with Republican hecklers at events. The Kerry-Edwards communications director for New Mexico, Ruben Pulido, said that when Kerry visited New Mexico on July 10, several Bush supporters shouted ''Viva Bush" and waved flip-flops." That, plus there is no policy of signing loyalty oaths to get in to DNC rallys.

2. The campaign trail isn't just for staunch Bush supporters, its supposed to be for uncommitted votors who want to hear the candidates speak so they can be convinced.

3. Of course they have the right to infringe on civil rights in private, just like private businesses have the right to discriminate if they want. But the ones who do get bad PR. This is bad PR for the Bush campaign, thats all. No one is prosecuting the volunteer, and no one is suing the RNC and i'm not suggesting they do so. But the RNC has chosen to exercise their right to restrict people with these loyalty oaths and the DNC not so much.

4. What about it? The democratic party can write whatever reactionary prose they want, but the news that's being cited is the AP.

They certainly didn't make as much trouble as they could have. If they were looking for a fight, they could have stayed and made the police prosecute them so that they would have something in writing to work with. Thats what I would have done, to see if the authorities could actually cite some evidence of my violating the loyalty oath. But they just left.

I'm about to leave, so I apologize for this response being very, very brief. I'll post something better later on.

A campaign rally is a PRIVATE affair, meaning they can control entry of whoever they will. Would it be correct for me to walk into a business or private home, begin to spout off things that the occupants may find offensive, and then complain that my rights are being taken away when I was asked to leave?

The comment about the campaign doing this and not Bush has a lot to do with what I posted below juan's post. Who was she kicked out by? A VOLUNTEER, not Karl Rove himself. Did the volunteer overreact? It's quite possible. Given my experience with campaign volunteers, I'd actually say it was quite likely.

In any case, if these women were such staunch Bush supporters, why immediately go to the press with information that would be damaging to their candidate?

Yes, of course, the democrats would NEVER dream of limiting freedom of speech in their private meetings! No, never! Please, feed me that some other time. Both sides do it.

Has no one else thought about the fact that the shirts read "Protect Our Civil Liberties" and the RNC somehow got afraid or offended by that? Does that mean their stance is opposite to the shirts plea?

It means the campaign volunteers they attract are, yeah.

Regardless of party, there are some seriously nutty volunteers out there.

On one occassion, I had to go work for a campaign as part of a poli sci assignment. I figured it would be fun and a chance to get to meet some cool folks.

Whoa... was I wrong.

I ended up going to a Republican function dealing with the primary races for governor. Oh, the people I met...

Probably the best illustration of the nutiness was a conversation I had with a representative from another candidate. He didn't really know much about politics... but he sure loved his candidate. He was spouting off all about the great qualifications of his candidate (most of which weren't all that great), and then said something along the lines of, "my candidate's just like U.S. Grant!"

Now, I don't have much of a twang, but when you start to speak with me, it quickly becomes apparent that I am from the south. Mentioning Grant, and comparing your candidate to him, is probably not going to give me or any southern boy good feelings about him.

I responded by saying, "so, your candidate is an alcoholic whose political career has been marked by constant scandal?"

You can imagine the response I got.

There were also the constant lies, and practically physical threats between volunteers regarding rules where signs could be placed. And these were people from the same party, and mostly Mormons...

It's important that there are political campaign volunteers... but if I was a candidate, I'd restrict them from any public dealings, especially security. Keep to sticking up signs.

I apologize for the brief previous response, but like I said, I was running low on time.

There's something very disturbing about your line of thinking with this last point. Are you suggesting that all those "average Americans" at Bush rallies only be permitted to attend if they swear total, unwavering allegiance to him?

There's something very disturbing in any person's line of thinking when they argue that a private organization does not have the right to determine who can attend its meetings.

Do you think maybe this goes against everything a democracy stands for? That the whole Constitution and the Rights (which Bush has said belong to Man by decree of the Almighty) should only apply when Dubya says so? Questioning our leaders, even when we support them, is not unhealthy and certainly shouldn't be illegal. Demanding and expecting unbending allegiance, with nary a peep of disagreement, is deeply unhealthy, not to mention, unsettling.

Yes, I do believe in the constitution, which is precisely why my argument is that a private organization has the right to decide who can and cannot be a member or attend its meetings. Or should the government step in and simply tell everyone to accept everybody else? I'm fairly sure the Supreme Court handled this issue a little while ago, regarding the gay scout troop leaders.

Don't get me wrong, I support the importance of questioning our leaders. I would just argue that there is a time and a place for it. Inside a private meeting is not the place, and, yes, it's illegal.

The fact is, there's nothing defensible about how the President's campaign staff handled this.

Well, as you may have noticed if you'd read the article a little more carefully, this wasn't the president's staff, it was a volunteer. There is a very, very big difference between hired, paid, staff and a campaign volunteer. This difference is often, but not always, measured in tact and sanity, which hired staff are more likely to have in my experience ;-)


If these woman had worn shirts that read "No peace without victory!" (a shirt worn by Bush supportors) at a Kerry rally, there would be no story because those women would never have been kicked out and threatened with arrest. And you know this too.

Really? Then why were there cordoned off protest zones at the DNC this year in Boston? No protestors were allowed on the floor... what a sham!

Oh please, lay off on the cinematics. Hecklers have caused problems for the democrats. Christian Science Monitor wrote up a fairly good article on it that's worthy of reading: [link]

Che pibe well you ever just concede that Bush and his Republican party are not that qualified to lead the United Staes? You defend everything they do. I support Kerry but I think he is a prick.

I just posted a story slamming Republican campaign volunteers... so... what?

So, your argument is that I should give up my candidate to support someone you think is a prick?

I'm honestly not convinced. Sorry. Rephrase and try again?

I've stated that I'm against Bush on embryonic stem cell research, and supported several initiatives of the Clinton administration (NAFTA, Protection of Marriage Act, intervention in Eastern Europe, etc.).

If you're trying to win a convert here, you really need to reconsider your audience.

I'm not trying to convert you by any means. It's just everytime I see you post I never see you disagree with Bush you allways find some way to rationalize no matter what it is. But thats your opinion I just perfer to say they are both fuck heads and if I could vote(I'm a cunuk eh?) I'd vote Pauly Shore.

I think I would vote for Cthulhu.

I'm likely to support whichever party is in power, in my opinion.

To be honest with you, most things don't necessarily change that much from president to president. The president has little direct control over the economy (job loss, etc.), and there are factors beyond any president's control (the flu vaccine issue that has arisen as of late).

I think Bush has gotten a bad rap for things that aren't his fault, and that blaming job loss, for example, on Bush or any president directly is absurd.

If Kerry wins this election, I'd be likely to support him in a way similar to Bush.

I will say that I do prefer many of Bush's foreign policy decisions to those I believe Kerry would make if given the position. I do disapprove of some of them (screwing around with steel tariffs a while back was reckless, for example), but I agree with the majority. Many other issues, such as gun control, the problems with the Intelligence Community, etc. were out of Bush's hands due to various reasons. I don't believe it's wise to criticize a man who couldn't have affected the matter one way or the other.

Why don't I support Kerry? Well, among other reasons, this is a dangerous time we live in and I think we need someone who is at least in touch with what's going on in the Intelligence Community. Kerry has missed at least 76% of the public meetings in the Senate Intelligence Committee, including a meeting one year after 9/11 occurred: [link]

He COULD Release his record for the private meetings, but has not done so. If anyone can find where he has, I'd be interested in reading the report on it.

This is just one reason, but I believe it to be an important one. Can Kerry really be trusted to improve the Intelligence Community of the US when he himself neglected it in the Senate? Even after 9/11?

Attending 11 out of 49 meetings doesn't give me much confidence.

Bush is working hard....

Here comes the cut and paste...

According to an August 2003 article in the Washington Post, President Bush has spent all or part of 166 days during his presidency at his Crawford, Texas, ranch or en route. Add the time spent at or en route to the presidential retreat of Camp David and at the Bush family estate in Kennebunkport, Maine, and Bush has taken 250 days off as of August 2003. That's 27% of his presidency spent on vacation.

So, tell me if I am wrong, but Bush is on vacation 25% of the time.

Wish I could have that job.

Could you give me a source for that cut and paste?

Good idea.

I wonder how much fuel he is burning in AF1 during all that en route. I guess it's ok, he probably gets it all for free from all his oil buddies.

Does your link say how much sick time he's taken. You gotta aid a few days to that number for choking on a pretzel. Lets not forget about his dumping face first off a mountain bike on a nice big path covered with wood chips.

-bap

because he is our president and he will find you because of your bias.count on it kid.We have you I.D.'d already.Maybe you can post from Guantanomo Bay were you shall share a cage with Akhmed "snakecharmer"Rahimmi.A.K.A. " huge cobra" '

Yeah, the Washington Post.

If you didn't read this first sentence either, I said, Yeah, the Washington Post.

The Washington Post appears as a secondary source in that as it is being cited by someone else.

My question was who is citing the Washington Post on that.

Mostly, I don't want to dig through Lexis-Nexis and find it myself...

Since you are new to the internet, I'll give you a little help.

Use the keyboard (thing with buttons and letters) and the mouse (thing that looks like a mouse) to "surf" the internet.

There is a great resouce out there called Google. (www.google.com here is a link [link] You can type (hit the buttons with the letters) in words and hit the ENTER key (you might know it as the RETURN key)

Try these easy steps and you'll see that the internet isn't really that scary!

Since this is complicated, I'll help you out.... [link]

So are you saying that Bush is actually an evil dictator like Saddam and locks away all that question him? Wow, I'll make sure to keep a look out. Thanks for the hot tip.

"We have you I.D.'s already" - So you work with Bush? That explains a lot.

What bothered me about this incident wasn't just that three women were thrown out of a political rally and threatened with arrest. I don't care that it was private, I don't even care whether these women were genuine Bush spporters or not. What bothers me, and should bother all of us (Bush supporters or not, Democrats or Republicans) is the culture of silencing dissent of ANY kind that surrounds this administration. For that, you have to step back and look not just at this instance, but at the whole trail of incidents that have preceded it going back to the president's first days in office. Look at the pattern [link] of quashing any dissent or uncomfortable questions at his rallies. (I'm gonna be lazy and re-use the same link I did in my earlier response). And observe also the way in which reporters who ask "unwelcome" questions about the President's decisions or motives are treated. [link] or [link] (Disclaimer: while both sources are unsympathetic to Bush, the FACTS they're basing all that vitriol on are legitimate and undisputed)

So I'll ask again: doesn't all of this censoring of critics, the habitual and deliberate silencing of anyone who doesn't tow the official Bush line... doesn't any of that (which is unprecedented by the way) frighten or even discomfort you ChePipe? When liberals draw comparisons between Bush and infamous dictators like Hitler, it's because both aimed for the same thing. Not to simply win over the opposition, but to remove it altogether. To stifle all criticism, any uncomfortable questions, and never held be accountable for things that go wrong. And to ensure, by whatever means he can get away with, that his is the only voice heard by the people.

So I'll ask again: doesn't all of this censoring of critics, the habitual and deliberate silencing of anyone who doesn't tow the official Bush line... doesn't any of that (which is unprecedented by the way) frighten or even discomfort you ChePipe?

OK, so let me get this straight.

You support the first amendment strongly. Which is why you are against a law that would prevent the Supreme Court from placing a gag order on people that may mention the word "God" or acknowledge a belief in him.

Aqua, these are RALLIES. They are privately held meetings for campaign staff, volunteers, and supporters.

Enough with the Hilter comparisons. Yes, I know they're oh so catchy and clever! However, until I see concentration camps with millions of people being poisoned to death, a "Hitler Youth" equivalent based on superiority of the Texan race (though I hear DC is a member... ;-)), and a policy of attacking ethnic minorities, I'm not buying it. And don't even try to compare Guantanimo to Auschwitz - I think the surivors of the real concentration camps deserve better than that.

Yes, Bush has done such a SPECTACULAR job at stamping out criticism! That's why you see it day in and day out, that's why he has an opponent that has nearly 50% of the vote and might, just might, win the election! Tell me, when was Hitler in such a position?

Do I see anything wrong with limiting freedom of speech in PRIVATE MEETINGS? NO. You seem to equate a private campaign meeting to discussion held on the Senate floor or television.

Aqua, this line of reasoning is simply not informed. The president limits speech at his OWN RALLIES. You don't want him to? Fine, GO VOTE FOR THE OTHER GUY. It's not as if you don't have any way of fighting against it. Or do you expect some Gestapo at your door if you do?

If Bush is so powerful and can completely eliminate all criticism of himself, how did the 60 Minutes memos come out (I smell a conspiracy theory!)? How about all of the complaints leading up to the war in Iraq? Were Robert Byrd and Ted Kenedy found dead in a ditch afterwards?

How about the book by Kitty what's-her-face? How about Michael Moore?

Piss and moan about there being a lack of free speech in another man's rally all you want, Aqua. I don't consider it dangerous to America or our Constitution. Now, if Bush went around knocking off opponents, I'd have a problem.

And to ensure, by whatever means he can get away with, that his is the only voice heard by the people.

You MUST be watching Fox News...

I was in a rush to make my first post, and realized I should've Googled it as I walked out the door.

Anyways, here's the original excerpt from the Washington Post, August 3, 2003:

A CBS News tally shows this is Bush's 26th presidential trip to Crawford. He has spent all or part of 166 days at the ranch or en route -- the equivalent of 51/2 months. When Bush's trips to Camp David and Kennebunkport, Maine, are added, according to the CBS figures, Bush has spent 250 full or partial days at his getaway spots -- 27 percent of his presidency so far. [link]

You'll note that the word "vacation" doesn't appear anywhere in that paragraph. By the logic of the citation you originally provided, the time Jimmy Carter spent working on the Camp David Accords would have been counted as vacation time.

While in Crawford and Camp David, Bush has met with heads of state from the UK, Austrailia, Poland, Spain, Italy, Russia, China, Pakistan, Japan, and others. I don't think I would characterize the time spent with these leaders as "vacation".

In addition, the Washington Post also said on June 13, 2003:

Visits to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Tex., are reserved for heads of government with whom the president wants to show a special kinship, but foreign governments consider Camp David a close second and far preferable to a White House meeting.

Presidents of both parties have often used get aways for entertain and speak with foreign leaders, mostly to get away from the atmosphere of D.C.

I'm sure the President has enjoyed some significant downtime while away from the White House, but I wouldn't classify it all as "vacation".