they are taking signs at the convention- here is your confirmation

[tinanator]

http://www.fresnobee.com/special/2004/elections/dnc/story/8910480p-9802697c.html

http://tinyurl.com/3t9x7

here is the same story from other sources, one of whom I know very well, a committed early Edwards supporter and a front row Kerry delegate, a Democrat to the core. Im sorry these stories seem to really sting people and the messenger catches the wrath of the Ostrich contingent.

[aquart]

1. "Ostrich contingent"?

Don't hint, honey. Spell it out. What is it that you believe is happening on that floor????

[tinanator]

2. the Ostrich contingent exists right here

Im not talking about convention denizens, just the swell folks here who dont want to hear what is happening in their name.

[tinanator]

3. mornin kick

for the "liar, liar" contingent!

[Nadienne]

4. When Kerry came to Sioux City, IA this weekend,

We weren't allowed to bring our own signs, either.

Party unity is such a great thing...

[tinanator]

5. wow

bodes ill. bodes ill.

[Nadienne]

57. I agree (n/t)

[MUSTANG_2004]

8. I thought personal signs were encouraged

Because it looks more like authentic enthusiasm when people are waving hand-lettered signs. Maybe they don't televise as well, or they know how much mileage the opposition can get from spelling mistakes (eg "morans").

[Kanary]

76. They want conformity, not enthusiasm.

The age of the robot is upon us.

Crank up those gears!

Kanary

[HFishbine]

21. NC too

At the Kerry/Edwards rally in Raleigh, personal signs were prohibited too.

[sandnsea]

68. So you don't end up with Bush signs

That's the reason the campaign provides the signs. There is no other way to fairly keep Bush stuff out.

[Nadienne]

87. It is a good, fair way to keep Bush stuff out...

...or anything that might be a little anti-Kerry... or a little anti-some-of Kerry's positions... Which some might say is pro-bush...

[sandnsea]

98. More likely, pro-Nader

I don't know why anybody would want to start a war in the Democratic Party when the only hope of getting Bush out is with John Kerry. It's a twisted selfish kind of thinking that I just can't get my head around. Nobody is going to help the troops or the Iraqi's with 4 more years of George Bush.

[Nadienne]

103. If the Democratic Party is united, it is united,

in my opinion, by anti-Bush sentiment. It would be foolish (also in my opinion) to assume we are more united than that.

If there is to be a war in the Democratic Party, I hope that the war waits until after Nov 2nd... And I hope that it diminishes the Republican party...

But that's as Democrat as I am, at this point.

[Classical_Liberal]

118. That would only be true if Kerry People are illiterate.

.

[redqueen]

6. Both of these are fresnobee, and both require registration

Oh well...

Guess I'm safe in the 'ostritch contingent' for now.

Way to go with the name calling... really helps to make your case.

[tinanator]

7. oh damn I forgot

those bastards went there a while back, I refused to register, but my wife did not. So I see it all and forget the obstacle. Here is some of it, hopefully not too much to perturb, but not enough to really describe the two delegates- the signs were small and said "Say No to War"---

Lavery tried to enter the FleetCenter Tuesday with four of those signs - each not much bigger than six inches by eight inches - only to have them taken away by security at the entrance checkpoint. The bag checkers and wand wavers, however, missed one last sign that was in Lavery's pocket. Inside the arena, he wrote on the other side that the Democratic National Committee "would not allow this sign."

He then walked around the arena, showing both sides of the sign. Some people booed him. Others hissed. A few gave a surreptitious thumbs up.

On the bus back to the hotels after the Tuesday session, some delegates chided Lavery for not being a team player. "You're like a robot," Lavery said. "They hand you a sign and tell you when to raise it."

Lavery was a delegate at the infamous 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago. He hasn't been one since. He doesn't like the changes, he said. "It's a first amendment issue, from my perspective." Kerr is equally angry. And she's plotting.

She had plans Wednesday to try and smuggle a blank placard and a magic marker into the FleetCenter, then scrawling her own message: "My voice matters. My vote counts."

besides, whats so bad about Ostriches? Other than their vulnerability?

[redqueen]

30. Thanks for the summary

Appreciate the info. This is alarming indeed.

When a couple of Kucinich delegates were saying their stuff was confiscated, that seemed like an overblown charge, since I had seen the damn things live on TV.

Now that I know it's not just scarves but other things, and now that I'm seeing OTHER handmade signs in the convention, I'm very concerned. Before I had not seen any other handmade signs.

Nothing's bad about ostriches. But when you use that creature's mythical method of avoiding danger to mock people who refused to get riled over an unclear account from two people who said things that didn't quite ring true... that's insulting. This kind of information is more worthy of concern than two people who said their scarves were prohibited by "Kerry enforcers" when those same scarves and shirts were clearly displayed by others.

[GreenArrow]

11. Bypass compulsory registration at

bugmenot.com

[EastofEdon]

9. serious question

do they use "aplause" signs or have other cues at the convention?
I noticed that at times certain people would all hold their signs up at once when the camera was on them. How much is scripted?

[GreenArrow]

20. on NPR last night the floor reporter

was talking to the Mississippi delegation whip, I believe, and the it was his responsibility to tell people to lift their signs and applaud at certain times. Evidently, it is common practice. I would assume that much of it is scripted.

[quinnox]

10. Yea, whatever

I'm really getting tired of whining and making mountains out of molehills. Kucinich got to speak at the convention and even got votes, what more can be expected, sheesh.

Of course signs and other items that do not fit the unity theme and would make a bad impression are going to be removed for the cameras. I suggest to think otherwise would be to take part in the naive contingent.

[tinanator]

12. So, "Say Yes to War" is the unified message?

count me out

[sangh0]

14. The Democrats have rejected your message

You want the Dems to revel in negativity and Bush*-bashing, and the party's membership and leadership has clearly rejected it. Your 2nd attempt to set the Dems message (you now claim it's "Say Yes to War") will be just as unsuccessful

[AP]

19. The crazy thing is that the Dems are doing all this -- trying to have...

...a convention that sets them on the road to winning -- because they want to end that danm war, and have a kind of foreign policy that isn't imperialistic.

They don't disagree with the goal of the protesters. They just disagree with the strategy for getting their, and I can't believe some dems are so naive that they don't realize this.

[sangh0]

23. That's because "Democrat" does not necesarily mean "smart"

There are plenty of reactionaries on the left who scream "unconstitutional", "undemocratic", "unprincipled" and "un-American" whenever they don't get their massive dose negativity

[AP]

25. I'm just glad that the party leaders are being smart.

[AntiCoup2K4]

77. Can I quote you on that, Sangh*

Seems a fitting explanation for the entire primary season this year (post Iowa)

...because Democrat does not neccessarily mean "smart" - Sangh*

[sangh0]

78. You make it sound like news to you

I seriously question the cognitive powers of anyone who thinks one party has a lock on brains.

[MadHound]

26. Gee, maybe we're naive because

We read Kerry's positions, we read the platform, we listen to the speeches, and we come to the conclusion that Kerry not only disagrees with the protester over strategy, but disagrees with them about ending the war! Kerry has already promised that he is going to send more men and money over to Iraq, and that he is going to stay the course in prosecuting the war. His single concession to the majority anti-war contingent is a vague promise to get the US out of Iraq sometime before the end of his first term.

Candidate Kerry and the Democratic Party leadership are once again going against the wishes of the majority of their constituents, and backing the illegal, immoral war in Iraq. This simply does not bode well, either for the future of the party or the future of the country.

[Nadienne]

64. And yet they say

that the positions, platforms, and speeches are all designed for their marketability and not for what Kerry really advocates.

"What's the best way to sell this candidate?"

"By making it clear that he's not who he is, that's how!"

(...unless he really is who and what he says he is...)

Isn't that one of the ways in which Bush came into power?

But I suppose, if a tactic works (at least temporarily), then it doesn't matter how wrong it is.

Silly us, we should know better! :silly: :crazy:

[gpandas]

71. you should n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. The "Democrats" are against the war and occupation.

Despite what the party bosses would like everyone to think.

[sangh0]

29. The Democrats (no quotes needed) voted for Kerry

despite what you would like everyone to think.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. And the Democrats are against the occupation.

Despite what you and John Kerry would like everyone to think.

[sangh0]

36. Right, the Dems and Kerry are against the occupation

but you still complain because you don't get to decide what's being said; The majority of Dems decided and they rejected your desires.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. The majority of Dems decided that Kerry has the best chance.

But, they still want the occupation ended. Kerry's "plan" to do so is virtually a mirror of Bush's plan. Or, are you saying that since Kerry is the nominee that he is no longer obliged to listen to the rank and file? I'd remind you of a previous Democratic President who chose that route. His name was Johnson.

[sangh0]

46. I don't believe that you can read minds

I'm not even sure if you can read the Constitution.

[Classical_Liberal]

119. Yes, we have to be mind readers to determine what Kerry's foriegn policy

will be.

[sangh0]

124. Not mind readers

Cassandra's, without the accuracy

[quinnox]

15. I don't think so

I have heard it says people of good faith can disagree about the war in the platform.

Also I have heard Kennedy and Sharpton make references to the war in their speeches and not in a positive light either.

[doctorbombeigh]

93. "Say Goodbye To Bush" is the unified message

Count me in.

[sangh0]

13. I am glad to hear that

Contrary to the negative bleatings of the emotion-soaked reactionaries, a political convention is NOT a demonstration of free speech. It is a group of like-minded individuals exercising the freedom to associate with other like-minded individuals. Like any private club or organization, the Democrats are not only entitled to limit the voices of those who insist on making negativity the theme of the party, they are obligated to do so

[tinanator]

16. bill of rights wouldnt apply

a private club? in your dreams.

[sangh0]

17. The BOR protects my right to associate with whom I please

and it protects my right to NOT associate with people I don't want to. The reactionary left has no argument to make, so it's hides behind "glittering generalities" like "protecting the Bill of Rights"

You ought to learn more about the rights it protects, which include the right to NOT associate and the right to control our party's policies

[MUSTANG_2004]

18. Aren't the conventions publicly funded?

According to the FEC site, they are publicly funded, which means they aren't a private club:

http://www.fec.gov/info/chthree.htm

[sangh0]

22. I didn't say they were a private club

I said that *LIKE* a private club or organization, the Constitution protects the Dem party's right to associate freely.

[MUSTANG_2004]

59. Yes, but

My point was that since the convention is paid for by the tax payers, as a government (not a strictly Democratic Party) function the organizers would presumably have to be less restrictive regarding attendees' individual rights.

[sangh0]

65. Bad logic

That argument supports the idea that the Republicans ought to have a say in how the Dems manage their convention. After all, the Repukes pay taxes too. Governmental funding only limits the Dems ability to engage in illegal discrimination, which is illegal anyway.

And the convention isn't "paid for" by the taxpayers. The govt does kick in some money, but they don't pay for all of it. The govt also gives money to pro-choice organizations to provide health care, but that doesn't give the govt the right to force those groups to promote pro-life positions.

[MUSTANG_2004]

144. Not Republicans, but taxpayers

should have a say in how the convention operates. After all, it is our money that's paying for it (and you're right, we aren't picking up the whole tab, but according to the FEC stats, it looks like we pay about 30-50% plus all the security costs, etc).

As far as the government forcing them, when a group (any group) accepts money from someone, that someone also has the right to attach strings to it. That's the basic tool the feds have used for years to link state speed limits and drinking age laws to funding of roads. I see nothing wrong with doing the same thing at the convention.

I don't think taking away someone's signs at the entrance is a big deal (although I do think the "protest zones" are over the top), but I think it would be perfectly reasonable to tie public funding to requiring that the same level of free-speech be allowed at the convention as is allowed at the local public school or library. Just my opinion, but I'm not happy that American political conventions aren't allowing someone to hold up even a small sign with their own political view on it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

110. Presidential campaigns are publicly funded also

But that doesn't give any taxpayer the right to attend any campaign event or direct how the resources those funds pay for are spent.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. You must have missed some previous conventions.

"Like minded individuals.."

The convention is supposed to reflect the face of the Democratic Party. The majority of Democrats, according to most polls, oppose the occupation of Iraq. Their voices should be heard despite what the party bosses want.

[sangh0]

28. The face of the Dem Party is a united one

and the majority of Dems do not want to make IWR the focal point this campaign, and the majority voted for John Kerry who does not support a pullout.

Those Democrats who deserve to be heard HAVE been heard. They still have every right to say whatever they want to reporters and citizens, etc. The idea that anyone has been censored, or anyone has had their rights denied, is nothing more than overheated hyperbole from those whose overbearing sense of self-entitlement leads them to believe that they have the right to force others to listen to them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. The majority of Democrats are against the war and occupation.

Nice twist. "The majority of Democrats do not want to make IWR the focal point.." The majority of Democrats were against the invasion of Iraq, despite your spin on it. "..the majority who voted for John Kerry, who does not support a pullout." The majority of Democrats want an end to the occupation as soon as possible. Hell, the majority of Americans think the war was a mistake.


"....overbearing sense of self-entitlement leads them to believe that they have the right to force others to listen to them."

You mean like the party bosses who choose who is to be heard and what is to be said?

[sangh0]

37. And the majority of Dems support the party, the convention,

and how it's being run. Democrats chose the party leaders and the leaders, as the representatives of Democrats across the nation, have rejected your negative and hateful rhetoric.

[Generic Other]

47. 90% of the delegates in the convention hall oppose the war in Iraq

They did not agree with candidate Kerry's vote for war.

That's the reality.

[sangh0]

49. The overwhelming majority of Dems do NOT think IWR is the main issue

and the majority of Dems did vote for Kerry.

That's the reality.

[redqueen]

55. Exactly

Despite the fact that Democrats are against the occupation, we are united in our support for Kerry.

Keeping the larger goal in mind is something we should all recognize as of primary importance now.

On November 3, after the fire is out, is when we can start working on the remodeling.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

58. The Majority of Democrats think that Iraq is the main issue.

Perhaps not the IWR, as you say, but Iraq is. That's the reality.

[sangh0]

67. The majority of Dems disagree with YOU, not Kerry

The majority voted for Kerry. They did not vote for you. Obviously, the Democratic majority prefers Kerry's tactics to yours.

[no name no slogan]

97. Six months ago, that may have been true

before more casualties mounted, more people came home maimed, and news about the US torture of prisoners saw the light of day.

Yet somehow, despite these events, some people insist that our efforts in Iraq are noble, and that somehow we need to "win" this war.

Shades of 1968 all over again-- this time, with more telegenic goons to stifle the dissent. Silly me, and I thought the Democrats actually WANTED to get our votes this year. :eyes:

[sangh0]

104. The large majority of Dems support Kerry and don't support you

It's as true today as it was six months ago

[no name no slogan]

109. Support != total agreement

Hell, I support Kerry too, but that does NOT mean that I totally agree with ALL of his policies or the sad excuse for a platform we were handed down.

And THAT is as true today as it was six months ago, too, when many independent polls showed that Dem voters found Kerry more "electable", yet preferred the positions of Kucinich and Dean.

[sangh0]

115. Convention != free for all

A convention is not meant or designed to be an expression of every opinion held by every memberof the Democratic Party. It is meant to be an expression of the candidate's positions.

If you want to express YOUR opinion, go right ahead. Carry any sign you like. But you can't carry it into my house and you can't carry it into OUR convention.

[Classical_Liberal]

120. Wish I had a scanner so I could show you a picture of myself in Atlanta

with my "Prairie Fire" sign. Didn't get thrown out either. The party is being run by a bunch of bloodless image consutants. I hope there is a backlash against this and those people are fired. If Kerry wins it will only be because Bush sucks and not because Kerry or his campaign are anything special.

[no name no slogan]

152. Bullshit sang*

The convention is not an expression of the candidate/nominee. The party is (and always has been) MUCH BIGGER than the size of any candidate.

The convention has ALWAYS been about uniting the party around common themes, and acknowledging and RESPECTING our differences. But apparently that page was left out of the DLC playbook this year, and now those who somehow reflect the opinion of a majority of the delegates are somehow "divisive".

Never before has ONE SINGULAR CAMPAIGN been given as much control over the convention as this year. You'd think that there was no opposition in the primaries, and that all Dems are expected to unquestionably follow the presumed nominee BEFORE THE CANDIDATE IS CONFIRMED AS THE NOMINEE.

If Dukakis tried to pull this shit in 1988, it would have been all over the papers. Same with Clinton in 1992. But apparently Dubya has the Dems so scared shitless they think any kind of dissent is treason, and that lockstep obedience is preferred to thoughtful disagreements (and their expression at PARTY FUNCTIONS).

Send in the fucking brownshirts already. Anything to beat Bush after all-- even if we become what we most despise in the process.

Truly pathetic. This party is as much MY party as it is your party, Kerry's party, Edwards' party, Kucinich's party, Clinton's party, or even Liebermann's party.

[eridani]

159. Historically, this is absolute nonsense.

Kennedy and Johnson were still campaigning during the convention. Conventions at one time actually decided on candidates, not just ratified them. Contrary to what you might think, front-loaded primaries are not a hallowed longstanding tradition.

[Fla Dem]

132. Actually a poll of all delegates to the convention revealed that..

over 70% of them thought the major issue for this campaign was the economy.

[Generic Other]

61. I'm not sure I agree with you

The war is an issue. Democrats can oppose it and still back Kerry. Many of us have.

I don't see how complaining about stuff Bush has screwed up hurts Democrats.

Your insistence that we must all march in lockstep offends me. Honest Democrats do not try and prevent other Democrats from expressing their opinions. Supposedly, that's what differentiates us from the other side. Don't turn the rank and file away with your active hostility to our views.

I am 100% ready to vote for Kerry and support him as my party's nominee. I will not, however, wear a bag over my head so my presence doesn't embarass him.

I don't have to sit in the back of the bus anymore. And didn't anyone tell you?

[sangh0]

70. You agree with me

I did not say that the war is not an issue, nor did I say that complaining about Bush* is bad for Dems. If you've been watching the convention, you may have noticed that nearly EVERY speaker has made the war an important part of their speeches, and that EVERY SINGLE speaker has been criticizing Bush*. The problem is NOT that there hasn't been any criticism of Bush* or his war; there's been plenty.

There are some who hide behind rhetoric like "undemocratic" and talk of free speech and other rights being abused, but their cries are illegitimate. No one's rights are being infringed. The only thing happening here is that the Democratic Party refuses to obey their dictates.


Your insistence that we must all march in lockstep offends me. Honest Democrats do not try and prevent other Democrats from expressing their opinions.

And the dishonesty of your argument disgusts me. I have not once insisted on "marching in lockstep" and I challenge you to find one post where I say that. Furthermore, I have done absolutely nothing to prevent anyone from saying whatever they want. If you have any honor, you will back up your groundless accusations by pointing out where I have EVER done anything to prevent anyone from expressing their opinion.


. Don't turn the rank and file away with your active hostility to our views.

The rank and file voted for Kerry, and this convention represents them. If you want an anti-war rally, go organize one. The rank and file didn't want one, so they didn't organize one.

on edit: Hmmm, maybe you don't agree with me

[Generic Other]

105. Purge the hairball and feel better

I was a delegate for Kerry at the precinct and county level. Every step of the way, the rank and file raised their voices in opposition to the war.

Our voices were not filtered out, nor did we agree to be silent. I voted on a platform to end the war. The delegates at my county convention voted unanimously to get out of Iraq.

I have no reason to feel shame for any statements I have made on behalf of my party.

[sangh0]

108. Don't you have any argument besides the personal attack?

You have no reason to feel shame? Well, good for you!

You also have no right to display anything you want at the Democratic Party's convention.

[Generic Other]

114. No right no place no voice no count...

Boy, I feel proud to be a Democrat after talking to you!

[sangh0]

116. I don't care about how YOU feel

Conventions are about how YOU feel.

[Nadienne]

73. "Those Democrats who deserve to be heard..."?!?

:wtf:

What's the pre-requisite for deserving to be heard? Do I have to be a white, land-owning male? I thought the point of democracy and self-government was that I get a say in how my life is governed.

But then, I also thought the Democratic party was the party of progress. Should I blame Bush for this return to elitism in politics?

What do you mean when you talk about those Democrats who deserve to be heard? Who are you talking about?

[sangh0]

75. You had the entire primary to be heard

For months without end, we have heard people bashing Democrats and the Democratic Party. You had months to convince the Democratic rank and file that your way was the best way. They rejected your advice.

Now, it's our turn to respond. We're going to tell the entire nation what Dems are about, and YOU don't get to decide what we say. The vast majority of Democrats have rejected your position, and you have no right to dictate what Democrats have to say at our convention.

[Nadienne]

83. And by that logic

Democrats deserved to lose what was lost during the 2002 elections. Hey, they had their chance to push their messages. It's their own fault for losing, right?

Sorry. I don't buy that logic. Dirty tricks were involved in 2002. I think even you could agree to that. And if it were Kucinich who won the nomination, I think you would be more open to the possibility of dirty tricks for the primaries, too.

As for deciding what you and Kerry should say, hey, that's up to you and Kerry, respectively. But don't translate a vote for Kerry to be a vote in support of continued occupation of Iraq. Don't put words into my mouth; don't put words into the mouths of anyone who supported Kerry during the primaries. And don't tell them to shut up when they try to voice a concern.

[sangh0]

106. Your argument is incoherent

You are arguing that because the Republicans engaged in vote theft in 2002, the Dems in 2004 should let any Dem say whatever they want, no matter what it's affect on the election.

You are grasping at straws. The only people who are entitled to speak at the convention are those who got the votes. That means Kerry, Edwards and the others who actually ran. They have input into what's being said because they're the ones this convention is meant to highlight. What YOU or any other individual Dem has/wants to say places no obligation on the DNC. If you want to hold up a sign, go ahead and do it. But you can't do it my house, and you can't do it at OUR convention.

As for deciding what you and Kerry should say, hey, that's up to you and Kerry, respectively. But don't translate a vote for Kerry to be a vote in support of continued occupation of Iraq. Don't put words into my mouth; don't put words into the mouths of anyone who supported Kerry during the primaries.

That's nothing more than hysteria. I've said nothing about what you think. As far as the Dem voters go, the polls clearly show that they are opposed to a pullout and support Kerry's plan.

And don't tell them to shut up when they try to voice a concern.

And I challenge you to find one post where I tell someone to shut up.

[Nadienne]

122. Firstly,

"You are arguing that because the Republicans engaged in vote theft in 2002, the Dems in 2004 should let any Dem say whatever they want, no matter what it's affect on the election."

No I'm not. I'm saying that because of dirty tricks in 2002, many Democrats didn't deserve to lose. Who knows how many would have won if not for vote theft and media manipulation?

In other words, the end result - winning an election, or a nomination - does not necessarily signify that the victory was earned.

"That's nothing more than hysteria. I've said nothing about what you think. As far as the Dem voters go, the polls clearly show that they are opposed to a pullout and support Kerry's plan."

Let's be clear. Kerry's plan is to stay as long as it takes to restore the peace. Will he be continuing to prop up the puppet government that the Bush adminstration set up? If so, peace will never be restored while we are there.

To say "pull out" is to imply surrendering, giving up and going home. I don't doubt that many voters are opposed to that. I don't know if Nader is suggesting that we leave the Iraqis high and dry and on their own; Kucinich never suggested abandoning them.

The polls might clearly show opposition to a pullout and support for Kerry's plan... I was under the impression that the majority of Americans objected strongly to the occupation. Maybe it depends on the pollster's wording.

One last thing:

"And I challenge you to find one post where I tell someone to shut up."

You don't use the words "shut up", and you don't tell anyone to shut up, but...

From your post 13:

"Contrary to the negative bleatings of the emotion-soaked reactionaries, a political convention is NOT a demonstration of free speech. It is a group of like-minded individuals exercising the freedom to associate with other like-minded individuals. Like any private club or organization, the Democrats are not only entitled to limit the voices of those who insist on making negativity the theme of the party, they are obligated to do so"

Those who are attempting to voice a concern with signs at the convention... aren't Democrats attempting to shut them up by taking away their signs? And aren't you defending those who silence the dissentors?

[sangh0]

125. So you wimped on my challenged? I'm not surprised

Those who are attempting to voice a concern with signs at the convention... aren't Democrats attempting to shut them up by taking away their signs? And aren't you defending those who silence the dissentors?

No, and no.

[Nadienne]

129. Are you some kind of agent provacateur

trying to get the more-left-than-Kerry Democrats to get irritated and vote 3rd party? I've read many of your posts and can't help but wonder.... I know it's off-topic to ask now, but I thought I would let you know that I'm wondering, and if you want to answer, I would appreciate it...

As to your challenge - I wouldn't be surprised that, during your time posting as Sangh0/Sangha, you've never told someone to shut up. At least not in a post. It's very clever how you fit "shut up" to your own definition, without actually defining it.

What would you call it when Democrats at a convention only allow their own signs to be held and waved by individual attendees? If you don't call it "shutting up dissentors", what do you call it?

[sangh0]

130. No, are you?

Some might argue that the question itself is provocative and the cause of dissension. Do you always question someone's loyalty simply because they disagree with you?

What would you call it when Democrats at a convention only allow their own signs to be held and waved by individual attendees? If you don't call it "shutting up dissentors", what do you call it?

I call it "Free Speech" and "Freedom of Association". If I can't say what I want in a private setting without being REQUIRED to let someone else say the opposite, then that speech is not free. If I am REQUIRED to associate with people I disagree with, then I have no "Freedom of Association"

[Nadienne]

160. It's not that you disagree with me.

It's the way in which you disagree with me. An example from the above post: "When Democrats at a convention only allow their own signs", you call it "free speech". "Freedom of association" fits, but not "free speech". It isn't freedom of speech to limit someone else's right to freedom of speech. That's the opposite of freedom of speech.

But I suppose if you want to call the Democratic convention a private setting... and if you want to call the Democratic party a private party... then I can understand why you think they have a right to control what their members say on their signs at the convention...

[tinanator]

161. I think you are right

Ive drawn the same conclusion in the past. There is no other precedent for this sort of behavior, and believe you me, this is as good a place as any for certain types of strategery.

[Nadienne]

165. And it's not just the disagreeing.

It's the all-around slipperiness, the Republican tactic of misdirection... If sangh0/a is really not an agent provocatuer, I most humbly apologize... 'Course, I might never know...

[G_j]

128. well after reading this exchange, I don't miss Carlos as much n/t

[sangh0]

131. And I don't care how you feel

Elections are about electing people. It's not about you and your feelings.

[G_j]

133. huh?

I never said I cared if you cared.
:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:

[sangh0]

134. You posted how you feel

as if it matters to someone in this thread.

[G_j]

135. well excuuuuuse me!

LOL !!

[tinanator]

147. you have to be SanghO

if you are to have a voice

[G_j]

149. yes I believe

SanghO has adopted this thread as his/her very own!
inspection will be at 9:00 (sharp)

[tinanator]

151. I hope he doesnt bring Major Ity with'em

Who ever this Major Ity is, he sure sounds like a mean one!

[G_j]

153. LOL

bizarre image in my head :eyes:

needed a chuckle... :-)

[sffreeways]

79. Sorry to butt in but...

emotion-soaked reactionaries etc etc is obnoxious. Why don't you try and make your point without personal attacks and rude name calling. It's types like you that make this site unpleasant. And yes, that is a personal attack.

I've always believed that what makes the Democratic Party great is it's diversity of opinion and what makes republicans so distasteful is their fascist take or leave it attitude.

[sangh0]

80. Thank you for your advice

However, describing a group is NEVER a "personal attack". In order to be a personal attack, it needs to be addressed to a specific person.

what makes republicans so distasteful is their fascist take or leave it attitude.

DO you mean saying "Either you let me carry my sign at YOUR convention, or your against democracy"?? That sounds like a fascist take it or leave it attitude to me.

(BTW, from the sounds of your post, I didn't think you'd engage in the sort of "personal" attacks and name-calling you say make this site unpleasant. Will wonders (and hypocrisy) never cease?)

[Pow_Wow]

141. you know the rules well

it seems you know just how to skirt around them too.

[noiretextatique]

91. deleted

never mind

[dmkinsey]

31. Here's my view

If you go to a campaign event that is going to be on TV or even covered by other media your signs reflect directly on the candidate.
If YOU have a sign that calls for leaving Iraq immediately the media will report that the DEMOCRATIC PARTY favors leaving Iraq immediately.
Everyone is free to have and express their opinion but it's unrealistic to expect to do so if it conflicts with the candidate.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. What do you consider the DEMOCRATIC PARTY?

The bosses or the people of the party? Polls show that the majority of the Democrats (you know the ordinary ones) were against the invasion of Iraq. The majority of Democrats favor rapid withdrawal. In this case the media would be right that the Democratic Party wants out of Iraq.

[dmkinsey]

35. What do the sign toters expect

to accomplish?
Do they think Kerry will suddenly see the light?
John Kerry has a position on the Iraq situation. He's the selected nominee. You may not like his position but he's not going to change it today.
What's the point of going to the party and throwing egss at the host?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. It's to remind him that he represents the Democratic Party.

You know, the "Party of the People". To hold his feet to the fire. Or, do you believe that because he is being anointed as the nominee that he no longer has to listen to the people?

John Kerry's position on Iraq deserves to have thrown at it and he should change it today.

[sangh0]

40. The majority of Dems have rejected your advice

If you don't like that, then you should look for a party that ignores the majority of it's members.

John Kerry's position on Iraq deserves to have thrown at it and he should change it today.

The majority of Dems disagree with you. That's why they voted for Kerry.

[Classical_Liberal]

121. The majority of dems were snowed

and I hope the party leadership pays for it.

[sangh0]

39. The Democratic voters chose the party leaders

and the majority of Dems support this convention and how it's being run. The majority has rejected the demands of the reactionary left and their negative rhetoric.

[redqueen]

41. I understand the need to attact swing voters

but I'm not sure about the rhetoric about the majority winning over the minority, no matter how negative. A tyranny of the majority is not something to be taken lightly, especially when discussing things like wars of choice... wars of aggression.

I think perhaps the convention message-minders were walking a fine line in deciding what would be and what would not be allowed. I didn't get to see much of the convention last night (bad weather, cable cut out), but in the coverage I managed to see, I did see some homemade signs.

[sangh0]

43. The DNC is not the government

There is a widespread misperception that it is somehow unconstitutional or un-American for private individuals to exercise their rights by choosing to NOT exercise their rights. Our rights enable us to CHOOSE to exercise our rights or to NOT exercise our rights. Any right that is required, is not a right - It's an obligation.

The Democratic Party has the right to choose. In fact, it has an obligation to choose between competing policies, strategies, and tactics. In politics, it's organized political activity that wins elections and gets party policies implemented. The party has every right to make these decisions in a democratic and fair manner, and that means taking into account what the majority of it's members think.

That is NOT a "tyranny of the majority". None of the decision made by the DNC and the Kerry campaign have limited anyone's rights. Every single democrat is still capable of forming their own opinions and expressing them. No single Democrat has the right or the power to FORCE the party to adopt their own personal opinions and/or strategy.


*THAT* would be a tyranny.

[redqueen]

48. Yeah, I know that

I'm not talking about decisions made by the DNC or the Kerry campaign here (i.e. the scarves/signs issue), I'm talking about the PNAC/PPI similarity.

[sangh0]

50. What similarity?

The only PNAC->PPI connection I know of is one man who belongs to both, and two words "progressive internationalism"

That's not much of a connection, and completely irrelevant to the convention's policy on signage

[redqueen]

52. Willingness to attack pre-emptively may not be much of a connection

but it's a significant one.

And yes, it's offtopic, I know.

[sangh0]

56. OK

but IMO, there are vast differences in the importance of unilateral action, and the Dems have never supported the use of unilateral action as anything other than a last resort.

[redqueen]

69. I know

But you have to concede that given the incessant drive rightward, that lefties like me have good reason to be a bit nervous about the situation. We just have to pray that the NEXT time there's some grave and gathering danger, that Kerry reads all the details HIMSELF, and doesn't leave it up to some assistant.

[dmkinsey]

66. I believe that the Kerry policy

on pre-emptive attacks applies only to terrorist groups not to sovereign states.

[thebigidea]

42. What's interesting to me...

... is that these signs MUST GO but they invite Hannity and the rest in to bash them nonstop.

Guiliani, for chrissakes. He's allowed to sit on the floor and babble about "liberal records" and the like.

Far more damaging than the signs, which I think ultimately are pretty counterproductive.

But again: Sean fuckin' Hannity?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

45. Since the person was a delegate in 68 and Nixon was elected

you'd think she'd be a bit more responsible with her first amendment rights.....it's not as though that convention should be used as any measure for how to evict a crazy power hungry individual from the WYH.

[redqueen]

51. Or not

It was Lavery who was a delegate in the 68 convention, not Kerr... and we don't know that he was in any way related to the ruckus there.

*sigh*

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

53. I'm kind of torn on this

and I think the policy is too heavy handed but I suppose one legitimate fear the networks may have is that someone waves an obscenity and they broadcast it.

Either way...while I don't favor the policy, I'm not going to use it to tear us apart...and look at Skinner's pics...a great deal has been made about the "protest cage" It's empty.

[redqueen]

54. Oh I agree completely

I will absolutely not let this divide me from this party, regardless of whether I suspect they may be enforcing the rules unfairly.

I can see what they're afraid of... I just wish they'd own their responsibility in creating it... the whore media I mean... I'll never forget Clinton's not living up to his promise to fight for fairness doctrine-type legislation.

[tinanator]

150. he not only didnt fight for it

His appointees worked to crush Pacifica. If I can turn up the right book, Im going to put it in your hands. Here is a brief reference to some issues of note, I think.
http://www.wbai.net/gen03/barney_covering_pacifica5-1-03.html

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. Are you saying that the anti-war protests were wrong?

That the Democrats inside and outside the convention should have remained silent about their party continuing the slaughter that was going on in Vietnam?

Nixon won because he mendaciously spoke of "Peace with Honor". Humphrey just promised more of the same policy as LBJ's. Somewhat like Kerry is doing now with Bush's failed policy.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

63. Well that's your interpretation of why he won

no the anti-war protests were not wrong...but some of the tactics were wrong...again even GrannyD recommends we put our best foot forward to take the country back...is she now a slanderous centrist simply because she requests that?

[sangh0]

72. anti-war Dems voted for Kerry

Why don't you ask *them* if they thought they were wrong, bandera?

Of course, you'd have to do that to their faces, instead of asking leading questions anonymously on an Internet website.

[G_j]

82. little known history: '68 Republican "October Surprise" please read

before we blame the left (seems we like to do that) on Humphrey's loss, check out some little known history:

plenty on this on the web: Google "October Surprise" & "Kissinger" & "Seymour Hersh" "Humphrey" in various combinations.

Also rent the DVD or video "The Trials of Henry Kissinger"
(a must for anyone interested in the history of those times)


-------------------
November 13, 2000
Who Should Concede?
The Secret History of Modern U.S. Politics


By Robert Parry

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/111300a.html
(it was very hard to convey this story in four snips, to really get grasp on it read the article)

<snip>
For the past four decades, the Republicans have built a record of dirty tricks and October Surprises in presidential contests. And typically, it is the Democrats who stay silent after learning of the schemes – to avert constitutional crises and avoid public disillusionment with the political process.
<snip>

The Vietnam War was raging and was creating deep divisions within the Democratic Party. In October 1968, President Lyndon Johnson was maneuvering to achieve the framework for a peace settlement with North Vietnam and the Viet Cong through negotiations in Paris.

<snip>
Journalist Seymour Hersh described the initiative sketchily in his biography of Henry Kissinger, The Price of Power. Hersh reported that U.S. intelligence “agencies had caught on that Chennault was the go-between between Nixon and his people and President Thieu in Saigon. … The idea was to bring things to a stop in Paris and prevent any show of progress.”

<snip>

“In the end, though, Johnson’s advisers decided it was too late and too potentially damaging to U.S. interests to uncover what had been going on,” Summers wrote. “If Nixon should emerge as the victor, what would the Chennault outrage do to his viability as an incoming president? And what effect would it have on American opinion about the war?”
<snip>

A late Humphrey surge fell short. Nixon won the election.
<snip>

[redqueen]

84. Why is it phrased that way?

"...it is the Democrats who stay silent..."

That pisses me off. I sure as Cheney don't hear Republicans talking about this crap. Nor do I hear Libertarians or Greens or Socialists or Reformers or Constitutionals or Libertarians or any other party saying anything at all about it.

I mean I suppose you might expect they would say something since they were the target of the dirty tricks, but why wouldn't the outside parties? What's their angle?

[G_j]

86. of course this was just one of many articles

that can be found. But consider that the Republicans are the perps so they obviously are not going to expose themselves. In this case LBJ found out about it and chose not to expose it.

The author doesn't attribute bad motives to Democrats not exposing these things, he actually sites avoiding a Constitutional crisis and eroding the people's faith in government as reasons.

Why revelations from journalists like Shorr and Hersh didn't get more attention, I don't know.

[redqueen]

89. When was it bragged about?

Anyone have the quote of the CIA guy claiming they had someone in every media outlet?

Maybe it has something to do with that... :shrug:

[G_j]

94. not sure, I have heard that somewhere

I think I will try to read Hersh's Kissinger book sometime.
It is amazing how much Kissinger has had a role in the dark politics of the world.
And to think Bush tried to appoint him the head of the 9-11 panel!

Have you seen "The Trials of Henry Kissinger"?

[redqueen]

102. No I haven't

I take it it's worth seeing, though... I'll try to dig up that quote.

[redqueen]

126. A few choice quotes

"You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month." a CIA operative, cited in Katherine the Great, 1991, by Deborah Davis

"In the 1950s, outlays for global propaganda climbed to a full third of the CIA's covert operations budget. Some 3,000 salaried and contract CIA employees were eventually engaged in propaganda efforts. The cost of disinforming the world cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $265 million a year by 1978, a budget larger than the combined expenditures of Reuters, UPI and AP." from "Who Controls the Media?" by Alex Constantine

"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media." former CIA Director William Colby

[G_j]

139. wow, it is the Colby quote I remember best

but the other quotes are scary as well.

the NYT at some point was exposed deliberately doctoring the numbers of Vietnam war dead.
That sure sounds familiar. I wonder if things will ever change?

Some people think "they" got the upper hand when JFK was killed.
I'm not even sure who I mean by "they", but they don't work for us, I know that much. :-(

[redqueen]

140. No, they work for the elites

the 'ruling class' if you will.

[G_j]

146. yes and we have the real creme de creme

of the elites in office now. The regular country club politicians thought they were the cats meow, wrong.. meet the the BFEE !!

[tinanator]

148. a few details

Vince Lavery stunned me with his early and earnest support for John Edwards. I was also quite impressed to find out a movie was made about a project he was involved in 20 years ago. I cant remember who played him, but I must get a copy some time. He is the staunchest Democrat you'll find, and a very dedicated activist. He has run for Congress in the past I believe, and done a lot of things we should all be proud of. If you dont know him, let alone his gender, why attempt to criticize?

[Walt Starr]

60. Wow, taking signs that do not follow the convention rules

Oh my, that's a terrible thing to do.

I think this deserves a wedgie at $1 a shot!:

[genius]

74. less than six by eight inches. This is insane and un-American

[tedzbear]

81. Democrats want to win Iraq war.

Didn't you hear Edwards last night? That's what he said.

I find it amusing how all of us are against the occupation yet we are supporting two candidates who wants to keep us there and "do it better."

Half way through "The People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn I am depressed to learn how easy it is for the American oligarchy to achieve their selfish interests to the detriment of the masses. The two party system is their device and it has worked for them since the early nineteenth century.

This is the last election that I will vote Democrat (only because of the Supreme Court appointments coming up in the next four years).

We need a third party like The Populist Party in the nineteenth century. Nader is too old but I think the Green Party could gain momentum. I hope so.

:kick:

[Pastiche423]

88. Shush!

You can't bring up Howard Zinn now!

We're at war! Er......I mean we must be Sensible Liberals during the DLC covention.

If we don't support the war and are not blindly following the DLC lead, we will not win!

And we must win!

It doesn't matter if what we win has been scripted by the repugs.

It's a win, damnit!

Who cares about the life force flowing out of more our young people?Who cares if tens of thousands more brown people are freed from their lives?

It's a fucking disgusting win.

:grr:

[redqueen]

90. And your alternative is?

Four more years for Bush?

[Alpha Wolf]

85. This is scary sh**!

The more I've been hearing and reading about coming out of this convention-- the "free-speech zones", the strict choreography, the censored speeches, the confiscated signs, etc., the more I think the rethugs have won. I mean, this is rethug crap. Not to mention we have nominated two candidates who both voted for the war in Iraq, who both pledge to stay there, and who both rattle off this "Don't mess with America or we'll kick your ass" rah-rah military macho bullshit. Which party is which? I am so bummed....

[mzmolly]

92. The DEMOCRATIC Convention is about promoting the Democratic Party.

Why on earth would anyone be shocked at this?

Would I be allowed to bring "GREENS SUCK" or "GREENS HELPED BUSH GET ELECTED" signs to the Green Convention?

[doctorbombeigh]

95. Exactly so. Promoting something else? Go elsewhere. n/t

[no name no slogan]

100. Yes, we must stop promoting the views shared by a majority of the party

How silly.......I must have been naive to think that somehow the party activists and dedicated volunteers had input into their party's platform and/or coronation.

:crazy:

[doctorbombeigh]

107. Yes, you are naive. Sorry. The best remedy is experience. n/t

[sangh0]

111. The majority of Dems support Kerry

and they support this convention

[no name no slogan]

154. Like the "experienced" men in gov't who kept us in Vietnam?

Those same "best and the brightest" who disregarded the intelligence reports, and believed the falsified CIA reports that showed that we were "winning" in SE Asia?

Sorry, but I'll take the "inexperienced" voices of those who can see through bullshit much sooner than those ensconsed in positions of power who vote based on people's "perception" of them, rather than the TRUTH.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

96. Probably not, but I highly suggest someone try!

LOL!

[no name no slogan]

99. But the signs didn't say "KERRY SUCKS"

They were merely voicing an opinion-- one shared by not only a majority of Democrats, but by over 50% of the American people (but, unfortunately, not by KerryEdwards).

This may be Kerry's nomination, but it is still OUR convention. WE are the party. WE are the ones who toiled to get there, and gave our time and money in support.

Since when has ONE presidential campaign had free rein to dictate what duly-elected DELEGATES put on their signs? It sounds a hell of a lot like 1968 all over again.

I personally know the two Kucinich delegates quoted in the Democracy Now! story. They are honest, true-blue Democrats. Charley Underwood (the sole Kucinich vote in MN) supported McCarthy in 1968, but voted for Humphrey in the GE. He is a lifelong pacifist, and was a conscientious objector to the Vietnam war. He has lived over twenty years in some of the poorest and most violent places in the world (West Africa and Latin America). He knows FIRST-HAND what violence and a permanent war economy can do to a country and its people.

I'd trust his word ANY TIME over the words of some kool-aid drinking question-nothing blowhard on an internet chat board, so concerned about the quality of the candidate we've chosen that they think stifling somebody's right to speak out AT HIS OWN PARTY'S CONVENTION will "damage" the nominee.

(btw, MsM, the "blowhard" is NOT you. You're rather thoughtful, and I by no means intend this screed to descrite you. However, there have been other threads that were VERY eager to "blame the victim" without actually hearing or seeing the evidence first. This made me especially mad, since I know a couple of the "victims" personally, and hate to see people who know nothing about them call them "traitors" or "crybabies".)

[sangh0]

112. The majority didn't want the signs

If the majority wants the signs, they would have them. The majority, who support Kerry and his convention, don't want those signs.

[Classical_Liberal]

123. I doubt anyone voted on the rule.

It sounds like imaga consultant bots.

[sangh0]

127. Kerry's campaign team made the decisions

and they were appointed by the man who got the votes of a majority of Dem voters in the primary, John Kerry.

[Classical_Liberal]

136. Well, I think he chose them wrong.

. I am not surprised though. He really isn't a very warm candidate, and I don't know why anyone fell for the electability ploy.

Anybody who thinks that such smug arrogant people, with such contempt for the base can win election is out of their mind.

[doctorbombeigh]

142. Actually, they chose them right.

I'm from Boston, I've seen Kerry win quite a few elections. Tough ones. Warm? Not particularly. Is that what you want in a professional politician? Warmth? Umm.. guess you won't be voting for Nader then, so that's good. As a US Senator for 20 years, his "warmth" or the lack of it, was never my first concern. Was he a better candidate than his opponent - that was my concern and it remains my concern today. A pragmatic way to vote, perhaps even unromantic, but then I'm a political realist.

I don't think you actually dislike John Kerry, because your questions demonstrate that you don't know him. What seems clear is that Kerry's just not the guy you wanted in the primaries and he's not running the campaign your guy would have. Oh friggin' well.

Whomever it was that you wanted, he can't beat Bush. John Kerry is the nominee of the Democratic Party. At this moment, Kerry is the ONE person in the entire world who can remove this administration from power. If you really care about Iraq, if you care about anything other than yourself, then you'll get in gear and make sure that George W. Bush goes back to Texas THIS January.

And No Whining.

[Classical_Liberal]

143. I won't be voting for Nader

so what's your point. I'll whine till I see evidence he actually has a different foriegn policy than Bush.

[doctorbombeigh]

113. A general election works differently than other elections

This election has less margin for error than most and it matters more than most. I'm a person far to the left of center and I am HAPPY to suck it up this time around.

Let the professionals handle the tv show and No Whining.

[Classical_Liberal]

137. The professionals gave us 2002

.

[doctorbombeigh]

138. There wasn't a nationally televised convention in 2002

This time it's a general election, a completely different political animal. There IS a nationally televised convention this year and I am HAPPY to leave its management to the professionals.

Beat Bush. No Whining.

[Classical_Liberal]

145. I like bottom up campaigns

and elections where we are critical of the opponant, and disagree with him on things.

Professionals still ran the 2002 campaign and they did it just like this one, without criticizing Bush on foriegn policy.

[no name no slogan]

156. Fear wins, then

Bush has us so damn afraid of being DEMOCRATS that we've adopted the fascist tactics of those whom we seek to replace.

The "platform" was based ENTIRELY on the thoughts of Kerry's advisors, with almost NOTHING from the state conventions. Furthermore, it was "ratified" by a vote of 200 delegates out of 3000+.

Kerry's campaign and the convention planners decided what signs could be on the floor-- NOT the convention body, NOT the delegates, but UNELECTED, UNREPRESENTATIVE advisors to the campaign.

How "democratic". Apparently some people feel the only way to "beat Bush" is to "become Bush". How sad. How truly sad. :cry:

[tinanator]

158. Courage America!

Courage!

[mzmolly]

117. Regardless what the signs say, the complaint is that Free Speech was

being squelched.

The official Democratic Party Platform allows for disagreement on the war, and I am certain Pro-War signs would have been stiffled also.

I trust that the people who brought the signs had good intentions, but it seems a bit naive to me.

I protested/marched against the war, and I have not changed my opinion that it was A BLOODY LIE. But, I do understand FULLY why the signs were not allowed.

[louis c]

155. He was a delegate in 1968

in Chicago.

Refresh my memory, didn't we lose that one.

Let's try to win one, then we can argue with each other after.

[tinanator]

157. I knew it was Vince's fault all along!

Your implication is impeccable. I cant wait to kick him in the nuts for Nixon when he gets back.

[louis c]

162. Not by himself

but his attitude, mine, and many others who spoke up to shout that Humphrey and Nixon were the same, caused Nixon to win.

With the luxury of 20/20 hindsight, don't you think we F**ked up?

Let's not make the same mistake again.

[tinanator]

163. do you know him?

I guess so. He was inside that convention, not outside, and I cant speak for his position, but Im 100% certain he was a Humphrey man.
Who's we?

[G_j]

164. PLEASE. please read post # 82 ! n/t