Free Speech: How Bush avoids dissent. - Democratic Underground

DaveJ

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Sep-13-07 10:03 AM
Original message

Free Speech: How Bush avoids dissent.

This we've already known about, but this article explains it well. I know it is a few days old, but I did a search and didn't find it anywhere. Maybe I missed it.

It seems especially troubling that they would stifle free speech with such forceful tactics as surrounding protesters with fake supporters. That's unconstitutional on it's face, right?

It's also bizare that they do it to protect Bush's "tender sensitivities."

I think BushCo believes that all hecklers are just nutcases who don't deserve their rights, or that they are so insignificant that their ideas should be laughed at and swept under the rug.

I admit, if we ever had a good President, I'm not sure what should be done if a heckler were to get overly obnoxious. But there is something definitely wrong with they way things are being handled now.

Free Speech: How Bush avoids dissent.
The Week Magazine 8/31/2007

The Bush administration may not know how to plan for a hurricane or a war, said The New York Times in an editorial. But never let it be said it can’t plan a political rally. As a result of a lawsuit by two protesters and the American Civil Liberties Union, the White House has been forced to release a manual that details how President Bush’s speeches and other public appearances have been “micromanaged and laboriously controlled for the past five years to weed out the merest whiff of protest.” All those attending Bush public events, the manual instructs, are to be carefully chosen, with attendees searched for concealed anti-Bush banners. Seats closest to the stage are to be reserved for “extremely supportive” fans of the president. In the terrible event that a heckler somehow gets within earshot of the media covering the speech, a “rally squad” is to surround him waving pro-Bush placards and chanting “USA! USA!” Every modern administration has stage-managed public events to some degree, of course, but this White House’s obsessive suppression of dissent is “out of place in a democracy.”

It’s even creepier than that, said Dahlia Lithwick in Slate.com. Dissent wasn’t banned at these rallies just for the sake of creating an image of a president “universally adored” by his people. It was also banned “to protect the tender sensitivities of the president himself.” Protesters, the manual commands, were also to be kept out of range of the presidential motorcade, thus sparing Bush the unpleasantness of knowing there are people who disagree with him. Now we know why Laura Bush says she doesn’t believe her husband’s abysmal poll numbers, said Tim Grieve in Salon.com. The first couple travels everywhere in a bubble of stage-managed love. Bush himself has said that one “‘amazing’ part of the presidency” is the support he gets on the road from ordinary Americans. “Amazing? Not so much.”

There’s a bitter irony here, said USA Today in an editorial. The White House’s Presidential Advance Manual was released to the public only after a lawsuit was brought by a West Virginia couple, Nicole and Jeffrey Rank, who were handcuffed, arrested, fingerprinted, and briefly jailed for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts at an Independence Day speech the president gave in 2004. After the Ranks had been hustled away, Bush told the extremely supportive crowd this: “On this Fourth of July, we confirm our love of freedom, the freedom for people to speak their minds. ... Free thought, free expression, that’s what we believe.” Too bad he forgot to tell his advance team.

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/news/articles/news.aspx?ArticleID=2258