Loyalty Oaths

[khirkhib]

Kerry trains around the midwest and south west and gets stopped by huge rallies in small towns (20000+).  In their scheduled stops there are big flowovers into the streets.  Kerry and Edwards are letting protesters in and the protesters seem to actually motivate the Kerry supporters even more.  

Bush and Cheney however are on Defense speaking in Northern Michagan, Eastern Washington, Virginia and are only attracting small rallies.  Only registered Republicans are allowed into the rallies and even then they have to sign a loyalty oath that swears that they are going to vote for Bush and that the Bush/Cheney campaign can use their name as a supporter.  

Isn't this extreme.  I like the way Kerry is campaigning now.  The local press gives better stories.  Isn't this exclusivity going to hurt Bush.  Independents that aren't let into a Bush speak would seem less likely to vote for him.  Undecided voters don't seem like the type of people that would want to sign loyalty oaths.

[The Dowager Mod]

I heard about that,pretty pathetic "our" president will only address conservatives.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I understand why Bush is doing it....Ed Helms of the Daily Show put it best.

"Nothing convinces people....like convinced people!"  

[The Dowager Mod]

They kicked a WWII veteran out of a rally because he wouldn't sign.

[classical liberal]

this should be in the campaign section

[freedomburns]

Kerry trains around the midwest and south west and gets stopped by huge rallies in small towns (20000+).  In their scheduled stops there are big flowovers into the streets.  Kerry and Edwards are letting protesters in and the protesters seem to actually motivate the Kerry supporters even more.  

Bush and Cheney however are on Defense speaking in Northern Michagan, Eastern Washington, Virginia and are only attracting small rallies.  Only registered Republicans are allowed into the rallies and even then they have to sign a loyalty oath that swears that they are going to vote for Bush and that the Bush/Cheney campaign can use their name as a supporter.  

Isn't this extreme.  I like the way Kerry is campaigning now.  The local press gives better stories.  Isn't this exclusivity going to hurt Bush.  Independents that aren't let into a Bush speak would seem less likely to vote for him.  Undecided voters don't seem like the type of people that would want to sign loyalty oaths.

This stuff reeks of Stalinist Communism.  The Republican campaign is seriously out of touch if they think this is going to play well with Americans who are not ardent Bush supporters already.  

They have an uphill struggle reaching out to those in the middle or on the fence, and that is the only way that they might win.  Looks really bad for them.

freedomburns

[Giant Saguaro]

Is all this documented somewhere under the wide blue sky by a credible source? I usually don't ask for sources on message boards because it's about talk and discussion and so forth, but I got to ask for a source on this one.

[freedomburns]

Is all this documented somewhere under the wide blue sky by a credible source? I usually don't ask for sources on message boards because it's about talk and discussion and so forth, but I got to ask for a source on this one.

Read all about it in The Boston Globe doubting Thomas:

Bush-backers-only policy riles voters at RNC rallies

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/09/bush_backers_only_policy_riles_voters_at_rnc_rallies?mode=PF

freedomburns

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

This is even worse:  (from The Hotline last week)

Pres. Bush's re-election camp "insisted on knowing the race of an Arizona
Daily Star journalist assigned to photograph" VP Cheney. The Star "refused
to provide the information." A rally organizer for the Bush-Cheney
re-election camp asked Star managing ed Teri Hayt "to disclose the
journalist's race" 7/30.  After Hayt "refused, the organizer called back
and said the journalist probably would be allowed to photograph" Cheney at
a scheduled Pima Co. Fairgrounds rally. Hayt: "It was such an outrageous
request, I was personally insulted."  



Bush camp spokesperson Danny Diaz "said the information was needed for
security purposes." Diaz: "All the information requested of staff,
volunteers and participants for the event has been done so to ensure the
safety of all those involved, including the vice president of the United
States." Diaz "repeated that answer when asked if it is the practice" of
the WH "to ask for racial information or if the photographer, Mamta Popat,
was singled out because of her name."



Organizer Christine Walton "asked for Popat's race in telephone
conversations" with two other Star eds "before she spoke to Hayt. They
also refused to provide the information." Walton "told Hayt that Popat's
race was necessary to allow the Secret Service to distinguish her from
someone else who might have the same name." Hayt: "It was a very lame
excuse" (Karamargin, Arizona Daily Star, 7/31).

[Giant Saguaro]

This is even worse:  (from The Hotline last week)

Pres. Bush's re-election camp "insisted on knowing the race of an Arizona
Daily Star journalist assigned to photograph" VP Cheney. The Star "refused
to provide the information." A rally organizer for the Bush-Cheney
re-election camp asked Star managing ed Teri Hayt "to disclose the
journalist's race" 7/30.  After Hayt "refused, the organizer called back
and said the journalist probably would be allowed to photograph" Cheney at
a scheduled Pima Co. Fairgrounds rally. Hayt: "It was such an outrageous
request, I was personally insulted."  



Bush camp spokesperson Danny Diaz "said the information was needed for
security purposes." Diaz: "All the information requested of staff,
volunteers and participants for the event has been done so to ensure the
safety of all those involved, including the vice president of the United
States." Diaz "repeated that answer when asked if it is the practice" of
the WH "to ask for racial information or if the photographer, Mamta Popat,
was singled out because of her name."



Organizer Christine Walton "asked for Popat's race in telephone
conversations" with two other Star eds "before she spoke to Hayt. They
also refused to provide the information." Walton "told Hayt that Popat's
race was necessary to allow the Secret Service to distinguish her from
someone else who might have the same name." Hayt: "It was a very lame
excuse" (Karamargin, Arizona Daily Star, 7/31).

Well, all I'll say about this is that if they did kick a WW II vet out and there IS NOT more to it than what appeared in the Boston Globe, then that's not right. I can understand that they want the place under control and they want to know about who wants to come around taking pictures of people, but the former is not right. Common sense would say that that old guy wasn't going to do anything, good grief. Somebody got overzealous a bit, I think. Taking names and so forth isn't that big of a deal in and of itself, that's not uncommon at campaigns at all - when I was in college at the college Republicans we took names and such there, but now I don't seriously think we ever kicked anybody out for NOT doing it. In fact, I liked it when the lefties showed up - gave us someone to argue with. This seems overboard, especially in the case of the old guy.

Thanks for the sources, folks - this deserves to be read up on from time to time, if not to ascertain whether or not it's being blown out of proportion.

[khirkhib]

I hope this gets attention this is a big deal.  I read about one man that had seen every president speak since Roosevelt.  He was an old guy and he wasn't able to see Bush speak because he was independent.  Shouldn't this be a big deal?

[12th Doctor]

Hmmmm, wait until after the RNC.  This policy is no good and now that it is getting press they will probably relax it.  But the fact is that Libs are nuts and they will do almost ANYTHING during a protest.  Trust me, I know.

[stry_cat]

Hmmmm, wait until after the RNC.  This policy is no good and now that it is getting press they will probably relax it.  

It's for security.  We must do anything for security.  I doubt they'l change the policy no matter how many WWII vets they have to turn away.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See thats why they're not going to change the policy.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Hmmmm, wait until after the RNC.  This policy is no good and now that it is getting press they will probably relax it.  

It's for security.  We must do anything for security.  I doubt they'l change the policy no matter how many WWII vets they have to turn away.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See thats why they're not going to change the policy.

So liberals and independents are automatically security risks?
And if a terrorist really wanted to infiltrate a Bush rally, why they hell wouldn't he just sign the loyalty oath?
There doesn't seem to be any legitimate security interest in this policy...it is designed to only squelch HONEST dissent.

[MODU]

I'm of the belief that "rallies" aren't for people to share dissent.  They are to be motivational gatherings for followers to re-energize and get out the votes.  The "debates" are the forums for those with concerns/dissent to voice their issues.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What we have here are two clearly contrasting campaign styles.  Bush/Cheney believes that it is more important to motivate the base, so the campaign carefully manages its campaign stops so that the base will hear not a discouraging word.  Kerry/Edwards believes that it is more important to reach out towards the swing vote than to energize the base so it lets all and sundry in to attend.

This isn't the only area where this is the case.  As a general rule, the issues that Bush is trying to base his campaign on are those that are of interest to his base.  Kerry is mainly running on issues that interest the swing vote.  If votes were decided solely on the basis of issues then I think Kerry would be a shoe in.  However, other factors such as the economy, Iraq, and character/likeability also come into play, which is why Bush has a good chance if he can just get some decent news on the economy and Iraq.

[??????????]

I'm sure just ANYONE can walk into a Kerry rally. Remember how he told a citizen to shut up in Pennsylvania?

[khirkhib]

Well I will tell you.  I'm going to a Kerry rally in Portland on Friday.  He is going to have it down town by the Willamette at 10 am.  The paper said it was free and open to the public, no tickets necessary.   I bet it will be huge and I'll tell you all about it.  Bush will also be in Portland that day, he is going to have a business meeting at 12:30 at undisclosed location.

[The Dowager Mod]

I hope this gets attention this is a big deal.  I read about one man that had seen every president speak since Roosevelt.  He was an old guy and he wasn't able to see Bush speak because he was independent.  Shouldn't this be a big deal?

this is the guy i mentioned.

[badnarikin04]

I think it's terrible that Bush is forcing people to "pledge their support of Bush/Cheney for reelection of the United States" in order to hear him speak.

If you can't listen to dissent, then you have no right to be president.

[MODU]

You are forgetting:  These are rallies, not town hall meetings.  Rallies are primarily for motivating the base to GOTV.  

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You are forgetting:  These are rallies, not town hall meetings.  Rallies are primarily for motivating the base to GOTV.  

But Bush seems to never, ever have what you call a town hall meeting.  All of his events that I know of are held before safe Republican crowds, making it seem as if he is afraid to meet those whose opinions differ.  His campaign is ignoring the swing vote in favor of energizing his base.  He may be able to succeed with this strategy, but it doesn't look promising for Bush, especially with the popular perception of the economy being that it is faltering.

[MODU]

The candidate himself can't possibly be everywhere to meet with everyone.  Now, that's not to say they should blow everyone off, but it's the base who run the GOTV efforts, and it is them that meet with swing voters.  The swing voters get to hear/read the rally speeches and can discuss those with the party base.  

[John Dibble]

I think it's terrible that Bush is forcing people to "pledge their support of Bush/Cheney for reelection of the United States" in order to hear him speak.

If you can't listen to dissent, then you have no right to be president.

Let's not forget that he may be rejecting undecided swing voters. They may get ticked and vote for someone else.

[WMS]

I think it's terrible that Bush is forcing people to "pledge their support of Bush/Cheney for reelection of the United States" in order to hear him speak.

If you can't listen to dissent, then you have no right to be president.

Let's not forget that he may be rejecting undecided swing voters. They may get ticked and vote for someone else.

That happened in a Rio Rancho rally here in NM, and I would say it did not go over well with independents and swing voters. Bad PR.