(Blogged by Brad from the road…)
Ya know, when I started this blog, it wasn’t really meant as a Bash Bush Blog. But the stakes are so high now, and he makes it so damn easy…I look forward to turning on Kerry after the current resident of 1600 gets the boot. But for now…there’s a democracy to save…
First loyalty oaths must be signed to see Cheney at a rally in a public high school, then journalists are forced to give their nationalities to the campaign before being given credentials to cover events.
Now, wearing a Kerry-Edwards T-shirt will get you tossed out of a Bush event all together. From Richard Leiby’s piece in The Washington Post:
The experiment: A college professor wears a Kerry-Edwards shirt to a rally for President Bush, then a Bush for President shirt to a John Kerry rally.
Result: Bush people make the subject remove his shirt, then give him the boot. The Kerry people don’t make a peep.
John Prather (pictured at right), a mild-mannered math prof at Ohio University’s Eastern Campus, says he carried out this one-man study a couple of weeks ago, attending both rallies in one day. “It really was to satisfy my own curiosity,” Prather, 38, told us. “It’s been my opinion that George Bush has stifled dissent . . . I think John Kerry doesn’t. In neither event was I a threat to anyone.” Yet, he says, at the Bush rally, “I was tailed the whole time.”
Welcome to George W. Bush’s Amerka.
Democrats tried not to have any problems arise because it would have ruined their phony "positive" convention.
> mild-mannered math prof at Ohio University’s Eastern Campus
$100 says he’s a liberal!
Paul,
so what? He walked into a gathering of democrats with a Damien/Vader shirt and then walked into a gathering of dems with a Kerry/Edwards shirt. he did the same at both gatherings and only caught crap from the neandercons. i dont think you can explain what the neandercons did with reference to his ideology.
And I got $10,000 that says he’s an American! And is thus blessed with the protection of the First Amendment and the right to see his "President" like any other American.
You guys will be apologists for *anything*. It’s incredible.
Frankly, it is doing nothing but getting Dubya more bad publicity which he doesn’t need. I hate to almost agree with Brad but I do. Brad and the rest want to make Bush out to be a Nazi and whoever thought this would be a good idea is just giving him ammunition.
A rebuttal to John Prather
1) From his experience with the security at the first rally in Cambridge, John wishes to portray the Republican party as insensitive and restrictive toward people. However, in subsequent discussions, he said that he thought that it was the Secret Service that asked him to leave. So, if anyone was insensitive toward him, it was the Secret Service, not the Republican party. The primary duty of the Secret Service is to protect the President of the United States. Therefore, John must feel that his "rights" are more important than the safety of the President.
2) The few minutes that he wore a Bush t-shirt at the Kerry rally pale to the hour-and-a-half that he wore the Kerry shirt in line for the first Bush rally. Also, it is much easier to notice an individual’s clothing when they are standing in a line than when they are crowded together in a group.
3) It was the security people at the Cambridge rally that asked John to change his shirt, while the security at the Kerry rally didn’t notice anything. It is entirely possible that the Kerry security people are so obtuse that they failed to notice the possible disruption.
4) John Prather is "mild-mannered"? As a co-worker of John, I can tell you that "mild-mannered" is NOT an adjective normally applied to John. He normally takes great joy in annoying various people.
5) The rallies for President Bush were private events. The ball field and the arena were rented by the Bush/Cheney campaign, and as such, they have the right to allow (or disallow) certain people into the rally. Restaurants often have signs that they "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone;" this is the same concept as applied at the rallies.
6) Private businesses and events are allowed to set their own dress code and may remove people who violate it. For example, the Cedar Point amusement park states "Clothing that might offend other guests is not allowed . . . At every entrance there are signs stating that ‘Cedar Point reserves the right to refuse admission to anyone not properly dressed,’" and "Inappropriate items cannot be worn inside out." So, it can be seen that it is not uncommon for people who wear clothing that is deemed offensive to other people to be asked to leave an area.
7) John states that he wondered if he was on a watch list for the August 29 Bush rally. Besides the fact that he announced on the news that he was going to attempt the same thing again, it is probable that someone attempted to alert the rally organizers that a troublemaker was going to try to gain access to the rally. If a thief announced that he was going to try break into a bank, there are very few people who would complain that security was keeping an eye out for him. It is the responsibility of security to watch for possible troublemakers and to remove them before they can cause any problems.
8) Though John says that he wasn’t going to protest or to cause trouble, only people close to him would know if he intended to remain true to his word. How many of the 9-11 terrorists told the truth when they entered the US? Did their visas say that they were going to hijack planes and kill people? I doubt it. This is not meant to imply in any way that John is a terrorist; it just points out that some people can be less than honest about their intentions.
PJL, you work with John? Then you’d know that he is indeed mild-mannered, and would not protest or cause trouble. There were no reports of him from anyone else, Republican or not, saying that he caused any scene at all. Don’t just assume that he would.
1) In regards to your first point, it was not his goal to portray the Republican party as "insensitive and restrictive" but that’s the conclusion that he reached. Also, the first person to confront him was not Secret Service. And yes, every individual’s freedom IS more important than the safety of the President. It’s why American’s are dying in Iraq. They’re PROTECTING our freedoms.
2) Your item #2: The amount of time may pale, but he did the same thing at both. He waited in line and went through security. The shirt he wore was visible at each rally.
3) Your item #3: You have no evidence. You’re just name calling.
4) Your item #4: How do you define mild-mannered? Occassionaly annoying people is a trait that many mild-mannered have. Is he raucous? Why don’t you use an antonym for mild-mannered if you want your point to make any sense.
5) Your item #5: I realize that calling these private events is how they can restrict attendance. However, limiting the event to Bush supporters doesn’t make sense. It’s like preaching to the choir and not a way to win more votes.
6) Your item #5 part 2: It seems more like a pre-emptive strike against John, someone who may or may not make a scene. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
7) Your item #7: Why are you referring to your coworker John Prather as a troublemaker? Again, no one said that he caused trouble.
8) Your item #8: One big difference between John and terrorists is that John loves the USA. Seriously, who knows if someone may spontaneously combust while at a Bush rally, possibly injuring others. And yet people are allowed to attend. Just because someone has different views does not mean they are a liar. By the way, I don’t think the 9/11 terrorists were asked if their plans while in the US included killing anyone. Of course their visas didn’t say anything about them being a threat. That’s what our FBI is for.
YOU WERE PROVEN WRONG HE IS THE BEST AND REPUBLICANS RULE!!
YOU WERE PROVEN WRONG HE IS THE BEST AND REPUBLICANS RULE!!
YOU WERE PROVEN WRONG HE IS THE BEST AND REPUBLICANS RULE!!
YOU WERE PROVEN WRONG HE IS THE BEST AND REPUBLICANS RULE!!