Democrats & Liberals Archives

A sad State of the Union: It's official, Dissent is now illegal

Cindy Sheehan was invited to attend the State of the Union by Rep. Lynn Woosley of California. She was the invited guest of the representative and was given the seat of Gallery 5, Seat 7, row A.

Funny thing was, when the lights came up to begin the State of the Union to address the nation, her seat was empty.

Cindy Sheehan was arrested and removed from the House Chamber before the proceedings began.

According to Capital Police, Sheehan, the anti-war activist and mother of a fallen American soldier, was removed for 'Unlawful Conduct'.

What was so unlawful about her conduct? The unlawful conduct surrounded wearing a t-shirt with an anti-war message.

So this is what this country has come to? Arresting and detaining the voice of dissent.

When last I checked, displaying a t-shirt with an anti-war message was legal. And since she was not arrested outside earlier, while attending a rally wearing the same t-shirt in question, it would appear that I'm correct. Unless, of course, there are different laws in place when the President is speaking.

This is not about appropriateness. It's not about whether you think Cindy Sheehan's behavior was appropriate or not; it's about free speech. We have a soap-box legacy in America and the house chamber has certainly seen its share of dissent. But the irony sure isn't lost when a person expressing her 1st amendment right of free speech is arrested in the very same chamber that the constitution supports.


(link)

Posted by john trevisani at February 1, 2006 7:59 AM
Comments
Comment #118953

John
It wasn’t Cindy Sheehan there.

It was a manipulated Cindy there.

A Cindy Sheehan who has been manipulated from the get go by Move On .Org and others bent on sowing rancor and hatred.

The State of the Union is the forum for the president to address America.

It is not a forum for anything else.

If that would be the case,then others,perhaps those who support the president,would counter demonstrate.

The result would be a circus.

Last night’s address was a serious one.

Historic in importance.

Alledgely the congress and the office of the presidency should be accorded a modicum of decency.

Had I been the president,I would have slapped Alito on the back and mooned Ted Kennedy.

He did neither.

Cindy Sheehan is now a disgrace …and an example of what those not in power would do to shit on this administration.

She just had to get her name mentioned last night,and guys like you are all too willing to scream about it.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at February 1, 2006 8:12 AM
Comment #118958

She broke rules.
Being unruley and throwing things is NOT part of a peaceful protest.
If she had been polite and sat there in her gorgeous t-shirt, she would have been more effective for her cause.
The cameras would have been on her all night.
She would have been interviewed about what she thought of the speech.
Instead she chose to act like a spoiled rotten child and was removed.

Posted by: dawn at February 1, 2006 8:23 AM
Comment #118961

S.E.
A manipulated Cindy, huh? I see. I’m sure the death of a child wouldn’t be a compelling reason for protest, or questions, or even concerns on your part. See, not like our government, you’re probably a heartless, gutless and spineless person who would sit there and do nothing while lies and injustice swallow up the lives of our youth in a war will inevitably prove one of our nations biggest errors. The fact is Ms. Sheehan is doing what every person with a thinking mind SHOULD be doing. This includes our representatives. If they are unwilling to represent the voices of their constituency, which at this point clearly shows the majority is not in favor or confident about this war, then thank you Cindy for having the courage to speak out.

Posted by: Jack at February 1, 2006 8:26 AM
Comment #118962
Being unruley and throwing things is NOT part of a peaceful protest.
Really? Do you have anything that i may reference to support you allegation?

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-02-01T040031Z_01_N3129628_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-SPEECH-SHEEHAN.xml
A Reuters photographer said Sheehan entered the House gallery a few minutes before Bush was to speak and was directed to her seat. She had been seated for less than a minute when a plainclothes agent took her by the arm, said, “You’ve got to leave,” and rushed her from the gallery.

Sheehan did not resist and left with a smile.

Posted by: john trevisani at February 1, 2006 8:31 AM
Comment #118965
A Cindy Sheehan who has been manipulated from the get go by Move On .Org and others bent on sowing rancor and hatred.

No Mighty one,
Moveon was started as a defense against those on the right bent on sowing rancor and hatred and disinformation. Like whoever is saying Cindy Sheehan was acting like a child and throwing things.

Posted by: Schwamp at February 1, 2006 8:44 AM
Comment #118966

As I mentioned in the other SOTU thread, I think throwing her out was a mistake. Letting her get away with her antics, what ever they were going to be (I very much doubt that she was going to sit quietly with her mouth shut), would have shown off the childishness of some in the opposition.
Believe me; the Democrats were better off without her presence.

Posted by: TheTraveler at February 1, 2006 8:46 AM
Comment #118967

SE:
Again, this is not about appropriateness. Whether you or Bush or Frist or Alito or Kennedy think about her ‘behavior’ isn’t the issue.

She was arrested for wearing a t-shirt.

Posted by: john trevisani at February 1, 2006 8:47 AM
Comment #118969

Traveler:
You’re right.

If they just let her sit there, wear the t-shirt and keep the cameras off of her, she would have been just another face in the crowd.

But no, they came out swinging. Whether it was the Capital Police department’s actions alone or whether it was Rove or whoever, they came out swinging.

Now they have a potential civil rights problem on their hands.

Posted by: john trevisani at February 1, 2006 8:50 AM
Comment #118973

But no, they came out swinging. Whether it was the Capital Police department’s actions alone or whether it was Rove or whoever, they came out swinging.

I think it was one of the Democrats. They had more of a reason to make her leave than Bush or Rove, of all people.

Posted by: TheTraveler at February 1, 2006 8:55 AM
Comment #118975

Ok, the article mentions she was ‘arrested’ but I don’t see anyone mentioning the charge or that she was ‘taken downtown’. All it mentions is that she was removed from the auditorium.

Simply being removed is not a violation of her freedom of speech, even her arrest would not have been either. Is there anywhere where we can see the details of this arrest that is reported by Reuters to have occured?

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 1, 2006 8:55 AM
Comment #118976

The link from the CBS site:

Schneider said Sheehan had worn a T-shirt with an anti-war slogan to Tuesday night’s speech and covered it up until she took her seat. Police warned her that such displays were not allowed in the House chamber, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said.

So, Dawn, It was peaceful protest She broke no rules of polite conduct, only some ordinance. Which, BTW, I agree with.

So, Eagle, you think Sheehan has no mind of her own and therefore she must really be a Republican? The SOTU address was created by Nixon as part of “political theater”. Bush recieved his “modicum of decency” despite your inferrence, and there was no “historic importance” to his speech. It was a rehash of his same old crap. For some additional perspective, let’s see Horsey’s dictionary of Bushisms:

Ownership Society: If you’re poor, you’re on your own

Permanent Tax cuts: Permanent deficits for America

Plan for Vistory: We’re gonna be in Iraq a long, long time

Spending restraints: Billions for Iraq, millions in food stamp cuts

Terrorist surveillance: Spy on anyone, anywhere, anytime

Visionary Agenda: Beat the Democrats in November.


BTW:If I were president I would have

“shit on slapped Alito and DeLay on the back and pantsed Frist mooned Ted Kennedy

Posted by: Dave at February 1, 2006 8:56 AM
Comment #118979

Ah, I see it now, disorderly conduct. She was told that the display was not allowed while ‘in the chamber’, which would explain why it was not illegal outside of the chamber as you suggest, John.

Perhaps it actually is against the law to hold up signs, wear controversial tshirts, act innapropriately, etc, while IN THE CHAMBER.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 1, 2006 9:00 AM
Comment #118981

Rhinehold:

?
Did you read the article?
It clearly states:
“Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq who reinvigorated the anti-war movement, was handcuffed and charged with unlawful conduct, according to Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider. The charge was a misdemeanor and Sheehan was being released on her own recognizance, Schneider said.”

Posted by: john trevisani at February 1, 2006 9:02 AM
Comment #118982

Rhinehold:


Perhaps it actually is against the law to hold up signs, wear controversial tshirts, act innapropriately, etc, while IN THE CHAMBER.

Huh?! Have you ever watched C-Span? With the likes of Kennedy, Hatch, Byrd and Stevens, it’s a wonder that they’re not arrested on a daily basis.
(sorry, couldn’t resist)

Posted by: john trevisani at February 1, 2006 9:05 AM
Comment #118983

Funny, I rarely see any political signs being held up in the seating area of the chambers while C-Span is on the air, that would lend to it not being allowed for everyone, not just ‘anti-bush/anti-war protesters’.

And no, I do not see this as a violation of anyone’s first amendment rights. It’s like a radio program not playing a controversial song and the artist claiming that they are being ‘censored’.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 1, 2006 9:08 AM
Comment #118984

Jack.
It’s critique the message…not the messenger.

Maybe the parents of Sargent Clay who was in the gallery should have punched her lights out then…they suffered as much as Cindy….she doesn’t have the franchise on suffering my friend.

She is politicial now and that means sharks like me are going to eat her up,no ifs and or buts.

She mounts the pulic rostrum,she now gets it with both barrels.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at February 1, 2006 9:11 AM
Comment #118987

Dave

The SOTU address was created by Nixon as part of “political theater”. Bush recieved his “modicum of decency” despite your inferrence, and there was no “historic importance” to his speech.

You’re wrong about this. The report on the state of the union is mandated by the constitution. Every President except for Harrison and Garfield (who died in office) has either given a speech or submitted a written report annually.

Article II Section. 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.

George Washington did the report annually so it became tradition.

Posted by: TheTraveler at February 1, 2006 9:14 AM
Comment #118988

Jack
By the way…where was that blowhard learer of the secular progressives…you know…the Roman Catholic who cheated in college…who left a floater up the Cape…where was the lion of liberalism last night?

Drowning in his scotch?

At least Kerry had the testiculiar fortitude to show up…or else his t-shirt didn’t fit…those xxxxx-l t-shirts are hard to find I am told.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at February 1, 2006 9:15 AM
Comment #118989

Oh yeah respect, the idiots wife had a seat reserved for a Dog. Boy that show how much this administration wants to show only those who “are with us” and quiet the debate.

It does not matter if I agree with Sheehan or not, it is a matter of free speach. This was not a sign or a banner but a t-shirt. Could I be arrested for wearing a t-shirt. Bush makes Nixon seem like an open mind liberal. What ever happened to the idea of debate, disent or just old not agreeing with the administration.

Once again it is the old “with us or against us” mode with this president. And all the while the wingnuts say look at OBL and how he wants no compromise. Where’s the difference?

Posted by: Mike at February 1, 2006 9:17 AM
Comment #118991

I find it sad and frightening that people forget that Cindy Sheehan has lost her son to this country—-to the Bush war. I cannot imagine what that must feel like—-and how her life and thoughts and trust has changed. How sad for her to feel like she lost something so irreplaceable and so apart of herself and the person responsible for doing so will not even listen—-not even acknowledge the mistakes made and the misleading that went on—-and really, the “mistake” and the responsibility he has for her son and other daughters and sons being there. If she had been a mother of a son who died in Iraq wearing a t-shirt that said “I love Bush and he is keeping America free”—-do you think she would have been handcuffed and charged with anything, let alone taken from the chamber? they would have had her stand or sit next to Laura.

Posted by: judye at February 1, 2006 9:20 AM
Comment #118994

“I find it sad and frightening that people forget that Cindy Sheehan …”
…’s SON chose to serve and asked to be sent back to Iraq for another tour.

Yes. It is an awful thing for her to have lost her child to war BUT her son had a mind of his own and chose to be a part of the fight in Iraq.

Why is it that noone seems to care about her son’s point of view?


Posted by: bugcrazy at February 1, 2006 9:27 AM
Comment #118995

Wow. This is just pathetic. What the hell did anyone gain by arresting her? Really. This was a huge gift to her… she now is back in the spot light and Bush looks like a petty fool. It doesn’t matter if Bush was behind this, the mere fact that everyone knows her fight is with bush and she’s removed (after being invited by a Representative.) Such nonsense.

If she had be allowed to sit there, especially been shown several times on national TV, it would’ve probably come across as petty or foolish. Now, she has a huge following and Bush comes off looking like the class geek hiding behind the teacher on the playground.

It’s not just that this looks so pathetic, but it shows that someone there hasn’t the brain power to work through something as simple as this. I’m so proud I could puke.

Posted by: tony at February 1, 2006 9:31 AM
Comment #118997

That was the saddest State Of The Union I’ve ever seen.

But, the problem is not just Bush.

The problem is incumbents.
Most (if not all) of them (on both sides).
The consequences of decades of irresponsibility is catching up with us.
Newcomers to Congress can not pass any badly-needed, common-sense reforms, because incumbents won’t allow any reforms that may reduce the their power or opportunities for self-gain. Government is FOR SALE. The government is running out of money, running up astronomical debt, and it’s getting harder and harder to bribe the voters with their own tax-dollars.

And the solution for Health Care is not more government. The solution is to get rid of all the middlemen (government and insurance companies).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 1, 2006 9:35 AM
Comment #119000

Sic,

Other than insults by unsubstantiated personnal opinion, where exactly did you “eat” or “barrell” her or Kennedy?
Unless, of course, your comparative standard is to equal the Slime Boat Liars for Bush?
I mean, she sat down wearing a T-shirt. Suddenly, you ‘say’ she’s MoveOn.org’s shill defaming the president and we’re all a bunch of shouting sycophants. Up your dose brother…

Traveller,

The requirement for a report on the union is there. Nixon upped it to a bicameral TV show.

tony,

As much a proponent of free speech that I am, I would agree with a rule that prohibits protests within the chamber. If protest were allowed, then no one would be allowed in. But, I do wonder if she planned it through to this point. I think it’s likely since she went so peacefully and smiling.

Posted by: Dave at February 1, 2006 9:40 AM
Comment #119001

Bush comes off looking like the class geek hiding behind the teacher on the playground

I don’t know why some of you are assuming Bush had her leave. He had no reason to do so.

My guess is that one of the Democrats asked to have her removed so she wouldn’t make them look bad.

Posted by: TheTraveler at February 1, 2006 9:42 AM
Comment #119004

The requirement for a report on the union is there. Nixon upped it to a bicameral TV show.

You’re wrong on that too. Truman was the first president to give the address on Television.

Posted by: TheTraveler at February 1, 2006 9:45 AM
Comment #119008

Trav,

re: SOTU address. Stop googling and thinking that small isolated facts make your point. Do you nkow what bicameral means?

re: Sheehan, I think you’re totally wrong. She was removed by the capital police for violating a campus rule. The Democrats are winning this spin round, made all the easier by the fact that Bush has only exposed himself to one unscreened audience in the last year (that I’m aware of). EOS.

Posted by: Dave at February 1, 2006 10:04 AM
Comment #119009

Cindy Sheehan has got to be the most foolish tool in the lib’s arsenal. Her speeches are so far out of touch that it’s a wonder she hasn’t been hauled off in a straight jacket. As for the t-shirt incident in the capitol chambers, it was obviously another futile setup by the libs to put Bush on the fire once again. The fact of the matter is, you didn’t see the elected representatives and senators sitting in clown costumes and/or S&M outfits, did you??? There are certain places where it is most respectable to dress accordingly. It’s all a matter of respect for your country, not free speech. What would you do if you were getting married and your soon-to-be husband or wife insisted on wearing burlap bags instead of traditional garb? It would be most embarassing. You libs really have hit the bottom of the barrel. Stop being childish and get a grip, for christ’s sake.

Posted by: Charlie at February 1, 2006 10:12 AM
Comment #119013

That was the saddest State Of The Union I’ve ever seen.

But, the problem is not just Bush.

The problem is incumbents.
Most (if not all) of them (on both sides).
The consequences of decades of irresponsibility is catching up with us.

Newcomers to Congress can not pass any badly-needed, common-sense reforms, because incumbents won’t allow any reforms that may reduce the their power or opportunities for self-gain. Government is FOR SALE. The government is running out of money, running up astronomical debt, and it’s getting harder and harder to bribe the voters with their own tax-dollars.

And the solution for Health Care is not more government. The solution is to get rid of all the middlemen (government and insurance companies).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 1, 2006 10:25 AM
Comment #119015

Cindy Sheehan would have become the focus of the SOTU instead of the president. That, and only that is reason enough to have her removed. She has proven herself to be disruptive and her attention seeking behavior was not appropriate to that forum. The SOTU is actually watched by some of us for a reason: we want to hear it. The office of the president and the chambers of Congress deserve respect and dignity - and Cindy (now be honest here) probably could not have just sat and listened. Her son died. A lot of sons and daughters have died. They volenteered for service. No one was drafted. Many re-enlist or ask for additional tours of duty. What about them. Are they fools and liars? No. They are patriotic young people with a mission and a desire to serve. How dare Cindy make a mockery of her son’s life. He’s probably spinning in his grave.

Posted by: Ilsa at February 1, 2006 10:45 AM
Comment #119016

SE-
Your response seemed to me to be some kind of parody before I saw your byline on the bottom. I mean, a manipulated Cindy Sheehan?

I get it, It wasn’t her, it was her evil twin. Good Heavens, that’s an Ad Hominem argument if I ever heard it. What’s next, subliminal messages in MoveOn ads being responsible for Bush’s terrible polling numbers?

Bush is still in the bubble, and you folks are with him. When is it going to occur to you folks that there are rational reasons for disliking and protesting agains Bush? When is it going to sink in that This is the Marketplace of ideas, not the Walmart of pre-fab Republican notions?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 1, 2006 10:46 AM
Comment #119026

Yes, Bush and most (if not all) incumbents are in a bubble. But, it’s a profitable bubble. Where else can you work and abuse so many things for self gain ?

That was the saddest State Of The Union I’ve ever seen.

But, the problem is not just Bush.

The problem is incumbents.
Most (if not all) of them (on both sides).
The consequences of decades of fiscal irresponsibility> is catching up with us.
Newcomers to Congress can not pass any badly-needed, common-sense reforms, because incumbents won’t allow any reforms that may reduce the their power or opportunities for self-gain. Government is FOR SALE. The government is running out of money, running up astronomical debt, and it’s getting harder and harder to bribe the voters with their own tax-dollars.

And the solution for Health Care is not more government. The solution is to get rid of all the middlemen (government and insurance companies).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 1, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #119027

I think it’s still laughable that people want to point to Sheehan and what she meant to all of this. Sheehan just got to most amazing bonus of free press… all at the expense of Bush.

No one will consider if Bush had this done or not. Sheehan is protesting Bush, it will be assumed that he was the one who had her removed… in handcuffs no less.

Ilsa - Sheehan is now the focus of the SOTU for the simple reason she was arrested. Had she simple been allowed to sit there during the speech, they would’ve put her on camera once in a while and would’ve probably comes across sort of less important that she once was. Had Bush directly welcomed her and mentioned that even people who see things differently are welcome, he would’ve slammed the door closed on her cause.

This is about Bush and those around him being completely unable to deal with any situation appropriately. A freshman-level PR student would’ve got this one right. How did bush manage to get it so wrong. (btw - I googled Bush and the Sheehan, and they’re getting about equal press this morning.) there’s no excuse for this.

Posted by: tony at February 1, 2006 11:24 AM
Comment #119028

And the Department of Energy is a joke.
This is one area where the government could have truly helped the nation.
But incumbents are bought-and-paid-for.
Government is FOR SALE.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 1, 2006 11:24 AM
Comment #119032

Rhinehold,

You bought up another interesting dilima. Censorship.

I wonder where everyone stands on the idea of censorship. Because I think that removing her sort of falls into that boat.


Posted by: Linda H. at February 1, 2006 11:31 AM
Comment #119033

Stephen

Yes,a manipulated Sheehan.

She is being squeezed for every drop of sympathy from you guys for what she’s worth.

None of you here made comment of the parents of Sargent Clay who died there last month.

Zero.Nilch. Nada.

How about them?Or the thousands of parents of the brave who BELIEVE in what we are doing there?

Does Shhenan speak for the majority of servicemen who volunteer to go there?

Or did she suffer a nervous breakdown as a result of her tragic loss…and now is being exploited to the point that her husband left her and her brave son probably rolling over in his grave?

Of course ther are many many reasons to protest Bush.I hate the word “crusade” that he and others in his administration use for instance.It is a stupid choice of words and inflames Muslims everywhere.

But you know what?I still like the guy and believe in his mission..that Iraq is a batlefield…that better there than here.

Problem is that you,who wax so eloquent, are so blinded by your point of view that nothing that the president can possible do will ever appease you.

At least I am consistant…which pisses many off here…but so what.I believe in the president and his mission.

The last election 52% of the population agreed with me,and the next election a majority will too electing either McCain or Guilliani.

So who is really out of step,Stephen…you or I?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at February 1, 2006 11:32 AM
Comment #119045

Cindy Sheehan has no right to disrupt a speech for everyone else. I believe in the right to protest, but I am getting sick of treating protestors, no matter how rude, misguided or inappropriate, as heroes.

You don’t have the right to speak everywhere and every time you want.

Sheehan was just trying to play the role of the skunk at the garden party. We all know what she thinks by now. Her voice is far from silenced. It is just not worth listening to her.

Sheehan is the classic case of someone famous for one thing who thinks she can now speak about everything else with authority. We stipulate that she knows grief of losing a loved one. If we are trying to understand that, we may talk to her, or to the many other millions of parents who have suffered a similar loss to wars, disease, car accidents etc. This is not a unique experience.

In all other topics, she has no particular expertise and seems especially in the dark about politics. Her opinions in these respects are worthless.

Posted by: Jack at February 1, 2006 12:02 PM
Comment #119072

Problem is that you … are so blinded by your point of view that nothing that the president can possible do will ever appease appall you. Posted by sicilianeagle at February 1, 2006 11:32 AM

You don’t have the right to speak everywhere and every time you want.

Posted by Jack at February 1, 2006 12:02 PM

Thank you for rewriting the 1st Ammendment. How many more freedoms do you want to delete?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, * or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances*.
*deleted by Jack
Posted by: Dave at February 1, 2006 1:58 PM
Comment #119078
Why is it that noone seems to care about her son’s point of view?

Posted by: bugcrazy at February 1, 2006 09:27 AM


It’s not because of his choice, it’s because he was a child and he was lied to and he died because of that lie.
Posted by: Dave at February 1, 2006 2:01 PM
Comment #119081

Jack, Eagle…

You guys are missing the point here. This really has nothing to do with Sheehan. No one here has a different opinion about her today because of what happened. She does what she thinks is right. (More power to her, from my POV, but really… who cares?)

This was a softball issue for Bush and he swung for the bleachers and missed in a really ugly way. He had 1000 different ways to handle this and permanently take Sheehan off the front pages. What if he just said hello to her or acknowledged her during his speech. He would’ve looked much more tolerant and presidential. He could’ve ignored her and let the cameras pick her up once in a while. But - she was removed from the Senate IN HANDCUFFS! Why not just pull a Rodney King on her right there in her chair?

And what’s all this crap about the t-shirt? Come on! You have a formal get together at your house and a friend shows up in blue jeans and sandals. What do you do? Give him a drink and ask if he would like to borrow a change of clothes. You look gracious, your friend looks like a bit of an idiot, but then everyone remembers what a good party it was. If you kick him out of your house, people have pity for your friend and you look like a petty fool, and that’s all people will talk about.

The result: Sheehan stole the stage from Bush by default. Very few people are discussing real points on his speech, or what’s to come… just one more perfectly FU_ked up execution from W and his staff.

Please - keep up the resentment towards Sheehan. I’m sure she’d love the extra attention.

Posted by: tony at February 1, 2006 2:05 PM
Comment #119084

Interestingly, there is another article about a congressman’s (R) wife also being removed for wearing a shirt that said something about supporting the troops, but no mention of her arrest. Removal for both, but arrest only for wearing the wrong words. What idiots we have in government and police.

Posted by: Brent at February 1, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #119094

All

I don’t give a damn about Sheehan personally but leave it to you guys to deny that she isn’t being propped up by the fanaticial left…which she proudly serves now as its poster girl.
Check out Mike Moore’s site..her father confessor and intellectual(?) pimp.

He say jump,she says,How high?

Not one word from any of you about Gray’s parents.

Here the stiletto cuts both ways and none of you apparently like it.

You say Sheehan,I say Gray.

Cheap politicial trick by her and two bit California Congess woman who gave her the ticket.

By the way,exactly where was the liberal lion last night?

Your collective silence is deafing.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at February 1, 2006 2:15 PM
Comment #119096

I find this action taken by the police to be no different than an expulsion from school for a dress code violation. Did you see one other person there dressed in a T-Shirt period. The presence in the chamber itself warrants the the respect of our founding fathers and the institution they created that gave us our freedom to speak freely. This freedom of speech everyone is so happy to use as an excuse to be rude and disrespectful is not a cloak in which we can hide from our actions. Cindy Sheahan spoke freely. She wore her shirt. Now like all of us she is responsible for her actions which netted her a disorderly conduct charge.

I agree with alot of posts here simply stating that the state of the union address is for the president to inform congress on the state of the union. No where does the state of the union provide for the voice of anyone but the President. Members of Congress and Crowd are limited to their responses to the speech. Applauding or Booing which rarely happens. Shirt and Tie. Blouse and slacks or a dress or skirt or if representing the military or other form of public service, the uniform of their profession. No T-shirts and Sandles. Tie-dyed shirts and flipflops and certainly nooooo shorts. Saying that her free speech was somehow violated suggests that she was not allowed to speak. That is wrong. She did say what she wanted to say. Freedom of speech does not come with free national air time on every major network in america during the state of the union. Kennedy realized this show wouldn’t be about him so he probably decided to grandstand at a local tavern.

The way I see it. If pissing in public is against the law and we can be charged with a misdemeanor, than pissing on the United States Soldiers graves who have died believing in their mission by a grief stricken mother who’s views do not represent her son’s (you know the soldier that died for his country and his mother’s freedom to embarrass herself) should at the very least be a misdemeanor.

No dissent is not against the law. But I suspect she didn’t have a permit for public demonstration which is required by law to do so on Government property part of which I am sure I own – maybe a thread in the carpet – and to me she was tresspassing. And dammit! I want to press charges.

Posted by: EXCUSE ME at February 1, 2006 2:17 PM
Comment #119098

It amazes me sometimes, that people are still shocked when this kind of action comes from this administration. They’ve been snuffing out dissent since they were appointed by the Supreme Court in 2000. Don’t worry, Fox will tell everyone that it was the liberal portrayl of the situation that made it look worse than it was.

Posted by: shane richardson at February 1, 2006 2:19 PM
Comment #119105

EXCUSE ME,

“Saying that her free speech was somehow violated suggests that she was not allowed to speak.”

So can I quote you on that the next time someone says that campaign contributions should be considered “freedom of speech”?

Think about it.

Posted by: Rocky at February 1, 2006 2:28 PM
Comment #119106

I just put this up in the red column, but it applies here also, so I’m going to post it here too:

2,245 Dead — How Many More?
That’s what Cindy Sheehan’s T-shirt said, and what she was arrested for. It was the same shirt she’d been wearing all day at the “World Can’t Wait” rally that had been held at the reflecting pond near the Capitol. There was never any banner or anything thrown by Cindy Sheehan, so those who are saying so are completely full of sh*t. Capitol police would not have allowed her into the room with a banner because they check everyone who enters for security purposes. FYI, both the Associated Press and CNN have now confirmed that she had no banner, but was only arrested for wearing a shirt that displayed her criticism of the Neocon war and occupation of Iraq.

The reason she, or anyone else who wears something they don’t approve of can now be arrested is due to the Patriot Act. One of the unconstitutional provisions of that legislation gave police and security forces the right to arrest anyone for exercising their first amendment rights in public places during certain events and they are currently trying to expand that legislation to make it a felony (rather than trespassing as it is now), and increase the maximum penalty from six months (what it is currently) to one year.
Quote from that link:

“You are talking about giving the executive branch broader authority to create these exclusion zones which could cover broad areas and last for days [during an event],” David Kopel, a constitutional expert with the Cato Institute, told FOXNews.com.

Btw, back in 1971, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to arrest a man who wore a “F*ck the Draft” t-shirt into a courthouse. The case was called Cohen vs. California.
I’m sure the new line-up at the Supreme Court would now rule much differently.

So anyway, what they did to Cindy Sheehan yesterday was just part and parcel of the new post-9/11 Neocon fascist control. I’m sure some of us will get used to it, while people like me, won’t. Ever.

Quote from Bush’s speech:

Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer, and so we will act boldly in freedom’s cause.

Liar. He doesn’t believe in freedom or freedom’s cause. None of the Neocons do. Capitol police proved what they actually believe in just prior to his empty and meaningless speech.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 1, 2006 2:29 PM
Comment #119107

From her blog:

What Really Happened
by Cindy Sheehan

Dear Friends,

As most of you have probably heard, I was arrested before the State of the Union Address tonight.

I am speechless with fury at what happened and with grief over what we have lost in our country.

There have been lies from the police and distortions by the press. (Shocker) So this is what really happened:

This afternoon at the People’s State of the Union Address in DC where I was joined by Congresspersons Lynn Woolsey and John Conyers, Ann Wright, Malik Rahim and John Cavanagh, Lynn brought me a ticket to the State of the Union Address. At that time, I was wearing the shirt that said: 2245 Dead. How many more?

After the PSOTU press conference, I was having second thoughts about going to the SOTU at the Capitol. I didn’t feel comfortable going. I knew George Bush would say things that would hurt me and anger me and I knew that I couldn’t disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket and I didn’t want to be disruptive out of respect for her. I, in fact, had given
the ticket to John Bruhns who is in Iraq Veterans Against the War. However, Lynn’s office had already called the media and everyone knew I was going to be there so I sucked it up and went.

I got the ticket back from John, and I met one of Congresswoman Barbara Lee’s staffers in the Longworth Congressional Office building and we went to the Capitol via the undergroud tunnel. I went through security once, then had to use the rest room and went through security again.

My ticket was in the 5th gallery, front row, fourth seat in. The person who in a few minutes was to arrest me, helped me to my seat.

I had just sat down and I was warm from climbing 3 flights of stairs back up from the bathroom so I unzipped my jacket. I turned to the right to take my left arm out, when the same officer saw my shirt and yelled; “Protester.” He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat and roughly (with my hands behind my back) shoved me up the stairs. I said something like “I’m going, do you have to be so rough?” By the way, his name is Mike Weight.

The officer ran with me to the elevators yelling at everyone to move out of the way. When we got to the elevators, he cuffed me and took me outside to await a squad car. On the way out, someone behind me said, “That’s Cindy Sheehan.” At which point the officer who arrested me said: “Take these steps slowly.” I said, “You didn’t care about being careful when you were dragging me up the other steps.” He said, “That’s because you were protesting.” Wow,
I get hauled out of the People’s House because I was, “Protesting.”

I was never told that I couldn’t wear that shirt into the Congress. I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things…I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later. I was immediately, and roughly (I have the bruises and muscle spasms to prove it) hauled off and arrested for “unlawful
conduct.”

After I had my personal items inventoried and my fingers printed, a nice Sgt. came in and looked at my shirt and said, “2245, huh? I just got back from there.”

I told him that my son died there. That’s when the enormity of my loss hit me. I have lost my son. I have lost my First Amendment rights. I have lost the country that I love. Where did America go? I started crying in pain.

What did Casey die for? What did the 2244 other brave young Americans die for? What are tens of thousands of them over there in harm’s way for still? For this? I can’t even wear a shrit that has the number of troops on it that George Bush and his arrogant and ignorant policies are responsible for killing.

I wore the shirt to make a statement. The press knew I was going to be there and I thought every once in awhile they would show me and I would have the shirt on. I did not wear it to be disruptive, or I would have unzipped my jacket during George’s speech. If I had any idea what happens to people who wear shirts that make the neocons uncomfortable that I would be
arrested…maybe I would have, but I didn’t.

There have already been many wild stories out there.

I have some lawyers looking into filing a First Amendment lawsuit against the government for what happened tonight. I will file it. It is time to take our freedoms and our country back.

I don’t want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ulitmate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government. That’s why I am going to take my freedoms and liberties back. That’s why I am not going to let Bushco take anything else away from me…or you.

I am so appreciative of the couple of hundred of protesters who came to the jail while I was locked up to show their support….we have so much potential for good…there is so much good in so many people.

Four hours and 2 jails after I was arrested, I was let out. Again, I am so upset and sore it is hard to think straight.

Keep up the struggle…I promise you I will too.

Love and peace soon,
Cindy

Posted by: john trevisani at February 1, 2006 2:29 PM
Comment #119115

I swear that Cindy must be on the republican payroll. She’s done more harm to the left than good. She’s like that crazy aunt that tells everyone about her cats. There are other ways to protest.

Posted by: chantico at February 1, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #119127

Leftist extremist hysteria. If dissent were actually illegal then millions of anti-American Leftists would be taken into custody. I wonder if Leftists can actually frame an arguement honestly … frankly I doubt it.

And Jack whines that because her son, who was an adult volunteer in the military, died while on duty that she has a right to a national platform whenever she wants.

Frankly she has no honest platform but she will be fully exploited by anti-establishment and anti-American interests.

Posted by: highlama at February 1, 2006 3:06 PM
Comment #119130

Charlie:

“What would you do if you were getting married and your soon-to-be husband or wife insisted on wearing burlap bags instead of traditional garb? It would be most embarassing.”

What would be so embarrassing about wearing Burlap Bags what it’s not a wedding if you’re not wearing some $5000.00 wedding dress that you might puke on or a rented tuxedo?

Talk about far reaching right wing wackos.

Personally I don’t think she should have been removed for wearing the T-shirt BUT SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD TO COVER IT UP OR SHE WOULD HAVE TO LEAVE, because I do belive it was probably an ill fated attempt on her part to make a mockery of the proceedings which was and would have been wrong. As a touted liberal I happen to think a modicum of decency should be given to the office of the President regardless of the fact that the guy that is in there is a MORON who only cares about what he lines his pockets with all the while spewing his vial crap on national TV.

I don’t believe her free speech was violated either but her pride was violated by her own doing. She should have used the opportunity to prove she was just what she claims she is a concerned parent. After the speech she could have done whatever she pleased and commanded a whole lot more of the spotlight if she played her cards right. It’s a missed opportunity at worst. Bush camp did not violate her right to free speech people, get over that one.

Posted by: Vic at February 1, 2006 3:09 PM
Comment #119129

John,

Thank you putting the letter on this blog. It has reinforced all the Republican points.

Posted by: Cliff at February 1, 2006 3:09 PM
Comment #119131

Thanks john. I might have to re-evaluate my thoughts on this, especially if Mike Weight really did jump up and shout “protester”

I don’t give a damn about Sheehan Mrs Alito personally but leave it to you guys to deny that she isn’t being propped up by the fanaticial left right…which she proudly serves now as its poster girl. Check out Mike Moore’s O’Reilly’s site..her father confessor and intellectual(?) pimp.

He say jump,she says,How high?

Cheap politicial trick by her and two bit California Congess woman Senatorwho gave her the ticket kiss up.

By the way,exactly where was the liberal lionhammer last night?

Your collective silence is deafing.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at February 1, 2006 02:15 PM

Posted by: Dave at February 1, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #119133

I’m not a big fan of Cindy Sheehan. I do not believe her explanation. However, the loss of her son is going to stay with her for the rest of her life. The voluntary military comes from families like hers, and she should be treated with respect.

I did not watch the SOTU. When I read the preliminary report I started laughing. “Here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.” DUH! Our president is a joke.

Posted by: ray orhealy at February 1, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #119137

This is from an article on cnn. Here is the link.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/31/sheehan.arrest/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

Is this republicans picking on republicans or could it be that democrats are guilty of the same thing. It can’t be true.

“House rules bar demonstrations in the galleries.

On Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Bill Young, R-Florida, spoke on the House floor saying his wife, Beverly, had been “ordered to leave” the gallery during the speech for wearing a shirt that said, “Support Our Troops.”

Posted by: David at February 1, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #119139

As noted previously, Beverly Young (wife of C.W. Bill, chairman of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee) was also removed for a support our troops t-shirt. This doesn’t explain why Sheehan was actually cited with a misdemeanor, however. Whatever the reason, both should have been allowed to stay, assuming that they sat politely and did not disrupt the speech.

Posted by: ant at February 1, 2006 3:18 PM
Comment #119141

(#1) People wanted to demonstrate with banners and t-shirt logos at Clinton’s State of the Unions but they were not allowed because of the rules of the House of Reps. Ahh, the mindless forgetfulness of history from my beloved liberal friends …

(#2) Maybe if Cindy didn’t abandon her son and leave him for his father to raise for political ambitions … and maybe if she didn’t then use her abandoned son’s death to further her political ambitions … maybe she wouldn’t be feeling so much anxiety now.

(#3) Oh, but I’m sure her dead son looks down on her visit to the Communist Chavez with great pride … NOT!!!!!!

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 1, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #119142

All & Especially Sicilian

There are once again two Jacks on this thread. I am Jack the conservative, polite and clever. The other Jack is not. Sorry for any misconceptions.

I think I will change my name to Jacek

Posted by: Jack at February 1, 2006 3:29 PM
Comment #119147

Cindy was arrested for ‘Unlawful conduct’. Again, last i heard ‘House rules’ are not laws. That’s a disconnect.

Mrs. Bill (Young) was reported as yelling to the officers that asked her to leave the floor. She was reported to be yelling about supporting the troops, not protesting. Yet, she was not arrested.

When you compare the two, Cindy didn’t resist and was arrested; Mrs. Young resisted and wasn’t arrested. That’s a disconnect.

Again, the last i heard, T-shirts and the wearing of messages on t-shirts were not illegal. Weren’t people wearing ribbons on their lapels before to show their support for the troops?

The outward display of a message is not uncommon in the chamber.

Posted by: john trevisani at February 1, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #119148

Mrs. Bill (Young) was reported as yelling to the officers that asked her to leave the floor.

On CBS Newsradio this morning, they said that she called the officers IDIOTS.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 1, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #119149

THE ULTIMATE QUESTION:

Is this what the nation should be discussing right now?!!?!?!?

Come on! This is so stupid I can’t see straight. War, deficit, poverty, prescription drug coverage - health care… Are we’re all going on and on about women in t-shirts being arrested. Sorry if I fail to see how removing booth rationalizes either removal. (I don’t think the wife was arrested, but you generally don’t arrest a Representative’s wife if you hope to retire some day.)

The point for me: Stop and Think! (from a educational video for K-2 students I’m producing…) hint: don’t arrest you political foe near TV crews if you can help it - especially for something as American as a protest t-shirt.

Posted by: tony at February 1, 2006 3:49 PM
Comment #119150

Dave

Congress didn’t make any law abridging her right. We all know it is absurd to equate freedom of speech with freedom to speak anywhere at any time. What “Mother Sheehan” was trying to do was create a provocation. It is part of the fascist tool kit of which she is a now a part. She has the right to speak and I saw her try near the Capitol some time back. She drew a crowd or old guys who probably thought they were protesting the Vietnam War, plus the usual winos that hang around the streets.

Speaking of those winos, I bet a lot of them would like to have their say during the State of the Union. How come they can’t? I bet many of them would make more sense than Sheehan. She has fallen off the deep end in her hatred for the President.

Frankly, I want to call attention to Cindy Sheehan. Maybe you don’t see why. Just as well. I bet you also think Howard Dean is effective (for your side).

Posted by: Jacek at February 1, 2006 3:50 PM
Comment #119152

Shorter Sicilian Eagle (and oh my heavens, the doubtless unintended irony of the big-beaked, squawking, all-looks-no-substance Italian bird kills me):

“After 9/11, I became outraged by Chappaquiddick.”

Dude, your illiterate bullet points and ad hominem garbage is just tired. You call for decorum AND mooning in the same sentence, real compelling stuff.

If all we libs have to worry about is “sharks like you eating her up,” then I think we’re in a great place. You got no game, Beagle.

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 1, 2006 3:55 PM
Comment #119156

so much for the kinder gentler SE

Posted by: chantico at February 1, 2006 3:57 PM
Comment #119159

as far as the ‘rules of the house’ go:

I was hired 11 years ago to tape (pro bono for his family) a special session to honor a Congressman who was killed in a car wreck. House rules ban all taping on the floor except for new media, which I was not. The House security came up to discuss this with me (after someone in the media there lodged a complaint.) The Speaker of the House came up and asked me what I was doing. Went I explained, we gave it 3 seconds of thoughts and then thanked me and left. Done deal - and everyone went home happy.

That was a classy way to handle the situation.

Posted by: tony at February 1, 2006 4:06 PM
Comment #119161

sorry - that should read ‘news media’

Posted by: tony at February 1, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #119162

If I was Casey Sheehan I would be rolling in my grave now and wishing that I had been put up for adoption.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 1, 2006 4:09 PM
Comment #119166

Great post Adrienne,

Maybe it would be best if we censored Bush:

2001 - We need to open ANWAR
2002 - We need to open ANWAR
2003 - We need to open ANWAR
2004 - We need to open ANWAR
2005 - We need to open ANWAR
2006 - We need to get off our addiction to oil

2001 - join me in setting a tone of civility and respect in Washington
2004 - Some in this chamber, and in our country, did not support the liberation of Iraq…We also hear doubts that democracy is a realistic goal for the Middle East…it is mistaken, and condescending
2006 - There is no honor in retreat…the false comfort of isolationism

And as for his implying that wiretapping would have prevented Sep 11, I am not shocked but still disgusted.

But he has been consistent on two things - his request for tax credits so the poor can buy health insurance (too laughable to merit a response) and his call to end the double taxation of corporate dividends, a policy that so favors the wealthy that only the staunchest conservatives call for it.

May Providence save us from this insane administration, hell bent on making their mark in history and remaking America in their image, at any cost.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 1, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #119167

Tony

In your case, you also were being classy. Cindy Sheehan was send by her handlers to provoke and she would have done that. She is not classy. She was trying to create political theater. I am glad we didn’t have to watch.

Posted by: Jack at February 1, 2006 4:17 PM
Comment #119176

Sicilianeagle, are you accusing MoveOn.Com of spreading rancor and hatred? What spreads more “rancor and hatred” than invading a country on the basis that there is a slight chance that they may have WMDs? In case you haven’t noticed, people in Iraq are not exactly delighted with us at this point.
Also, what are you people talking about, “Casey Sheehan must be turning in his grave?” Has it not occured to you that he may be happy that his mother loves him and is questioning Bush about why he had to die? That she is willing to go so far for him?

Posted by: Claire Coyne at February 1, 2006 4:34 PM
Comment #119179

“If I was Casey Sheehan I would be rolling in my grave now and wishing that I had been put up for adoption.”

And this is some how honoring his death and sacrafice? I don’t see it.

Posted by: tony at February 1, 2006 4:44 PM
Comment #119181

Jack (the conservative)

Bravo for you.No offense intended.

Arr-Squared

Based on the comments that the mighty Eagle gets every time he posts on this side…he does have game…as he gets blood pressure up from coast to coast..

Other than insulting me,you said nothing of substance.

Adrienne
Congratulations…making the connection between a t-shirt and the Patriot Act……..how about connecting a hamburger and the Wirt-tapping law next…or a nice glass of merlot with the Social Security Act……your imagination surely can connect those dots….

Clair

Yes I am.Move on should be flushed down the toilet.
Try something new.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at February 1, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #119182

“CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - January 28, 2006 - Cindy Sheehan, the peace activist who set up camp near President Bush’s Texas ranch last summer, said Saturday she is considering running against Sen. Dianne Feinstein.”


by CindySheehan
Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 02:07:09 PM PDT

“This was also the year that we also began to hold such Republicans in Democratic clothing like: Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, Joe Biden, and Diane Feinstein (list is my no means all inclusive) accountable for their support of what George is doing in Iraq. When we as Democrats elect our leaders we expect them to reject and loudly repudiate the murderous and corrupt policies of this administration: not support and defend them.”

Cindy PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE Run.

We need more good liberals like you and Ted Kennedy in the Senate. We jsut don’t get enough good sound bites out of Ted. Besides one person with verbal diarrhea is comical, two of you and people might actually start paying attention. This would be a gift to the Republican campaign staff of immeasurable worth.


Posted by: Kirk at February 1, 2006 4:58 PM
Comment #119188

SicEagle, the rounds of applause were a demonstration of support for the President. The Democrats round of applause for mentioning his failed attempt to eliminate Soc. Sec. was also a demonstration against the President. His speech was interrupted dozens of times by demonstration called applause.

So, your point falls flat that Cindy’s T-shirt didn’t belong. Her T-Shirt would not have interrupted the President’s speech. Her T-Shirt was less demonstration that the Democrats applause for his mention of Soc. Sec.

Sorry, this is abridgement of the 1st Amendment within the halls of our own Congress. Pure and Simple. And I for one, hope to hell Cindy sues the government over it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 1, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #119193

David
You missed the point.Sheehan has a right to wear a t-shirt,I agree…what I don’t agree is her being used as a prop by the left at the State of the Union.

She has become a characature of lunacy,pure and simple

Posted by: sicilianeagle at February 1, 2006 5:24 PM
Comment #119195

I thought we were fighting for freedom and decomcracy around the world.
It is so sad that we bash a fallen solders mother when she speaks out and she doesn’t agree or follow party lines of the president.
You want too sensor her voice: shame on you! How do you know she was going to do anything to disrupt the president speech.It seems to me you convicted her before anything happened. If you don’t like what she has to say than don’t listen or voice your own opinion. Thats your choice. But don’t surppress hers.
Doesn’t it seem like the republicans like to bash or surpress our vet, of war. McCain, Powel, Kerry and Murtha.
Bush’s sotu said (paragragh 22) A nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing it’s people. Who is he talking about. It’s starting to sound like us instead of Iran. I guess some of you would like it to be like N.Republic of Vietnam or Republic of China where the people have to stand up and applaud loudly for 5 minutes or more. If you want a pep rally go to a High school rally. Ra Ra Re KIck’m in the knee, Ra Ra Ras Kick’m in the ass. There’s my cheer.

Posted by: js at February 1, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #119203

It would be a wise move to report this episode in its entire truth. Cindy was arrested because she refused to leave quietly, not because she was wearing a T-shirt.

Being selective with the facts doesn’t help this matter.

Posted by: Patrick McGuire at February 1, 2006 5:51 PM
Comment #119211

Ms Sheehan is not being manipulated by anyone, she is a willing partner and has become a loud voice for her cause. What good would it do for her to shun those who share her opinions?

However, I like her methods, she counts on the Bushtapo to do the wrong thing every time. And they do.

Charges dropped anyway, and Mrs. Young got an apology.

Posted by: MyPetGoat at February 1, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #119215

Cindy Sheehan has achieved her purpose—to get noticed. Now noticed once again, she will surely draw the respect of some and the ire of others.

Is she honoring her son’s legacy, or his wishes? We will never know. We do know that he served his country, and re-enlisted of his own free will. That would not indicate a dissatisfaction with his service for his country. Ms. Sheehan’s family disagrees with her stance and does not support her goals. Their loss is the same as hers—perhaps their silence speaks just as loudly as her protesting.

The Senate Chamber is not the place for such protesting. Her freedom of speech was not taken away, any more than someone who yells “fire” in a theatre. Those wishing for her to sue, or for this to become a bigger issue, are really just trying to find a stupid bandwagon to jump on to. Its really idiotic.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 1, 2006 6:18 PM
Comment #119220

SicEagle, Bush has become just such a caricature too, but, I didn’t see anyone barring his entry to the House.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 1, 2006 6:28 PM
Comment #119221

“Its really idiotic.”

i supported her efforts initially, however, i must agree that she seems to be somewhat excessive. i consider this yet more political maneuvering, but not ‘idiotic’. i don’t know the full details of this latest episode, but if she was attempting to disrupt the proceedings (by means other than wearing a t-shirt), then it was wise to remove her. otherwise joe,

“Their loss is the same as hers—perhaps their silence speaks just as loudly as her protesting.
The Senate Chamber is not the place for such protesting. Her freedom of speech was not taken away, any more than someone who yells “fire” in a theatre.”

i agree.

Posted by: diogenes at February 1, 2006 6:28 PM
Comment #119223

Hello all,
Not much to say this time. I really don’t see too much in the way of intelligent arguments. Apparently, anyone who disagrees withthe Bush Regime is a leftist radical. Bush is so far to the right that Eisenhower would look like a leftist.
It does strike me as quite ironic (shocking, demoralizing, and sad) that the citizens of this country are strong-armed into giving up our freedoms in the name of promoting freedom and “democracy” in the world. Let them try a real democracy. What we have has been prostituted for the profits of multinational corporations who fire American workers and exploit third world innocents.

So, is it an oligarchal plutocracy, or a plutocratic oligarchy? Or maybe we’re going straight to fascism.

Posted by: Billy Bob at February 1, 2006 6:30 PM
Comment #119224

Patrick, why was she asked to leave in the first place. Saying she refused to leave quietly doesn’t address the issue. I would not have left quietly either if I had a right to be there, as she did, as guest of a representative.

Sheehan’s very presence has become a magnet to pull the obscene and unconstitutional intent right out of conservatives for all to see in the headlines. May Cindy’s presence ever be felt where conservatives congregate, for she serves the same purpose as a jew entering a congregation of Gestapo and SS. Their response is intolerable, and allows the world to see them for what they really are. Enemies of all who are not of their kind.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 1, 2006 6:32 PM
Comment #119230

Wearing a T-shirt that disagrees with political ideals and yelling fire in a theater are in no way similar. Not same city, ballpark, nor sport.

LOL…All the dissent-crushers had to do was ignore her. Instead they took the Bat-signal and shined it on her. Shit, she got as much after speech coverage as Bush.

Yelling fire in a theater can and will cause a stampede of panicked people looking for an exit. Crushing, killing, and injuring many in the process.

How are they the same?

Posted by: MyPetGoat at February 1, 2006 6:48 PM
Comment #119234

CPAdams, thanks.

David Remer, last post, nail on the head.

My Pet Goat, yours too.

Sic Eagle, nice troll-work.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 1, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #119237

“Its really idiotic”.

There’s worse things to be as your post demonstrate on a consistent basis, but keep coming back, I need a reminder of what I could have been every now and then.

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at February 1, 2006 6:53 PM
Comment #119242

One other thing,
Much has been said about the sanctity of the chamber. I agree with exercising decorum and acting civil. But, when the President can lie so shamelessly at a time when he is required to deliver a report about the state of our nation,do rules have much meaning? Watching last night I was wishing someone could throw something(like Bush’s ass out of office). We’re supposed to sit politely through this crap. Some of you will reference Bill Clinton’s battle with the truth. Seems to me He lied to save his reputation and honor of his family. Bush and his henchmen lie to scare Americans into handing over the balance of power so that they may profit from war mongering. Bill lied about screwing Lewinski, Bush lies about screwing us.

SERFS_UP@msn.com

Posted by: Billy Bob at February 1, 2006 6:58 PM
Comment #119243

Billy Bob, nope, we are heading straight toward an anti-incumbency movement in this country that has not been seen before. In the past anti-incumbent votes were for the opposition party. This one coming is going to be truly anti-incumbent, meaning against incumbents regardless of party.

In the end, we will have politicians who work for us and the nation again, instead of for the wealthy power brokers, lobbyists, and campaign donors.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 1, 2006 7:01 PM
Comment #119247

“Bill lied about screwing Lewinski, Bush lies about screwing us.”

i’m sorry, nothing significant to say. i just felt that needed to be repeated; in fact, that phrase deserves to be put on a license plate.

Posted by: Diogenes at February 1, 2006 7:08 PM
Comment #119249

..er… bumper sticker (it’s hard to blog while laughing).

Posted by: Diogenes at February 1, 2006 7:09 PM
Comment #119252

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Benjamin Franklin

Posted by: layne45 at February 1, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #119254

Oh geesh, is this how low it has gotten? This is the extent of political debate in the US, the equivalent of two schoolyard kids kicking sand at each other?

Seriously, both sides on this one have made me weep for the future of our society.

Sheehan was asked to leave. So was another. Both for wearing t-shirts with printed messages on them, something that is not allowed in the chamber and never has been. Neither are signs, poster, plackards, etc. The simple reason is that in the hall the focus is suppose to be on the debate going on at the podium, not be distracted by cheap political slogans strewn throughout the hall. Imagine if everyone with a political ‘bent’ brought in their own signs, t-shirts and slogans? It would be a cacophony of nonsense and even LESS would be getting done than now.

No, she should not have been arrested. She should have been asked to leave, that is it. If she had just covered up her shirt there is no way to be sure she wouldn’t ‘whip it out’ in the middle of the speech when trying to remove her would have been an even worse disruption. But I don’t see a reason to arrest her unless she got disruptive, refused to leave or threw a hissy for not being allowed to go back in.

But to make this about ‘free speech’ is one of the most disgusting ploys I’ve seen and cheapens real suppression of dissent that exists throughout the world. No one has a right to say anything they want, anywhere at any time, we all know and agree to that. And obviously no one is shutting up Cindy, she just keeps going on and on and on and on…

And can we PLEASE stop talking about Cindy Sheehan? I know I asked this about six months ago, but come on already, any notion that she is worth the 15 minutes she has blown through now should be burned into nothingness by now, even to the most partisan of either side who can’t think without their party holding their hand.

It’s enough to make a man weep.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 1, 2006 7:17 PM
Comment #119258

Actually, I like to talk about Cindy Sheehan. I admit that I find her annoying and stupid, but I like that she is the face of the anti-war opposition.

If all the opposition can muster is someone like Sheehan, if we can keep on seeing her with the likes of Hugo and Ramsey Clark I think that is just great.

Posted by: Jacek at February 1, 2006 7:27 PM
Comment #119263

A couple of times in the past when folks were going on that “get rid of all incombents” jag I pointed out that I was very happy with my congresswoman. Right now I have never been prouder of her. I am talking about Lynn Woolsey, theCongresswoman that gave Mrs. Sheehan her ticket. She has been against the war from the beginnig and so has her district. Shes probably getting deluged by hate mail at this point so please send her an atta girl and maybe some financial help for her upcomming election. She she is very popular here and if anything this will help. Yes there are anti-war,solidly Democratic districts.
As for you Rush-head neo-con interlopers you should definetly do all you can to support whoever the Reps can throw against her. Send them lots and lots of money,even if that means not sending money to other candidates. Heck,sell your house and cars and send all proceeds to try to defeat her. Maybe you could give 100$ or so to every voter here to vote against her. Its illegal but you could say its for national security so its legal. I am sure Alito would back you up. You can do it. Teach us communist,homo,pinko,n——r lovin liberal cowards a lesson.

Posted by: Bill at February 1, 2006 7:35 PM
Comment #119272

sicilianeagle,

You wrote:

It wasn’t Cindy Sheehan there.

It was a manipulated Cindy there.

A Cindy Sheehan who has been manipulated from the get go by Move On .Org and others bent on sowing rancor and hatred.

That is your opinion - but lets just assume that you are right - what has that got to do with issue? Since when is it illegal to wear a tee shirt? Since when is it illegal to quietly and peacefully express your views? It would have been more interesting if she had not been wearing a tee shirt but I did not see this anyhow because I was at a protest against the Bush Regime. And I do not have time to discuss the issue now because I need to attempt to finish a home remodeling project in the hopes of attending another protest in Washington this Saturday. For people who are interested in protesting, details are available at www.worldcantwait.net

Posted by: Ray G. at February 1, 2006 7:53 PM
Comment #119274

Ray, you need to read…

No public political messages are allowed in the house chamber because the attention is suppose to be on the discourse at the podium. A supporter of the war was told to leave as well.

She was not prevented from saying anything, she was actually given more of a voice from her efforts. Had she actually followed the rules as they are written (or had the ability to understand them or understand they include her as well) then she wouldn’t have worn the shirt to the speech. There was no violation of free speech, trust me I would have been one of the first ones pointing it out if there were.

Please, keep protesting all you want. But keep your hysterics out of the area of reasoned debate, ok?

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 1, 2006 8:02 PM
Comment #119275

Dear Taliban Tony,
Are you at it again, everyone has the right to freely speak, not the right to freely speak without consequences. Be American, be Republican. Democrats are losers.
With Love,
William

Posted by: William at February 1, 2006 8:08 PM
Comment #119278

“Teach us communist,homo,pinko,n——r lovin liberal cowards a lesson.”

*smack* - but seriously, one good politician among a multitude of thieving, lying, criminals does not a government make.

“Be American, be Republican. Democrats are losers.”

yes, and republicans are liars - which *you* might argue is american, but you would be wrong (again).

be american, think for yourself.

Posted by: Diogenes at February 1, 2006 8:26 PM
Comment #119281

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/01/sheehan.arrest/index.html

Posted by: abi at February 1, 2006 8:30 PM
Comment #119283

Yes, Communist, Homos, etc….
I’m thinking for myself, your the one quoting. Even your lord and savior bill clinton said there were WMD’s, is this what you are refering to? Flip Kerry said the same thing! What other “lies”?

Posted by: William at February 1, 2006 8:34 PM
Comment #119287

Play nice tony

Posted by: Rocky at February 1, 2006 8:42 PM
Comment #119289

William, knock off the character assasination remarks like “Taliban Tony” or, you will lose your privilege to participate here.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at February 1, 2006 8:43 PM
Comment #119290

Tony, your flame-baiting comments will continue to be deleted, as they are no longer welcome here.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at February 1, 2006 8:45 PM
Comment #119293

Sheehan’s right of free speech wasn’t violated. She has repeatedly expressed her contempt for America, as is her right. By entering the House chamber she agreed to abide by the rules of conduct within. When she violated the code of decency she was properly removed. Of course, such behavior is to be expected from a no-class anti American rabble rouser like her.(calling her anti American is based on statements she has made, not on opposition to Bush.) Her son must be spinning in his grave.

Posted by: steve at February 1, 2006 8:52 PM
Comment #119302

Pray tell, steve, where are those rules of decency for visitors posted? I have never seen them. Please enlighten. In fact, I never even saw a dress code? Where is that located steve?

Are you aware that a Representatives wife who supports the IRaq war and war a t-shirt supporting our troops and the war was ALSO ejected? How does that make you feel?

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 1, 2006 9:08 PM
Comment #119311

You can’t say anything bad about this woman. Sure, some of her actions are controversial, but she does have her 1st ammendment rights.

Should she have worn the shirt? No, probably not. But when some of you resort to calling her names, that’s ridiculous. She lost her son. That’s a mothers worst nightmare.

If I lost my son I would feel the same way, especially if it was for being in a war the United States had no right to be in.

You can dislike what she is doing all you want. But don’t say anything about her as a person or her being brainwashed.

Posted by: camelboy at February 1, 2006 9:22 PM
Comment #119314

“Even your lord and savior bill clinton said there were WMD’s, is this what you are refering to?”

how very presumptuous. must i attach an (I) to my name in order for you to abandon your useless assumptions? i am quoting because you have said nothing worthy of comment. your automatic assumption that because i disagree with you i must be a democrat simply proves the nature of your opinion on this or any other issue; pre-programmed.

bush says he has broken no law. he has. it’s a fact. he says he wishes to protect our freedom, but in order to do so we must sacrifice our freedom. this is simply a paradoxical lie. fighting-freedom rather than freedom-fighting. liberated from the perils of freedom. oxymoron.

he declares that he is spreading freedom throughout the world…but one can not give what one does not possess. the question is not,

“What other “lies”?” yet instead, ‘has there been anything but’?


and by the way,

“Yes, Communist, Homos, etc….
I’m thinking for myself.”

i couldn’t let that one pass. thinking for yourself, but not straining any muscles in the process, i see.

your association of democrats with communists, homos, etc., is unlikely to garner much favor when posting on the democrat blog, so i must assume you are here merely to agitate. feel free to respond; however, i must inform you that, for me, this conversation ends now.


Posted by: diogenes at February 1, 2006 9:22 PM
Comment #119320

Camelboy, within reason, I see nothing wrong with saying things “about her as a person.”

Especially when she has a great many very nasty things to say about other people and never misses an opportunity to do so. You can’t come onto the public stage and attack people as harshly as Sheehan does and expect to be immune from taking any criticism yourself.

She even calls Hillary Clinton, of all people, a warmonger. And what does she about the vast majority in the military who support the Iraq effort—that they’re brainwashed.

She’s been dishing this stuff out for many months now, and at this point we’ve all heard what Cindy Sheehan to say.

Ever think that any of the other mothers who have lost sons in Iraq and who support the war, including those Iraqi mothers who lost sons to the tyranny of Saddam Hussein are ever going to have hundreds of cameras, and microphones shoved in their races like Sheehan has? Of course not.

Sheehan has every right to run around the country expressing her views and embarrassing the Democrats who once supported her but for whom now she directs such vitriol.

Can’t wait to sit back and watch Sheehan’s Senate campaign against Feinstein. I hope there’ll be a debate between her and Feinstein—that would be something to see.

Posted by: sanger at February 1, 2006 9:42 PM
Comment #119321

We already had the obligatory out of context Franklin quote, so please don’t do it again.

We all willingly give up some rights to live in society. We don’t have an absolute right to speech. Most people wanted to listen to the president speak. A crazy woman in the gallery is an imposition. People like Cindy Sheehan who think they have the right to disrupt offend me. My interpretation of the Constitution is that it does not protect that speech she was trying to do. I am not a legal scholar, but the Supreme Court tends to agree with me. Our definition of rights changes with the times. Slippery slopes are good for skiing, but they are over used as analogies.

We sometimes forget the other side of the speech equation. If the Cindy Sheehan’s disrupt civil debate, WE can’t have one. And when you disrupt civil debate you degenerate into anarchy or tyranny. So the irony is that if you push free expression far enough you lose it.

Today I was running near the Capitol I saw a bunch of people making noise and blowing whistles. I don’t know what they were complaining about and I really didn’t care, but I didn’t care for them straddling my running trail. They were exercising their right of free speech. I ran through their group and put some of them off their stride. They complained. Of course, I was just exercising my right to free speech (as they define it - marching). You see it is kind of a degeneration. I enjoyed the confrontation more than they did, but neither of us was engaged in a real debate.

Speech is speech. Theater is a matter of opinion.

Posted by: Jack at February 1, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #119322

steve:
“By entering the House chamber she agreed to abide by the rules of conduct within. When she violated the code of decency she was properly removed.”

Nope. She violated no rules of conduct or decency, and she was improperly removed. Here are a few quotes from abi’s CNN link, since you didn’t bother to read it:

On Wednesday afternoon, U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said neither woman should have been removed from the chamber. “We made a mistake,” he told CNN.
“Just wearing a T-shirt is not unlawful,” Gainer said. Wearing a T-shirt and engaging in actions meant to draw attention to the shirt is against the law, he said, but neither woman was doing so.

Gainer said he has attempted to reach Sheehan to tell her he is recommending that charges be dropped and to express his willingness to talk to her at her convenience, but has only been able to leave her a message.

“Since when is free speech conditional on whether you agree with the president?” Woolsey said in a statement issued Wednesday.
“Cindy Sheehan, who gave her own flesh and blood for this disastrous war, did not violate any rules of the House of Representatives,” Woolsey’s statement said. “She merely wore a shirt that highlighted the human cost of the Iraq war and expressed a view different than that of the president.”

I think this is a good example of the kind of confusion that results (and that we can expect will continue,) from the unconstitutional abridgment of our rights from Bushco’s Patriot Act(s), said the liberal lady with a belligerent glare from the confines of a “free speech zone”. 8^/

Posted by: Adrienne at February 1, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #119328

Dissent is still legal. Its idiocy that should be a criminal offence. If it was all you Democrats would have to keep your mouths shut.

Posted by: commander jc at February 1, 2006 10:04 PM
Comment #119330

Adrienne, since two people expressing completely opposite views were removed from the chamber for their t-shirts, its pretty far-fetched to start connecting this to the Patriot Act or saying that any specific political view was being singled out.

As to the Patriot Act being “Bushco’s” have a look at who voted for it originally and who have now voted to extend it for six more weeks. The Patriot Act is not an act of the executive. It is, so far, an overwhelmingly bi-partisan act of our duly elected Congress.

I tend to agree that something political on a T-shirt shouldn’t be enough grounds for tossing somebody out, and the Capitol Police seem to agree and admit they made an error. Fine.

In my opinion, it’s pretty tacky to wear any kind of T-shirt, even a totally apolitical one, to the State of the Union address, but whatever… some people are just tacky and tackiness isn’t against the law.

As for why Sheehan was charged and the other individual wasn’t, the first reports I read about the episode said that Sheehan wasn’t cooperating with officers and became verbally abusive, calling them idiots.

Again, that isn’t necessarily illegal, but it explains why one person was charged and one wasn’t. Policemen don’t normally take well to being called names, and they’re usually the ones who make the decision on whether or not to file charges. I’m not saying they were right to do so, but it makes sense and doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with Sheehan’s politics.

I’ve been pulled over a number of times by the traffic cops, and have found that being respectful and cooperative gives one a pretty good chance of avoiding a ticket or getting off with something relatively minor. I can only imagine what I’d have been charged with if instead of being respectful I started calling the officers names.

Posted by: sanger at February 1, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #119342

The fact is that the constitution states that freedom is a right given to everyone EVERYWHERE. Not just where it’s convenient for political leaders.

There have been instances where protesters have been arrested for not staying in a “free speech zone.” Which is ridiculous because as far as I knew ALL of America is a Free Speech Zone. And all they wanted is for their message to be heard, and it’s not likely going to when the “free speech zone is 4 blocks away from the event you’re protesting. These people are being arrested because they are a political threat, under the pretense of being a “security threat” or “behaving unlawfully.” I find this to violate our civil rights, which give us the right to free speech and peaceful protest.

Bush has been limiting free speech since 2003. At presidential events around the country, the Secret Service discriminated against protesters in violation of their free speech rights. Anti-Bush Protesters were moved far away from officials while Bush supporters were allowed to remain closer; or everyone expressing any point of view sent to a ” free speech zone,” commonly too far away to even been seen or heard by the politicians or media.

It’s not like they could say that it was because they were concerned about the President’s security, because anyone wanting to could have just carried a pro-bush sign.

See ACLU for more info.

It seems to me that the whole time Bush has been in office his agenda has been about limiting freedom. On May 21st, 1999 he actually said: “There ought to be limits to freedom.”

He’s made it obvious he sees dissent as unpatriotic. (Thomas Jefferson disagreed; he said dissent was the HIGHEST form of patriotism.) He doesn’t believe in a woman’s right to choose. He seems to think all Americans should be Christian. He assumes he’s above the law and can spy on American citizens. That’s freedom of speech, choice, religion and to live our lives in private and in peace.

What happened to the oath “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.?”
The Constitution Reads:
1st. Amendment) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
4th Amendment) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Just my opinion… But I’ll get off of my soapbox now.


Posted by: Elise Fisher at February 1, 2006 10:56 PM
Comment #119348

Sanger,

“As for why Sheehan was charged and the other individual wasn’t, the first reports I read about the episode said that Sheehan wasn’t cooperating with officers and became verbally abusive, calling them idiots.”

I’m not aware of any “news” reports stating anything other than the fact that she “ignored” those that confronted her. Who reported that she became abusive?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 1, 2006 11:10 PM
Comment #119352

Sanger:

Actually, it was the congressman’s wife who called them idiots.

Posted by: womanmarine at February 1, 2006 11:14 PM
Comment #119354

David,

“Are you aware that a Representatives wife who supports the IRaq war and war a t-shirt supporting our troops and the war was ALSO ejected? How does that make you feel?”

As she should have been. House Rules forbid these things Pro or Con in the House Chambers. Break the rules suffer the consequences.

Posted by: Kirk at February 1, 2006 11:20 PM
Comment #119356

Elise, you cannot cite—because it’s not there—where the Consitution says that “freedom is a right given to everyone EVERYWHERE.”

That’s just not true. Saying that it’s in the Constitution doesn’t make it so.

Everybody has a right to express their opinions, but the time and place where it happens, especially when it involves public places and government buildings, can be restricted in all kinds of ways, and this is nothing new.

You can bash Bush on the internet, in your workplace or in the media to your heart’s content, and you have every right to do so.

You cannot, however, stand on a ladder and shout the same opinions into the President’s bedroom from the White House lawn.

You or I can attend a jury trial. Does that mean that we can attend a trial and wear T-shirts or wave banners that say “John Smith is INNOCENT!”

Or for that matter, “Johh Smith is GUILTY—HANG HIM!”

Can you imagine what kinds of circuses would result if your standard of absolute and total freedom of speech at all times were the rule?

To demonstrate, there are times when you need a permit, and it’s common sense that at at times any one group’s demonstration needs to be removed to a distance where it doesn’t infringe on the rights of other groups to excercise their own free speech.

The next time a Democrat is elected president, there will be all kinds of people who’d love nothing more to stand in the front row during his/her Inaugural Address waving placards and chanting slogans. But they will be FORBIDDEN from doing so because that is not the time or place. And it’s entirely appropriate that they will be forbidden from doing so.

Posted by: sanger at February 1, 2006 11:22 PM
Comment #119357


Charges against antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan, who was arrested after an incident involving a T-shirt she wore to the State of the Union address, will be dropped, officials told NBC News Wednesday.

U.S. Capitol Police took Sheehan away in handcuffs and charged her with unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor, when she showed up to President Bush’s address Tuesday night wearing a shirt that read, “2245 Dead. How many more?” — a reference to the number of soldiers killed in Iraq.

But Capitol Police will ask the U.S. attorney’s office to drop the charges, NBC News’ Mike Viqueira reported Wednesday.

“We screwed up,” a top Capitol Police official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

He said Sheehan didn’t violate any rules or laws.

Sheehan, whose son Casey died in Iraq, was not the only one ejected from the House gallery. The wife of a powerful Republican congressman was also asked to leave, but she was not arrested.

Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young of Florida — chairman of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee — was removed from the gallery because she was wearing a T-shirt that read, “Support the Troops — Defending Our Freedom.”

The Capitol Police official said officers never should have approached Young.


Posted by: Aldous at February 1, 2006 11:23 PM
Comment #119367

Womanmarine, you’re correct. According to the St. Petersburg Times, it was the other woman who called officers idiots.

It was a very foolish thing for her to say, and I suspect that the reason it didn’t result in charges was because the argument took place in a hallway outside of the chambers after she’d already cooperated with orders to leave.

Sheehan, however, apparently didn’t even respond to the order to leave and had to be placed in handcuffs in order to be removed.

At the end of the day, both were removed—perhaps wrongly—and it doesn’t appear that either is going to be charged with anything.

Personally, I think they should have BOTH been removed but not charged with anything.

If a precedent is set where people are allowed to display slogans during the State of the Union address—no matter who is the President in future years—the place is going to look like a stadium during a college football game.

Posted by: sanger at February 1, 2006 11:42 PM
Comment #119375

“If a precedent is set where people are allowed to display slogans during the State of the Union address—no matter who is the President in future years—the place is going to look like a stadium during a college football game.”

- i agree.

perhaps the politicians could take on sponsors, and sport ads for Pepsi and Miller to fund their exponentially escalating campaigns? it would easily fit the current political trend.

Posted by: diogenes at February 2, 2006 12:00 AM
Comment #119380

sanger:
“Adrienne, since two people expressing completely opposite views were removed from the chamber for their t-shirts,”

Only one was arrested, roughed up and taken off to jail. For no good reason.

“its pretty far-fetched to start connecting this to the Patriot Act or saying that any specific political view was being singled out.”

In my view, the Patriot Act(s) have called many of our previously unquestioned Constitutional freedoms into doubt and will continue to do so.

“As to the Patriot Act being “Bushco’s” have a look at who voted for it originally and who have now voted to extend it for six more weeks.”

Both sides are guilty of voting for something they didn’t even read. That it was passed immediately following 9/11 is not an excuse. Russ Feingold is the only one who read it and did not vote for it — he gets a pass in my book.

“The Patriot Act is not an act of the executive.”

The two primary drafters of the first Patriot Act legislation were Assistant Attorney General Viet D. Dinh and future Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. It was indeed an action of the executive.

“It is, so far, an overwhelmingly bi-partisan act of our duly elected Congress.”

Yeah, so what?

“the first reports I read about the episode said that Sheehan wasn’t cooperating with officers and became verbally abusive, calling them idiots.”

The first reports were all wrong, obviously. If she’d been at all uncooperative or abusive, they probably wouldn’t be dropping all of the charges now.

“Again, that isn’t necessarily illegal, but it explains why one person was charged and one wasn’t.”

No, it doesn’t.

“Policemen don’t normally take well to being called names,”

She didn’t. All she did was take off her jacket and they hauled her away.

“I’m not saying they were right to do so, but it makes sense and doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with Sheehan’s politics.”

I think the fact that she was (wrongfully) arrested had everything to do with her politics.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 2, 2006 12:10 AM
Comment #119381

Diogenes, no kidding. Can’t wait for those corporate sponsorships.

Maybe the Budweiser, King of Beers State of the Union Address, or the Waffle House SOFTUA if John Kerry is ever elected president.

Posted by: sanger at February 2, 2006 12:12 AM
Comment #119382

So the cops apologize and say they were wrong, but republican posters here just can’t let it go. No surprise. I don’t think I’ve ever heard you guys say you wrong.

Posted by: Max at February 2, 2006 12:15 AM
Comment #119384

Adrienne, if you can spin that much without getting dizzy, then my hat’s off to you, but you can’t change the facts.

Posted by: sanger at February 2, 2006 12:16 AM
Comment #119389

“Adrienne, if you can spin that much without getting dizzy, then my hat’s off to you, but you can’t change the facts.”

Hilarious troll.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 2, 2006 12:29 AM
Comment #119397

This thread demonstrates the media bias and the left’s willingness to be inclined to believe anything that puts a stain on Bush. And for that, you are all to be pittied.
Sheehan was not the only person removed from chambers for wearing a t-shirt.
“police removed Sheehan and Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. “Bill” Young, R-Fla., from the visitors gallery Tuesday night.”
Beverly Young’s shirt supported the war and she was also removed.
WAKE UP! The media doesn’t care about truth or fairness. They care about getting bush out of office.
But you are all so fast to pick up the slop the media throws you and fling it all over yourselves. It’s sad. You are sad. And angry.

Posted by: Jeff at February 2, 2006 1:03 AM
Comment #119406

Sinday was wrong and should have been removed as she was. She claims she is having her laywers look into the matter. She feels her rights have been violated. Check out who will pay her legal fees - Its move on dot org and Presidente Chevez.

Love the Dems and their suporters - it gets better every day.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index_594.html

Posted by: Reporter for Doody at February 2, 2006 1:43 AM
Comment #119411

Regardless of the Conservative Spin on this, the plain truth is that this Administration does not allow any opposing opinion in any forum. How many have been ejected from taxpaper funded speeches for wearing a PIN let alone a TShirt? How many are ejected when their CARS have anti-Bush material? The Right has people roving the Parking Lot looking for Stickers now.

This is Freedom. Republican Style.

Posted by: Aldous at February 2, 2006 1:52 AM
Comment #119426

Really, Aldous?

Any forum? I notice a lot of ‘opposing opinion’ of the Republican viewpoint on THIS forum, I wonder how that fits in with your assertion…

Scripted and planned out television and large media events by politicians? Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting the Bush is the first guy on the block to think of that?

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 2, 2006 2:52 AM
Comment #119434

When its Taxpayer Money paying for it…

Try putting a Anti-Bush Sticker on your car and attending a Taxpayer-Funded Bush Rally.

Posted by: Aldous at February 2, 2006 3:14 AM
Comment #119469

I wonder what all of you who have been defending absolute control of speech at presidential function are thinking now that the Capitol Police have said it was all a mistake on both counts.

It should matter whether the chambers of government are open to orderly, peaceful expression of opinions. Doesn’t do much good to have a democracy if our leaders can’t or won’t listen to what folks have to say.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 2, 2006 7:13 AM
Comment #119474

Stephen:
It really doesn’t matter what the capital police say now, Sheehan’s civil rights were violated and she was wrongfully arrested and detained.

But the ‘ends’ justify the means. They wanted Cindy out of there; they got her out of there. Saying afterwards that they were wrong, is of little consequence, outside of the fact that Sheehan’s legal team will use the Capital Police’s statements in court.

It is a sad day for the first amendment.

Posted by: john trevisani at February 2, 2006 7:30 AM
Comment #119477


All

Ok,ok,your collective wisdom got to me.I recant.Cindy is Gahandi.Here is a a terrific comparasion:

Mahatma Gandhi, as you know, walked barefoot most of the time, which produced an impressive set of calluses on his feet. He also ate very
little, which made him rather frail and with his odd diet, he suffered from bad breath.
This made him (Oh, man, this is so bad, it’s good)….


A super calloused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis.

Thus speaks the mighty Eagle


Posted by: sicilianeagle at February 2, 2006 7:44 AM
Comment #119491

The 1st report I read said Cindy was wearing a shirt over the T-shirt and removed it after she sat down.I can’t read minds,but ,that makes me wonder if she knew the rules and tried to break them.Also a Senators wife was prevented from entering for wearing a support the troops T-shirt.Two sides of an issue displayed and neither allowed.Cindy was released and both were apologized to for the misinterpretation of the rules of conduct.The rule states no demonstrating in the gallery.In Cindy’s case it was protest against the war,in the case of the Senator’s wife support for the Troops,therefore, support for the President,both, valid points of view and both have the right to those views,but,in the judgement of the 2 officials,a peaceful demonstration but a demonstration none the less and not allowed in the Gallery.A sign on a stick or on a shirt is still a sign!

Posted by: RDAVIDC at February 2, 2006 8:30 AM
Comment #119506

Are you always this origianl Sic?


And this one is priceless:

Sinday was wrong and should have been removed as she was. She claims she is having her laywers look into the matter. She feels her rights have been violated. Check out who will pay her legal fees - Its move on dot org and Presidente Chevez. Love the Dems and their suporters - it gets better every day. http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index_594.html Posted by: Reporter for Doody at February 2, 2006 01:43 AM

Manages to tie togeteher “sindy”, moveon.org, Predient Chavez, and Michael Moore, all in one great troll hurl. Good going Doody, almost got one thing right “Love the Dems and their suporters - it gets they’re getting better every day.”. ROTFLMAO

Posted by: Dave at February 2, 2006 8:54 AM
Comment #119532

Dave

Plagerized….purely plagerized…but hey…you try fitting that into a discussion…

Posted by: sicilianeagle at February 2, 2006 9:43 AM
Comment #119538

The SOTU is just more of the same. Bush saying what the country wants to hear. We are going to do something about this and about that. And getting no results. Because this president will do what he wants when he wants and to hell with what the country wants. It was pretty pathetic when it first started it showed the whole audience, probably about halfway thru it it showed only the side that the republicans were sitting and only when Bush said something that everyone actually agreed on did they show the whole audience again. Did anyone else see the look of almost total dislike on his face when not everyone fell into line like good little puppets that he expects them to be because he has a “good idea?” Thats the problem to many of our congress ppl dems and reps alike have no minds of their own. He says something and just because it comes out of his mouth it has to be true so no one will stand up and say this is wrong or lets take a little time to talk about or investigate this. As far as the line veto item, why would he even use it, he has yet to veto ANYTHING that came across his desk. The guest program is a good idea to the point of who is going to be responsible for what happens if they get hurt on the job or anywhere for that fact? Are they going to leave it for the taxpayer to pay their bills like they do now? If thats the case I will move to Mexico denounce my citizenship then come across as a “guest” and get free medical care, and since I would be here temporally get my food and heating paid for also. Lets give them more consideration than we do to the working class here in the US. We would pay for thier health care, their daycare and if so needed help them to get a car and help to keep it maintained so that they could go to work. But heaven forbid someone from the middle class needs one of those things they have to, if they are able to pay for those things themselves, if not they are indebted in some cases for years to come, paying the bare minimum for their hospital bills if god forbid they get sick. Or in some cases they don’t go to the doctors or hospitals at all because they can’t afford to.

Posted by: Sherri at February 2, 2006 9:52 AM
Comment #119556

Moslems are out in force actually threatening the lives of those who might poorly represent or allow the comical representation of their progenitor. And Bush is The Great Supressor? Hey, what the hell, if you’ve got a straw man, you might as well kick him.

As for Gandhi, he was a misguided but successful Indian Nationalist who wielded more personal power than any individual who ever lived. Of course he’s a hero to the anti-establishment, they envy that kind of unilateral power. Yet his success led to a brutal war that smolders still and still threatens the lives of many millions.

Posted by: highlama at February 2, 2006 10:23 AM
Comment #119570

Banning people from wearing Joe Camel, Budweiser, Confederate flags or gun issues on their shirts is ok, but not allowing extremists to wear anti “flavor of the day” t-shirts is wrong.
If it were nothing but “support the troops” slogans being aired, the left would be screaming about how the SOTU was not the place.
Liberal hypocrisy at its finest, again.

Presidents speech to the nation, aired on public television. You allow her to wear her shirt, you gotta allow the joker wearing his “Fuck clinton” shirt.

Even if you dont support Bush, you should still repect the office he holds.
There is a time and place, this was neither.

Posted by: kctim at February 2, 2006 11:18 AM
Comment #119580

Even if you dont support Bush, you should still repect the office he holds.
There is a time and place, this was neither.

These two sentences so utterly miss the entire point..and are systematic of the right’s response to most any criticism of Bush..it’s exasperating.

Its NOT OKAY to arrest someone for exercising political speech. Sheehan was not breaking rules by sitting in the House Gallery with a tshirt on. I have sat in the House Gallery with a tshirt and shorts on myself.

She was removed and arrested for wearing a tshirt. Period. This is not acceptable in the United States of America. Republicans are now defending the Administration for blatant violations of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Was Sheehan’s tshirt appropriate? Arguable. Was it disrespectful of Bush? Arguable. Was it appropriate to arrest her for nothing more than showing up in a protest tshirt? Absolutely not.

Posted by: carla at February 2, 2006 11:59 AM
Comment #119582

“Even if you dont support Bush, you should still repect the office he holds.”

I will if he will.

Posted by: tony at February 2, 2006 12:00 PM
Comment #119585

One small point about Sheehan’s t-shirt. Wasn’t she given the ticket to get in to the SOTU by the California Rep. while she was at the rally? Can anyone argue that the t-shirt was appropriate for a protest rally?

Has anyone considered the possibility that Sheehan simply went straight from the rally to the SOTU - missing an opportunity to change clothes? I guess she could’ve taken off her shirt, but I’m not sure being topless would be any more appropriate. (Althought the headline of ‘boobs come out at the SOTU has a certain ring to it.)

Posted by: tony at February 2, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #119595

No, once again it is the left missing the point and trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
I specifically said there is a time and place, this was neither.
No one is saying she can’t wear that t-shirt, they were saying this was not the place for partisan games.

The SOTU is a speech to the “entire” nation. It should be treated as such and in be done in a professional manner.
Again, if you allow one to wear one thing, you must allow others to wear shirts saying whatever. We could end up with swear words, endorsements etc… plastered throughout the address or we could just make it so nobody can wear things like that. I’m for the latter.
You skipped over that part, why? Would you want your TV showing all of that?

Every day, students are denied their “right” to wear the t-shirt of their choice because of the fear induced “zero tolerance” rules, why did you skip over that?

This isn’t about politics, its about common sense.

Posted by: kctim at February 2, 2006 12:25 PM
Comment #119607

tony
“I will if he will”

Thats the exact lame answer the right gave when asked that about clinton.
Partisan rhetoric that disrespects the office in order to gain political points.
It is only fair for us to allow the President, whichever party he may be, the opportunity to address the nation in a neutral forum.

Posted by: kctim at February 2, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #119617

kc,

I think you’re missing some key points.

First, Sheehan is not an extremist. She is an activist with a point of view supported by a significant proportion of Americans.

Second, Congress is not now nor has it ever been a “neutral forum”

Third, tony didn’t sound partisan to me. He sounded like he’s not pleased with Bush’es performance as president. Neither am I (an unaligned independent), nor are 60% of your fellow Americans.

Personally, I think everyone who enters the rotunda should be wearing formal clothing. But, I also think it’s a poor choice of a law (i.e. placing limits on personal behavior should be a last resort). So, I go with “no law” and as long as neither t-shirt wearer was disruptive, they should both have been allowed their seat.

Posted by: Dave at February 2, 2006 12:44 PM
Comment #119625

Dave
“First, Sheehan is not an extremist. She is an activist with a point of view supported by a significant proportion of Americans”

She is also an extremist with a point of view NOT supported by a significant proportion of Americans.
It depends on how you view her message.

“Second, Congress is not now nor has it ever been a “neutral forum””

Congress, no. But the SOTU is the Presidents speech to the entire nation. We should not be subjected to partisan propaganda during this speech. Allow the Presidents words to be the focus of this one nite.
Soon, it will be another liberal President up there and I sure as hell dont want to Rush up there doing what sheehan was trying to do.

“Third, tony didn’t sound partisan to me. He sounded like he’s not pleased with Bush’es performance as president. Neither am I (an unaligned independent), nor are 60% of your fellow Americans”

I said that “answer” was partisan. I too, am not pleased with the job Bush has been doing, but he should still be given a forum to speak without conflict.
Protest at other speeches and such, I dont care. But give Americans the chance to hear what he has to say, at least once.

“Personally, I think everyone who enters the rotunda should be wearing formal clothing”

Agreed.

“But, I also think it’s a poor choice of a law (i.e. placing limits on personal behavior should be a last resort). So, I go with “no law” and as long as neither t-shirt wearer was disruptive, they should both have been allowed their seat”

Its probably some type of rule or something, used to keep it professional.
If you allow one person to wear shirts with statements on them, you have to allow everybody. I dont think the SOTU is the right place to be seeing “F whatever” shirts, do you?

Posted by: kctim at February 2, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #119628

“Partisan rhetoric that disrespects the office in order to gain political points.”

I don’t have anything to spend political points on (unless they’re good for air travel…) I am (like Dave said) completely fed up with the utter failure of this Administration. Failure to live up to promises, failure to hold it’s self accountable, failure to be bi-partisan, failure to even get a grip on reality.

To be fair, I have tons of issues with my choices as a liberal, but in light of what’s been happening over the past 4 years or so, I have to voice my concern for both sides of ‘the fence.’ I’d leave it to REPs to clean their own house, but they don’t seem to be willing to even admit to their issues or mistakes, much less seek out solutions.

Posted by: tony at February 2, 2006 1:06 PM
Comment #119632

John:
“It really doesn’t matter what the capital police say now, Sheehan’s civil rights were violated and she was wrongfully arrested and detained.
But the ‘ends’ justify the means. They wanted Cindy out of there; they got her out of there. Saying afterwards that they were wrong, is of little consequence, outside of the fact that Sheehan’s legal team will use the Capital Police’s statements in court.”

I suspect you’re right here, John. It’s so easy afterward to say it was all a “mistake”, but Cindy Sheehan was roughed up and taken to two different jails before they decided to admit this.

Stephen:
“I wonder what all of you who have been defending absolute control of speech at presidential function are thinking now that the Capitol Police have said it was all a mistake on both counts.”

They’re conveniently ignoring that fact, which isn’t surprising to me at all. Check out some of these comments:

Doody:
“Sinday was wrong and should have been removed as she was. She claims she is having her laywers look into the matter. She feels her rights have been violated. Check out who will pay her legal fees - Its move on dot org and Presidente Chevez.”

If we read between the lines of this post, it seems to be saying that it’s okay if an American citizen has their first amendment rights violated — as long as their considered “Sinners” or if they’re members of Moveon, or if they’ve been friendly with Socialists.

RDAVIDC:
“The 1st report I read said Cindy was wearing a shirt over the T-shirt and removed it after she sat down.”

Zip-front sweatshirt jacket.

“I can’t read minds,but ,that makes me wonder if she knew the rules and tried to break them.”

Capitol Police have admitted they were WRONG.

“Also a Senators wife was prevented from entering for wearing a support the troops T-shirt.Two sides of an issue displayed and neither allowed.”

But only one was dragged from the room, roughed up and taken to two different jails.

“Cindy was released and both were apologized to for the misinterpretation of the rules of conduct.”

Sometimes an appology just doesn’t cut it.

“The rule states no demonstrating in the gallery.”

Demonstrating I suppose must now be considered sitting down in a large public space and taking off your jacket.

“In Cindy’s case it was protest against the war,in the case of the Senator’s wife support for the Troops,therefore, support for the President,both, valid points of view and both have the right to those views,but,in the judgement of the 2 officials,a peaceful demonstration but a demonstration none the less and not allowed in the Gallery.”

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

“A sign on a stick or on a shirt is still a sign!”

And both are covered by the amendment quoted above.

kctim:
“Even if you dont support Bush, you should still repect the office he holds.”

Cindy Sheehan owes no respect to this president. She payed the ultimate price for his mistaken war, and the man refused to give her a few minutes of his time — even when he was on one of his many long vacations.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 2, 2006 1:12 PM
Comment #119638

Adrienne -

Hello, and thanks for the support last night with the Watchblog thing… odd set of circumstances, but no big deal.

Back to normal…

Posted by: tony at February 2, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #119644
Demonstrating I suppose must now be considered sitting down in a large public space and taking off your jacket.

And wearing under your jacket a shirt with a printed political slogan on it, making your chest no different than a sign or poster.

And I’m even more amazed that you are being so partisan on this topic that you can’t accept that what she did was beyond the bounds of what should be acceptable in that setting. Imagine during the 1999 SOTU address several republicans wore t-shirts that said ‘I did not have sexual relations with woman’ or someother such statement. You would have called out their bad taste, as you should have, and would agree that they should have been removed.

It’s positions like this that make it hard to debate reasonably about any subject these days, people on both sides just not being able to accept that something that someone did on their side might have been wrong.

Which is why it’s almost not even worth it anymore… :(

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 2, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #119646

>>The SOTU is a speech to the “entire” nation. It should be treated as such and in be done in a professional manner.

kc,

Shoulda, woulda, coulda…I’m not sure where, in the Constitution it a says the delivery of the SOTU is to be a formal affair. That “God damned piece of paper”, does say we have a RIGHT to peaceful assembly (the SOTU?) and of free speach (the t-shirt?). So you are saying that we should ignore our actual rights in favor of some immagined formal dress code?

Posted by: Marysdude at February 2, 2006 1:36 PM
Comment #119647

“Try putting a Anti-Bush Sticker on your car and attending a Taxpayer-Funded Bush Rally.”

Try putting on an anti-Clinton T-shirt and attending a Clinton Impeachment hearing.

Posted by: Kirk at February 2, 2006 1:36 PM
Comment #119651

>>Imagine during the 1999 SOTU address several republicans wore t-shirts that said ‘I did not have sexual relations with woman’ or someother such statement. You would have called out their bad taste, as you should have, and would agree that they should have been removed.

It’s positions like this that make it hard to debate reasonably about any subject these days, people on both sides just not being able to accept that something that someone did on their side might have been wrong.

Whinegold,

We are just saying that if using bad judgement, being crass, or having bad taste were illegal, we’d all be in jail. Cindy used bad taste and landed in two of them. The Repub’s wife used bad taste and was asked to leave. Do you admit there is a difference in being arrested and jailed for using bad taste than in being asked to leave the area? It was the security who made the choice, and they probably made that choice on which side the political statement was directed. That, my friend, is barring free expression.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 2, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #119655

kc:
def’n Extremist: n. One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics.
adj : (used of opinions and actions) far beyond the norm; “extremist political views”; “radical opinions on education”; “an ultra conservative” [syn: radical, ultra] n : a person who holds extreme views
You just disagree with her, alot of people agree with her. That makes her “moderate”, not the other way around.

def’n: propaganda
The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
Nothing was systematic or disseminated by Ms. Sheehan. It was a t-shirt with a point of view, hers to make if she so wished.

def’n: partisan
A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.

Not liking Bush doesn’t meet the above criteria, it’s really just your own inferrence.

Finally,

I don’t think Congree is the right place to wear an F-U t-shirt, but I don’t think that would be a protected speech issue nor do I think it should be proscribed. There is no “idea” expressed there anyway, only a “suggestion”


Rhinehold,

It’s a free speech issue, not a partisan issue. I might not like what you have to say, but I’m glad we all have the right to say it. I might not like the t-shirt but if we ban it, we are on the slippery slope:
You would have called out their bad taste,
Yes …
and would agree that they should have been removed.
No…

Posted by: Dave at February 2, 2006 1:52 PM
Comment #119657

Marysdude,

You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, you might even want to read what I wrote earlier about that very subject where I said she should not have been arrested. But I doubt that you would because that would mean you would have to actually think…

That she was asked to leave because she wore a t-shirt is right. Depending upon the circumstances of what happened AFTER that, that is a matter of further investigation imo. But even if they did take her to jail that in no way ‘BARRED FREE EXPRESSION’ and your attempt to make this into a ‘free expression’ debate is laughable and shows a tremendous lack of understanding about what that phrase even means.

Go check out a country where free expression is REALLY being supressed. You’ll find out what it really looks like and the moronic arguments that I’ve seen by the left on this debate look like the 7 year old fight on the playground that it is.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 2, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #119661

Rhinehold:


Imagine during the 1999 SOTU address several republicans wore t-shirts that said “I did not have sexual relations with woman” or someother such statement. You would have called out their bad taste, as you should have, and would agree that they should have been removed.

It’s not a matter of taste or which message is tasteful or not. That’s not illegal.

Posted by: john trevisani at February 2, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #119660

Dave,

I’ll remember your opinion when Democratic presidential candidate calls for a book to be banned because it is written by people who oppose him and are just expressing their views.

*THAT* is censorship.

No one was prevented from hearing what Cindy had to say, they just didn’t hear it when she wanted to say it. Kerry attempted to keep anyone from hearing what his opponents had to say.

Is it against free speech that on signs are allowed in the house chamber during the speech? Is it against free speech that we didn’t allow her up to the podium after the president spoke to say what she wanted to say? If she had approached the podium would she have been ‘arrested’ just for speaking her mind?

Keep on defending it as a ‘free speech’ issue, most reasonable people understand that it was nothing of the kind.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 2, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #119665

Whinegold,

Well you’ve made it personal…

About me:

I’ve been productive in the workplace for over fifty years

I’ve been married to the same woman for forty-two years

We’ve raised eleven children who are each resopnsible adults who contribute to our society

I’ve spent twenty years in the United States Marine Corps, including two and a half tours in Viet Nam (the half was because I lost a knee and had to come home early

I’ve spent 74 months out of country and many of those months in nations of Europe and Asia

I have a right to my opinions on these matters and if you think condesending to me and insulting me on a personal level somehow makes you superior, you’ve got another think coming. Back off little man, you’re in the crowd of adults here…

Posted by: Marysdude at February 2, 2006 2:12 PM
Comment #119666

John,

There is a difference between illegal and ‘not allowed’.

She should have been removed, it was not allowed. She should not have been arrested, unless she did something while being removed that violated the law.

That does NOT mean “Dissent is now illegal” as you assert in your article, which is one of the most overblown reactionary misrepresentations of reality that I’ve read here on Watchblog since the last Democratic or Republican post…

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 2, 2006 2:12 PM
Comment #119668

Whinegold,

Well you’ve made it personal…

About me:

I’ve been productive in the workplace for over fifty years

I’ve been married to the same woman for forty-two years

We’ve raised eleven children who are each resopnsible adults who contribute to our society

I’ve spent twenty years in the United States Marine Corps, including two and a half tours in Viet Nam (the half was because I lost a knee and had to come home early

I’ve spent 74 months out of country and many of those months in nations of Europe and Asia

I have a right to my opinions on these matters and if you think condesending to me and insulting me on a personal level somehow makes you superior, you’ve got another think coming. Back off little man, you’re in the crowd of adults here…

Posted by: Marysdude at February 2, 2006 2:19 PM
Comment #119669

John,

There is a difference between illegal and ‘not allowed’.

She should have been removed, it was not allowed. She should not have been arrested, unless she did something while being removed that violated the law.

That does NOT mean “Dissent is now illegal” as you assert in your article, which is one of the most overblown reactionary misrepresentations of reality that I’ve read here on Watchblog since the last Democratic or Republican post…

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 2, 2006 2:19 PM
Comment #119672

Marysdude,

*I* made it personal? You started by purposely calling me by a disparaging alteration of my name.

I’ve never said you didn’t have a right to your opinion, I am saying your opinion is wrong, short-sighted and ill informed.

And as for calling me ‘a little man’, if you think calling a disabled veteran a ‘little man’ somehow makes you look more adult or important than your writing makes you appear to be then that’s something you are going to have to deal with, not me.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 2, 2006 2:23 PM
Comment #119676

tony, no problem. I’m very glad you’re still here.

Rhinehold:

“what she did was beyond the bounds of what should be acceptable in that setting.”

The acceptabiliy of the setting. The appropriateness of the garb. Who gives a crap? She was in the People’s House, therefore every American should be able to come as they are — slogan-bearing t-shirts, whatever.

“It’s positions like this that make it hard to debate reasonably about any subject these days, people on both sides just not being able to accept that something that someone did on their side might have been wrong.”

You just don’t seem to get it. Don’t you understand that what they did was wrong? Her shirt said nothing derogatory or rude about the president. It listed the number of soldiers killed, one of which was her own son, and asked how many more would have to die for their mistake.
Cindy Sheehan of all people has the right to ask that question. Indeed, her actions at the SOTU were all about the first amendment: free speech, peaceably assembling, asking for a redress of grievance.
Have you asked yourself why they didn’t simply ask her nicely to put her jacket back on (even if it was by mistake that they thought she had no right to wear that t-shirt)? Have you asked yourself why they instead felt they needed to drag that woman roughly from the room?
It smacks of gestapo tactics, and shows a complete lack of respect for anyone whose views differ from those of the president. That’s what bothers me most about this.
I can’t claim to agree with everything Cindy Sheehan has said or done, but I know that her rights were violated, and I hope she sues the crap out of Capitol police. I also hope she’ll continue to speak out in every way she wants, whenever and wherever she wants.

This is about American freedom, nothing more, and no less.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 2, 2006 2:28 PM
Comment #119678

Rhinehold:
When Cindy is arrested, booked and processed for wearing a t-shirt that disagrees with the President’s position (i already posted Cindy’s account of what happened. There was also a Reuters account that mirrored Cindy’s as the Reuter account was from the photographer that happened to be there and took a picture) and a Congressman’s wife is asked to leave the hall, where she yells at the Capital policemen about not being a protester. That’s a disconnect. It would only be fair treatment if both were arrested or both were ‘asked’ to leave.

Maybe i’m guilty of being over simplistic with regards to free speech. Whatever.

Cindy is filing a civil rights law suit regardless. i guess you can go to the court yourself to tell HER how wrong she is.


Posted by: john trevisani at February 2, 2006 2:30 PM
Comment #119682

I have never understood why we are even subjected to a televized speech, it’s just a CLAPfest. If the part of the constitution that says He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union is still in effect under Bushco, there should also be a polygraph attached to Bush. My understanding is that he could fulfill that requirement by having his information published and send it to the members.

Posted by: ray at February 2, 2006 2:33 PM
Comment #119684

Adrienne / Marysdude,

Threatened with a Justice Department lawsuit, Philip Morris agreed Tuesday (June 10, 1995) to remove from stadiums and sports arenas cigarette advertising that might appear on television broadcasts of football, basketball, baseball or hockey games.

Strong Arming from the Clinton Justice Dept. limiting free speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A sign on a stick or on a shirt is still a sign!

“And both are covered by the amendment quoted above.”

So a sign on a stick or shirt are covered but not one on a stadium?

“That “God damned piece of paper”, does say we have a RIGHT to peaceful assembly (the SOTU?) and of free speach (the t-shirt?).”

Right to peaceful assembly (sporting event) and of free speach (the signs).

Posted by: Kirk at February 2, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #119686

>>I have never understood why we are even subjected to a televized speech, it’s just a CLAPfest. If the part of the constitution that says He shall from time to time give to the Congress

ray,

You are right. SOTU has become a dog and pony show. The nation would be better off without it.

The report could be summed up in about three paragraphs and submitted by post.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 2, 2006 2:40 PM
Comment #119691

Marysdude,

“We are just saying that if using bad judgement, being crass, or having bad taste were illegal, we’d all be in jail. Cindy used bad taste and landed in two of them. The Repub’s wife used bad taste and was asked to leave. Do you admit there is a difference in being arrested and jailed for using bad taste than in being asked to leave the area? It was the security who made the choice, and they probably made that choice on which side the political statement was directed. That, my friend, is barring free expression.”

I will admit that there is a difference in being arrested or asked to leave.

Will you admit there is a difference in refusing to respond when asked to leave the room and exiting the room into the adjoining hallway when asked to leave the room?

Everyone on the left here is refusing to give Cindy and responsibility for her arrest. I can tell you that when a police officer asks you to leave an area and you refuse to respond you will likely be removed.

You say that it was the (security) Capital Police who made the decision and you are correct. Cindy also made a decision as did Mrs. Young. Cindy decided not to respond (cooperate) while Mrs. Young decided to cooperate when asked to leave the chamber.

Another point to be made with the Capital Police making the decision is was it the same officer who confronted both women? Seriously doubt it. Two different officers will react in two different ways when placed in similar situations.

Posted by: Kirk at February 2, 2006 2:53 PM
Comment #119693

Kirk,

Maybe I’d like to research why the Clinton Justice Deparment went after Phillip Morris. It is possible that it had direct bearing on some of the suits the company had already lost, i.e., some agreement the company had made as part of a settlement?

We also had, for many years bans on certain liqour advertisements, and I’m pretty sure you can’t market mj in public right now.

The t-shirt issue is another subject entirely. The police had several ways to handle the situation, i.e., ask the lady to cover it up if it was against some arcane regulation, ask her to leave if she refused to cover it up, or take her by force if she refused to do either. They chose to take her by force without allowing the options.

Did they think the t-shirt was going to explode? Did they think a t-shirt wearer posed a threat to the President? Why did they treat this particular t-shirt wearer different than any other t-shirt wearer?

I know it’s difficult to accept that this action on the part of our government was an affront to our Constitution, but it was, and no number of appologies by the government will change that.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 2, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #119695

Kirk, corporate advertising and an individuals first amendment rights are two very different issues. And the former has nothing to do with this particular topic.
Btw, I’m not sure you realize it, but the statute on bringing up the Clinton years has completely run out.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 2, 2006 2:57 PM
Comment #119696

kirk -

Sports stadiums are private property, and so they are not part of the discussion with regards to free speech or rights to assemble. (“Right to peaceful assembly (sporting event)”) Even our local satdium, which was part for in large part by county taxes, is considered private property.

Posted by: tony at February 2, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #119698

Kirk,

People have the right of free speech. Philip Morris, just to be clear, is not a person, it is a Corporation.

Corporations do not have the constitutional right of free speech, they fall under the commerce clauses.

======================================

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 2, 2006 02:00 PM

Dave,

I’ll remember your opinion when Democratic presidential candidate calls for a book to be banned because it is written by people who oppose him and are just expressing their views.
What does that mean?


Kerry attempted to keep anyone from hearing what his opponents had to say.
What are you talking about?


Is it against free speech that on signs are allowed in the house chamber during the speech? Is it against free speech that we didn’t allow her up to the podium after the president spoke to say what she wanted to say? If she had approached the podium would she have been ‘arrested’ just for speaking her mind?
She didn’t do any of that, so, again, what are you talking about?


Keep on defending it as a ‘free speech’ issue,
Thanks I will


most reasonable people understand that it was nothing of the kind.
You missed the “un” before reasonable, but you are still allowed your opinion. No matter how wrong, short sighted and ill informed it may be.

Posted by: Dave at February 2, 2006 3:02 PM
Comment #119700

Hey Guys, at least we can be greatful for this:

They had shirts on.

Posted by: josh at February 2, 2006 3:09 PM
Comment #119702

David R. Remer,
Removing the congressman’s wife was the right thing to do.
Adrienne,
Removing Sheehan was proper. Manhandling her was not. The cop that removed her should be prosecuted for assault.

Posted by: steve at February 2, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #119706

To those who purport Bill Clinton’s only wrongdoing in office as the Lewinsky scandal, YGBFSM!!

You support my main theory which is “Liberals either forget or re-write history.” How about the decimation of the military with a GDP change from 5.6% to 4.0%. How about the loss of 40% of our Army divisions? How about the token resistance (and that’s a bit overstated) to MULTIPLE terrorist events? How about the horribly shameful pardons as he snuck out the back door? And we found out in early 2001 why the stock market was doing so well in the 90’s … fraud at every level gone unchecked during the Clinton administration! Of course, why challenge good news available for political gain?

THE BIG LIBERAL SHAM: CLINTON’S ONLY ERROR WAS THE LEWINSKY SCANDAL. OF COURSE LIBERALS CLAIM THAT LYING TO A GRAND JURY IS ACCEPTABLE … WELL … AS LONG AS YOU’RE A LIBERAL. The real harm of the Lewinsky scandal is Clinton’s teaching to America: INTEGRITY IS SITUATIONAL!

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 2, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #119712

“The acceptabiliy of the setting. The appropriateness of the garb. Who gives a crap? She was in the People’s House, therefore every American should be able to come as they are — slogan-bearing t-shirts, whatever.”

So if John Kerry decides to show up for the SOTU in a Speedo and set next to Barbra Boxer in her thong bikini that is OK? Don’t think so.

“Her shirt said nothing derogatory or rude about the president. It listed the number of soldiers killed, one of which was her own son, and asked how many more would have to die for their mistake.
Cindy Sheehan of all people has the right to ask that question.”

So what if Mary Jo Kopechne’s mom shows up with a T-shirt imprinted with Chapaquitic - 1 Dead. How Many More?

She of all people has the right to ask that question.

Posted by: Kirk at February 2, 2006 3:29 PM
Comment #119715

>>The real harm of the Lewinsky scandal is Clinton’s teaching to America: INTEGRITY IS SITUATIONAL!

ken,

Well, he had a willing and able student in Dubbya. Just look how well he did his homework. The student has become the master.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 2, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #119716

How about the loss of 40% of our Army divisions?

How about the end of the cold war? We did not know yet that we were going to start a new cold war against terrorist. People thought we would be fighting a drug war in South America, but that would have put the CIA out of business, so it was dropped in favor of going into Afghanistan to protect the poppy fields.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 2, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #119720

Adrienne
“Cindy Sheehan owes no respect to this president”

I didnt say to him, I said people should still respect the office.

“She payed the ultimate price for his mistaken war”

Her son paid the ultimate price.

“and the man refused to give her a few minutes of his time”

You know very well that she has already met with him.

Dude
“I’m not sure where, in the Constitution it a says the delivery of the SOTU is to be a formal affair”

It doesnt say separation between church and state either does it?
There is nothing wrong with having a speech to the “entire” nation without any political propaganda.

Dave
“Not liking Bush doesn’t meet the above criteria”

That is only because YOU agree with her. To the other half of the country, she is an extremist because they disagree with her.

“I don’t think Congree is the right place to wear an F-U t-shirt, but I don’t think that would be a protected speech issue nor do I think it should be proscribed. There is no “idea” expressed there anyway, only a “suggestion”

“F*&! the War, Impeach Bush”
There is that persons “idea.” If you let her wear her shirt, you have to allow him to wear his.

Posted by: kctim at February 2, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #119721

kc,

Nice troll…

Posted by: Marysdude at February 2, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #119722

Cindy Sheehan’s t-shirt was not protected speech. Neither was the t-shirt worn by the Congressman’s wife. Government can limit protected speech by imposing “time,place, and manner” restrictions. This would seem to include certain places like, I don’t know, the House Chamber. I think that neither t-shirt was suitable. But my opinion doesn’t matter. The law is clear.

A small lists of sites to visit if anyone is interested in finding out why not all speech and/or acts of protest are protected by the First Amendment.

Posted by: isisbless at February 2, 2006 3:49 PM
Comment #119723

Adrienne
“Kirk, corporate advertising and an individuals first amendment rights are two very different issues. And the former has nothing to do with this particular topic”

But students being told they cant wear a particular shirt because it is offensive, is the same.
Why is that right, but this is wrong?

“Btw, I’m not sure you realize it, but the statute on bringing up the Clinton years has completely run out”

Ignoring the corruption of the clinton years doesnt negate it.
I would want that dark area forgotten too, but that still doesnt excuse giving him a pass on everything but hammering Bush on everything.

You all are really grasping at straws with this one.
I think the left needs a new puppet, this one is getting boring to the American people.

Posted by: kctim at February 2, 2006 3:50 PM
Comment #119725

Call it what you want Dude, but you cant dispute it in any way.
I’m used to it though. Its standard operating procedure to start calling names when faced with facts.
Since I believe EVERY President, right or left, should be given a neutral time to talk with the American people, am I a troll for both sides?

Posted by: kctim at February 2, 2006 3:56 PM
Comment #119726

Steve, who died and made you the Chief of Capitol Police?
Kirk, when you come up with a logical argument I’ll get back to you.

isisbless:
“This would seem to include certain places like, I don’t know, the House Chamber. I think that neither t-shirt was suitable. But my opinion doesn’t matter. The law is clear.”

No. In fact, nothing was at all clear:

Sheehan was taken away in handcuffs before Mr. Bush’s arrival at the Capitol and charged with a misdemeanor, while Young left the gallery and therefore was not arrested, said Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer in a statement.

Gainer apologized, saying, “The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol.

“The policy and procedures were too vague,” he added. “The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine.”

Above quotes from this link: Sheehan: I Felt ‘Humiliated’

Posted by: Adrienne at February 2, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #119729
Dave “Not liking Bush doesn⦣x20AC;™t meet the above criteria”

That is only because YOU agree with her. To the other half of the country, she is an extremist because they disagree with her.

Posted by: kctim at February 2, 2006 03:44 PM
{my emphasis}


That is exactly the problem with the right wing right now. Disagreement is not extremism! But it does seem to justify alot of oppressive and illegal behavior from “your side”, doesn’t it? Posted by: Dave at February 2, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #119730
Have you asked yourself why they didn’t simply ask her nicely to put her jacket back on (even if it was by mistake that they thought she had no right to wear that t-shirt)? Have you asked yourself why they instead felt they needed to drag that woman roughly from the room?

I have already addressed both of these.

1) she should have been removed, political signs have no place in that forum at that time in that manner. I support that now and will support that no matter who is president and have stated several times why (and it has been repeatedly ignored).

2) If she put her jacket back on, who is to say she won’t take it off DURING the speech? If someone brought in a rolled up sign and was caught, should they be allowed to say if they roll it back up? Or should the sign be taken (I suppose they could have taken her shirt but I could imagine the uproar if they had done that considering the amount of energy spent complaining about this…

3) I never defended the way they removed her or that she was arrested, I don’t know all of the details of that. But she should have been removed and if she resisted, which it sounds like she did or she wouldn’t have had to be removed by force, then she should have been removed forcibly.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 2, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #119731

kctim:


You all are really grasping at straws with this one.
I think the left needs a new puppet, this one is getting boring to the American people.

You really don’t speak for all of the American people, do you?

This issue is about the 1st amendment. Either you (and evidently all of the American people that you speak for) believe in freedom of speech, in all of its beauty and in many times its ugliness or you don’t.

Cindy and the Congressman’s wife were using their 1st amendment right of free expression. Since free expression is replaced by levels of decorum, some people were asked to leave; others were forcibly handcuffed and arrested.

There’s plenty of other countries in the world that share your lack of support toward free expression. American (and all of other Americans) support free expression.

Posted by: john trevisani at February 2, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #119733

I think the House Chamber should be shown respect and be free of any and all political messages!


(smirk)

Posted by: tony at February 2, 2006 4:09 PM
Comment #119734

Rhinehold,

Enough “ifs” and you could have her throwing pig shit as Bushie. The reality is she was treated harshly because of the message on her shirt, nothing else. And that is the Bushie legacy. “God damned piece of paper”

Posted by: Dave at February 2, 2006 4:11 PM
Comment #119735

“Sheehan was taken away in handcuffs before Mr. Bush’s arrival at the Capitol and charged with a misdemeanor, while Young left the gallery and therefore was not arrested, said Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer in a statement.

Gainer apologized, saying, “The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol.

“The policy and procedures were too vague,” he added. “The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine.” “

…from the AP article today.

If the police in charge of these matters admit that it was a mistake, then why is there still a discussion about whether it was a mistake or not. The rules were ‘too vague’ - so, that tells me that either t-shirt is acceptable according to those in charge. (Now, you might want to question why anyone would show up to the SOTU in a t-shirt. My wife is a radical as they come, but she still takes assessment of the situation and adjusts accordingly.)

Posted by: tony at February 2, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #119736

kctim:
“I didnt say to him, I said people should still respect the office.”

We are a nation of laws, not men. And this president has broken our laws and has not supported, protected and defended our Constitution. We owe him nothing.

“Her son paid the ultimate price.”

They both did.

“You know very well that she has already met with him.”

Those few minutes weren’t enough. The family of a dead marine should be given a few more — especially when the war that killed him was started by mistake.

“But students being told they cant wear a particular shirt because it is offensive, is the same.”

How is what she had on her shirt offensive?

“but that still doesnt excuse giving him a pass on everything but hammering Bush on everything.”

No excuses, but those days are OVER. Bush is in office NOW.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 2, 2006 4:20 PM
Comment #119739

>> If she put her jacket back on, who is to say she won’t take it off DURING the speech?

Rhinehold,

Indeed who is to say that, but then who is to say she wouldn’t leave it on? Now, if, as you infer, she had been allowed to remain, and she had flashed the t-shirt, two things would have happened, i.e., some would have read it and thought ‘she’s right about the numbers’, and some would have read it and thought, ‘she’s wrong about the numbers. Remember, that’s all this was about…a woman wearing a t-shirt that had lettering on it referring to the number of lost GI’s in Iraq.

That may be worth another stomp on the First to you, but not to me.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 2, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #119743

Adrienne, I guess body counts are offensive. Good thing she did not mention how many Iraqis were killed.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 2, 2006 4:29 PM
Comment #119745

OK. So we have the NSA spying on Americans without warrants, we have the whole t-shirt fiasco (which I only put in here because of comments involving free speech), secret prisons where we removed prisoners across international borders, we have the whole Abu Gharib issue and Gitmo issue, the White House legal briefs on torture and making the Geneva Convention quaint, the Plame/CIA scandle —-

I am starting to see a pattern - hmmmm. It’s not Constitutional Laws, or International Laws that those in power hate: I think they hate laws altogether. They get in the way of…. well… doing other secret things.

“Shhhhh. Be vewy vewy qwi-et. I’m hunting Bin Laden. AH AH AH AH AH.”

Posted by: tony at February 2, 2006 4:35 PM
Comment #119747

“How about the end of the cold war?”

How about that, Reagan did a wonderful job didn’t he?

Posted by: Kirk at February 2, 2006 4:38 PM
Comment #119748

Marysdude,

Then you won’t mind allowing all forms of ‘free speech’ into the SOTU address. And when/if a Deomcrat is in the office and giving his speech there are hundreds of plackards and signs speaking any number of political statements unfurled across the hall you won’t complain one bit, right?

I would, because that is not the time place, IMO, for the focus to be away from what is being said at the podium. And it is no way a violation of the first amendment.

But partisanship gets the better of people and they want to make hey out of a non-issue, so be it, as long as we have it on written record and can throw it back in their face when the same is done to them. Like if a group of people get together and write a book against their presidential candidate, say some guys who were in the Vietnam war with said candidate, and use their right to free speech to public that book, we know that THEY won’t attempt to have the book pulled from the store shelves, right?

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 2, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #119749

Tony,

You’ve pretty much summed up any politician. Imagine for a second why members of congress are exempted from the laws that they pass or that they are entitled to better retirement and healthcare than the ‘common man’.

It just amazes me that people only see these things when they guy they don’t like is in office but THEIR guys are ‘ok by them’ even though there is almost no difference between them.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 2, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #119750

I think they hate laws altogether.

Tony, That is not far from the truth, but they just hate laws that were enacted before they came ot power. Bush does not think the stuff that came before matters.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 2, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #119751

Adrienne,
That makes no sense.

Posted by: steve at February 2, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #119754

Adrienne,

“Kirk, when you come up with a logical argument I’ll get back to you.”

You are the one who came up with the illogical argument that anyone should be able to enter the House Chambers wearing what ever garb they want.

So, when my daughter is not allowed to wear her “Got God” T-Shirt to school is that not an infringement of her civil liberties?

Posted by: Kirk at February 2, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #119763

ray:
“Adrienne, I guess body counts are offensive.”

Yeah. But the fact that they’ve all died for a mistake somehow isn’t offensive at all.

steve:
“That makes no sense.”

You wrote:
“Removing Sheehan was proper.”

Chief of Capitol Police:
“We made a mistake.”
“Just wearing a T-shirt is not unlawful,” Gainer said. Wearing a T-shirt and engaging in actions meant to draw attention to the shirt is against the law, he said, but neither woman was doing so.”

So, like I said, who died and made you the Chief of Capitol Police?

Kirk:
“You are the one who came up with the illogical argument that anyone should be able to enter the House Chambers wearing what ever garb they want.”

:^) The illogical argument was that you assumed this somehow equated with my stating it was okay for people walk around the Capitol building wearing nothing but speedo’s and thongs.

“So, when my daughter is not allowed to wear her “Got God” T-Shirt to school is that not an infringement of her civil liberties?”

I suggest you take your godly wrath up with up with the ACLU, Kirk. Maybe they’ll go to bat for you. Me, I’m just not in the mood for a religion-in-public-school squable today.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 2, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #119774

Dave
“That is exactly the problem with the right wing right now. Disagreement is not extremism! But it does seem to justify alot of oppressive and illegal behavior from “your side”, doesn’t it?”

Wrong Dave. Both sides are guilty. The left disagrees with the right and have labeled this administration as extremists, neocons. There is plenty of name calling blame to go around.

John
“You really don’t speak for all of the American people, do you?”

No, nor do I pretend to. If the American people thought this lady was newsworthy, we would know it.

“This issue is about the 1st amendment. Either you (and evidently all of the American people that you speak for) believe in freedom of speech, in all of its beauty and in many times its ugliness or you don’t”

Now, Ive been told many times by you lefties that govt is allowed to limit some rights. Yelling fire in a theater for example.
Having a rule to prevent a circus atmosphere seems pretty reasonable.

“There’s plenty of other countries in the world that share your lack of support toward free expression. American (and all of other Americans) support free expression”

To bad you dont support the rest of your rights in the same manner.

Adrienne
“We are a nation of laws, not men. And this president has broken our laws and has not supported, protected and defended our Constitution. We owe him nothing”

I know how you feel. Felt the same way through out the 90s. That is why I said the “office.”

“Those few minutes weren’t enough. The family of a dead marine should be given a few more — especially when the war that killed him was started by mistake”

Those few minutes were the same that was given to the rest of the marines families. She is not special nor does she deserve special treatment.
The biggest problem is that it is her and yours opinion that the war was a mistake so you feel she deserves special treatment.

“How is what she had on her shirt offensive?”

It is not what she had on her shirt that is offensive to me. Kids wearing confederate flags or shirts with guns on them is not offensive to me either, neither are shirts with swear words.
But if you are going to allow one person to wear a statement shirt, you have to allow everyone.

“No excuses, but those days are OVER. Bush is in office NOW”

Excuses then and excuses now, many over the same things the left is whining about Bush doing now.
Bush is now so concentrate on him, fine. But it is not fair to try and hide the dark past.


Posted by: kctim at February 2, 2006 5:55 PM
Comment #119777

Rhinehold
“I would, because that is not the time place, IMO, for the focus to be away from what is being said at the podium. And it is no way a violation of the first amendment”

I agree with you.
But you can be sure the same people crying about this non-event will be right up there condemning the “righty” protestor trying the same thing.

Posted by: kctim at February 2, 2006 5:58 PM
Comment #119795

Tim, you crack me up. You like to play like you’re a Devil’s advocate, yet you’ve never, ever come down on the left side of any argument. Or if you have, it’s been so long ago, I simply can’t remember it. Why-oh-why are we always so very wrong in your opinion, Tim? :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at February 2, 2006 7:37 PM
Comment #119798

kirk -

“You are the one who came up with the illogical argument that anyone should be able to enter the House Chambers wearing what ever garb they want.

So, when my daughter is not allowed to wear her “Got God” T-Shirt to school is that not an infringement of her civil liberties?”

First - to me, it’s your illogical extension of Adrienne argument that doesn’t make sense. She said t-shirt, you said ‘what ever garb they want.’ Seems to be a big difference there.

Also, schools are the treated the same as private property. You rights to freedom exist in public places. Also, people under the age of 18 are not considered legal adultss, so they have reduced levels of freedom.

Posted by: tony at February 2, 2006 8:05 PM
Comment #119800

Huh, our publicly owned schools are ‘private property’ but our publicly owned congressional building isn’t?

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 2, 2006 8:13 PM
Comment #119801

One is a controlled environment to protect and raise our children - the other is a childish environment that should be controlled. :)

The Congress is the main hall of the PEOPLE of the United States. It is at the core of where we are represented. Are you sure you want people to make rules guaging what can and can not be discussed or displayed there? Can you see the dangers? (And try to think of something other than a t-shirt.)

Posted by: tony at February 2, 2006 8:22 PM
Comment #119806

”:^) The illogical argument was that you assumed this somehow equated with my stating it was okay for people walk around the Capitol building wearing nothing but speedo’s and thongs.”

So there is a point where the line to appropriate is crossed. Just where is that line in your opinion?

“Me, I’m just not in the mood for a religion-in-public-school squable today”

What make you think it is a religion in public school squable? Maybe it is dissent against what she considers the over-reaching intrussion of the courts into her civil rights.

Or is it that only Liberal’s have the protection of the First Ammendmant?

Come to think of it by not allowing her to wear her “Got God” T-Shirt the school is infringing on her rights by prohibiting the free exercise (of her religion) thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech. Wow, stepping on two different portions of the First Ammendment at once.

I am sure that you would be willing to insure that my daughter has the same rights you say were violated in Cindy’s case.


Posted by: Kirk at February 2, 2006 8:32 PM
Comment #119808

Kirk -

Children do not have the same rights as adults. Also, a school building must be orderly and controlled for a greater good. How can you compare that to public discourse at the center of the political process. The Chamber was build for politics. How could anyone American every wish that political be controlled there, or especially that only elected officials should have a voice there?

Posted by: tony at February 2, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #119811

Tony,

“One is a controlled environment to protect and raise our children”

I will assume by this you are referring to our schools. If so you are way off base with this one. The schools are their to educate our children. Yes it needs to be done in a safe envoronment but raising our kids is the responsibility of the parents not the schools.

“First - to me, it’s your illogical extension of Adrienne argument that doesn’t make sense. She said t-shirt, you said ‘what ever garb they want.’ Seems to be a big difference there.”

Maybe you need to read Adrienne’s post again. I have copied it for you below.

“The acceptabiliy of the setting. The appropriateness of the garb. Who gives a crap? She was in the People’s House, therefore every American should be able to come as they are — slogan-bearing t-shirts, whatever.”

She says The appropriateness of the garb. Who gives a crap? and then followed that with every American should be able to come as they are - slogan-bearing t-shirs, whatever.

So, garb doesn’t matter, come as you are her words not mine. I was just pointing out that there is indeed a line of appropriatness and her subsequent post seems to indicate that she thinks so as well. I bet that line falls just below Cindy’s t-shirt.

Posted by: Kirk at February 2, 2006 9:01 PM
Comment #119814

I got to agree with Adrienne about Tim’s one sided diatribes. If they were stomping on your beloved 2nd amendment, you’d be all up in arms. (no pun intended) But since it’s the first amendment, no problem. I also can’t think of a time when you’ve ever championed a lefty cause. Can’t even capitalize Clinton’s name when you’re writing about him. Sheesh.

Posted by: ray s. at February 2, 2006 9:07 PM
Comment #119816

Kirk -

I’m not talking about raising kids, I’m talking specifically about the controlled environment of a school. And how if differs wildly from that of a public/political forum. Who raises a child is a completely different discussion.

I will conceed a bit on the other point… but I don’t agree with a dress code requirement to participate in the function of government. yes - it’s a formal affair, and most people respect that, but if attire is altered in light of a political message/speech, then I see it as a very dangerous stance to limit political speech based on pomp and circumstance.

Posted by: tony at February 2, 2006 9:07 PM
Comment #119819

“Children do not have the same rights as adults. Also, a school building must be orderly and controlled for a greater good.”

What if my daughter is an 18 year old senior?

And, what greater good?

This was not public discourse which Websters defines as “verbal interchange of ideas”. This was the State Of The Union address by the President.

“or especially that only elected officials should have a voice there?”

So anyone in the Chamber should be allowed to interject their opinions into the SOTU address? What if my choosen form of speech is verbal rather than a t-shirt? This has to be orderly and controlled for the greater good.

Posted by: Kirk at February 2, 2006 9:20 PM
Comment #119821

Tony,

“I’m not talking about raising kids,”

Tony sorry if I misinterpreted what you wrote, but “raise our children” were your words.

Posted by: Kirk at February 2, 2006 9:24 PM
Comment #119826

tony:
“I don’t agree with a dress code requirement to participate in the function of government.”

Exactly. That’s all I meant, but of course every point has to be twisted and then belabored until it’s ridiculousness knows no bloody bounds.
It seems that both Cindy Sheehan (who was invited at the last minute before the event, hence, had no “appropriate” garb with her to change into) and the wife of a Representative (who we’d expect probably should have better taste, not to mention, plenty of money to get herself gussied-up for these political events) both thought it would be okay to wear slogan emblazoned t-shirts simply to go sit on their asses in a crowded room in order to watch a guy who got C’s in college try to give a presidential speech.
What’s the big damn deal? Who were they hurting with their t-shirts that represented either side of this debate?
Nobody.
So who gives a crap about whether it was cotton or cashmere, or silk, or linen? That isn’t important. Their free speech, on the other hand, was, is, and always will be.

“yes - it’s a formal affair, and most people respect that, but if attire is altered in light of a political message/speech, then I see it as a very dangerous stance to limit political speech based on pomp and circumstance.”

Seriously. If we can’t make our individual political statements in the People’s House, where the hell can we?

Posted by: Adrienne at February 2, 2006 9:54 PM
Comment #119841

ray s.:
“If they were stomping on your beloved 2nd amendment, you’d be all up in arms. (no pun intended)”

You should have intended that one. ‘Tis that good.

“I also can’t think of a time when you’ve ever championed a lefty cause.”

Yeah, it’s been way too long. So, c’mon Tim! Champion a Lefty Cause! Champion a Lefty Cause! Champion a Lefty Cause!
Pretty please with a lil’ dab o’ honey on top? ;^)

Posted by: Adrienne at February 2, 2006 10:23 PM
Comment #119855

I’m with Rhinehold on this one. Can’t we quit talking about this tacky, silly woman? I wish the people who are funding her would take their hands out of the puppet’s mouth and just stand up and say what they want directly to the American public.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 2, 2006 11:06 PM
Comment #119988

Goodkinged:
i deleted the inappropriate post of KansasDem as well as your posts relating only to their inappropriate comments.

“Critique the message, not the messenger”

Posted by: john trevisani at February 3, 2006 7:21 AM
Comment #120007

“What if my daughter is an 18 year old senior?”

—- she’s still an environment set and controlled for non-adults. Schools are owned by the government, but are not considered open public forums.

“And, what greater good?”

—- I think this one’s pretty obvious. The purpose of the school and the benefits to the children (generally) outweigh the benefit of free speech in that location. Free speech still needs to be as ingrained as possible, but it’s a matter of priority.

“This was not public discourse which Webster’s defines as “verbal interchange of ideas”. This was the State Of The Union address by the President.”

—- We’re not talking about a dictionary, we’re talking about the Constitution. Those 2 documents have vastly different purposes.

“”or especially that only elected officials should have a voice there?””

“So anyone in the Chamber should be allowed to interject their opinions into the SOTU address? What if my chosen form of speech is verbal rather than a t-shirt? This has to be orderly and controlled for the greater good.”

—- This gets to the contrast between reality and theory. In theory, it would be the best things to have the President involved in an open exchange of ideas… maybe the SOTU comes first and then open dialog. Obviously, that is not going to happen, so the SOTU is basically a dog and pony show. The Pres. comes out with his agenda, lays it out for us and then leaves. There’s not a lot of inherent value in this alone, but it is what it is. If this was the only avenue for the Pres. to get his message out, then it’d be more of a value - but today… it’s just a political pageant.

Personally, I’m in favor of busting up the status quo whenever there’s a valid reason… so, when I see Sheehan wearing the t-shirt she wore, I can see no reason other than ‘reason based in tyranny’ to reject her presence.

I was going to say that I could really care less about an issue involving a t-shirt. But then again, look at the two t-shirts and their messages. They represent the absolute crux of the most important issue we face today - a war and the continual death involved with it. With that much weight added to it… I can’t see anything more important to focus on.

Does drawing attention to the number of American deaths belong in the SOTU.. how can anyone think it doesn’t? How can anyone think that these 2 t-shirts have contrasting messages?

Posted by: tony at February 3, 2006 8:41 AM
Comment #120024

ROCKY,

Yes. People speak with their mouths. The framers did not intend to have congress be bought. Think About it!

She made her point. She didn’t get to do it on the national stage but she got to do it briefly in the chamber of congress. Oh and All day leading up to it. Personally I think she’s lost in the 60’s.

Posted by: Rocky at February 3, 2006 9:47 AM
Comment #120026

ROCKY,

Yes. People speak with their mouths. The framers did not intend to have congress be bought. Think About it!

She made her point. She didn’t get to do it on the national stage but she got to do it briefly in the chamber of congress. Oh and All day leading up to it. Personally I think she’s lost in the 60’s.

This message was not from Rocky it was from Excuse Me. Sorry Rocky. I put your name in the wrong spot.

Posted by: Excuse Me at February 3, 2006 9:49 AM
Comment #120035

My son was also in Iraq for two tours: he was Stop-Lossed. I worried for two years straight and, from DAY ONE, questioned the validity of this war and protested. I was proud of my son because although HE questioned the war, he was there doing his duty. It was his job. I empathize totally with Cindy. I would have worn a T-shirt with “I’ve Been Bushwacked” on it to the SOTU speech. Although I’m not sure I could have sat through it without getting sick. BS does that to me. As for a show of respect, it’s been getting harder to find something to respect about our elected leaders for some time now.

Posted by: Cher at February 3, 2006 10:33 AM
Comment #120076

John Traviani:

Thank you. I didn’t mean to critique KD, but I had to say something about that tactic.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 3, 2006 1:25 PM
Comment #120084

John and all,

“Goodkinged:
i deleted the inappropriate post of KansasDem as well as your posts relating only to their inappropriate comments.

“Critique the message, not the messenger”

Posted by: john trevisani at February 3, 2006 07:21 AM “

I apologize for my inappropriate comments, I was being incredibly cynical in response to GoodKingNeds comment:
“Can’t we quit talking about this tacky, silly woman?”

I simply don’t see how Cindy Sheehan can be considered any more “tacky” than a Congressman’s wife who is wearing similar attire, only with a different message.

Again, I apologize to anyone I offended, I can absolutely see that my choice of words could be considered inappropriate.
KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 3, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #120086

This is the most rediculous thing ever……for the love of Christ I can name a dozen resteraunts off the top of my head that if you are not dressed formally……get this….YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED THROUGH THE DOOR!!!! Never once have I heard anyone get press over the fact that they were not allowed in!!!! Who the hell cares!! I personally think it is kind of nice that there are certain places that expect a little more out of Americans than the usual sweats and a T-shirt garb that has plagued this society for years!!

Posted by: Traci at February 3, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #120107

Yes,the courts ruled that free speech does not allow you to yell fire in a crowded movie theater. But was a non verbal anti war protest the same thing? I have yet to see a no shoes,no shirt, no service sign hanging in congress. If open toe sandals can be worn to the White House,then surely a tee shirt can be worn by an invited guest at a Government function. This is just an example of poor judgement on the part of the politically inept who believe that the only good dissenter is an arrested one.

Posted by: jblym at February 3, 2006 2:26 PM
Comment #120108

Traci:
It’s not a matter of taste; it’s a matter of free expression. The fact that one message (2k dead) is illegal and one message (support the troops) is not, is the problem.

KansasDem:
Point taken.

Posted by: john trevisani at February 3, 2006 2:27 PM
Comment #120112

“This is the most rediculous thing ever”

I think it’s much more ridiculous that a woman whose son died for his country was “accidentally” hand-cuffed and frog-marched out House chambers and taken off to jail for wearing a shirt that listed the number of dead soldiers who have died in a war which was started by mistake. And that after Capitol Police had done that, they suddenly realized it would look kind of bad if they didn’t ask the Representatives wife to also leave for wearing her shirt, so they politely asked her to leave - yet didn’t cuff or drag her out, even when she resisted and called them idiots.
The different treatment of the two women involved is indeed, ridiculous, and very telling.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 3, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #120116

Still skirting the issue that this happens at a lot of different settings everyday!!
It really is not the end of the world and there ARE bigger problems at hand!

By the way stating that the war was a mistake OVER & OVER again does not make it the truth.

By the way those of you having a fit about this I’m sure would be on the other side of the fence had it been a T-shirt that read something stating someones feelings about a certain minority group.

Just let it go…and get back to the REAL issues!

Posted by: Traci at February 3, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #120118

Traci:

Don’t count on liberal outrage at stepping on their special issues. You can find some real ugly attitudes if you scratch the surface of their noble exteriors.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 3, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #120127

“The different treatment of the two women involved is indeed, ridiculous, and very telling.”

It is very telling. Very telling of the cooperation of the two women.

When the Congressman’s wife was asked to leave she cooperated with the Capital Police and went into the adjacent hallway. You are correct that once in that hallway she expressed her displeasure with the police but, only after being out of the chambers.

When Cindy Sheehan was asked to leave she refused to cooperate with the police by refusing to even respond to them. As I said before, when a police officer asks you to leave an area and you refuse to respond it is very likely that the officer will remove you.

While there is no way to know for sure, had Cindy cooperated and left the chambers as the Congressman’s wife did she likely would not have been arrested.

Posted by: Kirk at February 3, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #120131

stating that the war was a mistake

After watching the evening news last night, I’m worried that we are going to provide a new Iraqi army with weapons and technology that are going to come back to bite us on the ass, like in Afghanistan.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 3, 2006 3:16 PM
Comment #120135

Kirk:
You completely misrepresented the facts in your last post. Reuters (link) had a photographer and captured the entire thing. The photographer corroborated Sheehan’s story. And
i already posted Sheehan’s side of the story.

i do wonder where you get your facts.

Posted by: john trevisani at February 3, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #120160

john,

It’s the wing nut spin masters at work. The facts have nothing to do with what they report, and people who only wish to see a truth that supports their beliefs will repeat it.

FACT: Sheehan left when asked and was mistreated.
FACT: Mrs Senator misbehaved and was well treated.

Why? I have my ideas.


By the way stating that the war was a mistake OVER & OVER again does not make it the truth.

Posted by: Traci at February 3, 2006 02:50 PM
. Thinking the Iraq war was not a mistake and was well implemented, well, that’s just ahhh, uhmmm, whatever.

Posted by: Dave at February 3, 2006 4:20 PM
Comment #120173

If we want to clean up Congress, then maybe we should start with vulgaraties… What’s more offensive? a t-shirt with a slogan or someone in office telling others to F_CKOFF! ?

Posted by: tony at February 3, 2006 4:47 PM
Comment #120191

Tony,
“What’s more offensive? a t-shirt with a slogan or someone in office telling others to F_CKOFF! ?

Posted by: tony at February 3, 2006 04:47 PM “

You’re not suggesting that any member of this esteemed administration failed to follow proper decorum are you?

Thanks for the chuckle, I’d completely forgotten that little episode.
KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 3, 2006 5:38 PM
Comment #120195

Adrienne and Ray S.
I think your statements are fair and can see your points.
Care to point out which issues make me, as you all like to say, a “wing nut?”

Posted by: kctim at February 3, 2006 5:42 PM
Comment #120201

Traci:
“Still skirting the issue that this happens at a lot of different settings everyday!!”

Being wrongly arrested by Capitol Police for wearing a t-shirt that lists the number of soldiers killed? Huh, I guess I never realized this was so commonplace…

“It really is not the end of the world”

No. It’s just a violation of first amendment rights inside the Capitol Building for someone whose son died for his country, who then had the nerve to protest the Neocon’s needless invasion and occupation of Iraq.

“and there ARE bigger problems at hand!”

Yeah, well you’re right there. Such as the fact that we’ve got a liar and total incompetent for a president, an administration as corrupt and secretive as could be, a Congress filled with crooks who won’t put any checks on any of them, and a Supreme Court who wants to give the president even more power in defiance of the Constitution. The Iraq War is a huge problem with no plan in sight. Out of control spending and the deficit is a huge problem. The corruption in Congress is a huge problem. The failure to secure the nations borders is a huge problem. Wiretapping American citizens without warrants is huge problem. etc. etc.
Yeah, we’ve got problems all right. And currently nobody trying to fix them.

“By the way stating that the war was a mistake OVER & OVER again does not make it the truth.”

Bush on going into Iraq, Dec. 2005:

“It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.”

London reporter’s question to the president January, 2003:
“Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?”

Bush: “I can’t make that claim.”

9/11 Commision on relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda:

“they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.”

Former top U.S. weapons inspector David Kay testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on WMD:

“It turns out that we were all wrong.”

Charles Duefler:
“We were almost all wrong”

Duefler’s Iraq Survey Group Report:
“The former regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners…”

You guys really do need to finally face the truth — the war in Iraq has been nothing but a MISTAKE.

“By the way those of you having a fit about this I’m sure would be on the other side of the fence had it been a T-shirt that read something stating someones feelings about a certain minority group.”

This makes no sense whatsoever.
Are you actually trying to equate a t-shirt listing the number of soldiers dead due to Bush’s mistaken war, with t-shirts bearing racist or sexist slogans?
Why is what her shirt said being treated by those on the right as though it said something highly offensive when it didn’t? That is, unless you secretly find it offensive that so many have died for no reason?

Posted by: Adrienne at February 3, 2006 5:53 PM
Comment #120203

Thanks, Tim. I’ve never once called you a wingnut, I’d just like to see you come down on the left once in a while, that’s all.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 3, 2006 5:59 PM
Comment #120208

I’m sure that Ms. Sheehan was planning to sit there quietly during the SOTU address. I mean it’s not like she always jumps on a soapbox and starts screaming whenever there are cameras present.

Yeah, right.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 3, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #120230

Obviously these righties think waging pre-emptive war on people is a grand idea.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 3, 2006 7:21 PM
Comment #120236

“Kirk:
You completely misrepresented the facts in your last post. Reuters (link) had a photographer and captured the entire thing. The photographer corroborated Sheehan’s story. And
i already posted Sheehan’s side of the story.

i do wonder where you get your facts.”

Minneapolis-St. Paul Startribune

Laurie Kellman, Associated Press

Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said police warned her that such displays were not allowed in the House chamber, but Sheehan did not respond.

CNN

“She was asked to cover it up. She did not,” said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, U.S. Capitol Police spokeswoman.

Reuters

Schneider said Sheehan was arrested because she was wearing a T-shirt with an anti-war slogan and refused to cover it up.

Mrs. Young

Washington Post

By Petula Dvorak
Washington Post Staff Writer

About 45 minutes into the speech, an officer asked Beverly Young to step outside, where he told her: “We consider you a protester” because of her shirt, she said.

She said she angrily challenged officers to explain what law she had violated, and they threatened arrest.

CBS News

Mrs. Young was sitting about six rows from first lady Laura Bush and asked to leave. She argued with police in the hallway outside the House chamber.

Associated Press

Beverly Young said she was sitting in the front row of the House gallery Tuesday night when she was approached by someone who told her she needed to leave, according to the St. Petersburg Times.

“She was not ejected from the gallery. She did leave on her own,” said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, who said she could not provide further information.

Posted by: Kirk at February 3, 2006 7:35 PM
Comment #120266

Kirk,
Sgt. Schneider the Capitol Police spokeswoman was not there when Cindy Sheehan was arrested. Therefore, she was taking the word of the police who made the wrongful arrest. They must have claimed that they asked her to put her jacket back on and that she refused. But what is most interesting about that is that in the photos of her arrest, Sheehan is at that point wearing her sweatshirt jacket, though it is not zipped up. (The t-shirt was not long sleeved, if you scroll down the page of that link, you’ll see another photo of how she was actually wearing that black tee over a white long-sleeved one.)
Moreover, the Chief of Police came out not long after Schneider’s statement and said they were wrong to arrest her because she had broken no law, and that all charges were going to be dropped. If she had been resistant and abusive during her arrest, I’m not so sure he’d have been so quick to announce that. Nevertheless, in the interim, Cindy Sheehan was roughed-up by those same officers, taken to two different jails, and was not actually released until four hours later.

Now, I know you’ll just come back with something to try to refute what I’ve said here, but in my opinion, it’s pointless.
Think what y’all like, but I know what they did was wrong, and in comparison to what happened to Ms. Young, shows a large double standard is working at Capitol Police.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 3, 2006 8:45 PM
Comment #120285

I’m sure that Ms. Sheehan was planning to sit there quietly during the SOTU address. I mean it’s not like she always jumps on a soapbox and starts screaming whenever there are cameras present.

Yeah, right.
Posted by: goodkingned at February 3, 2006 06:21 PM

Obviously these righties think waging pre-emptive war on people is a grand idea.
Posted by: Adrienne at February 3, 2006 07:21 PM


Adrienne:

If you seriously propose that intelligent persons fail to consider soneone’s past behavior when evaluating their probable future behavior, than I suggest that apply the same lack of prejudgement when you evaluate Bush’s probable behavior in the future.

You lefties are sure that you won’t agree with anything Bush says, so you condemn him in advance. It was apparent that Sheehan intended to disrupt the proceedings. She lives for that kind of attention.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 3, 2006 9:30 PM
Comment #120320

>>You lefties are sure that you won’t agree with anything Bush says, so you condemn him in advance. It was apparent that Sheehan intended to disrupt the proceedings. She lives for that kind of attention.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 3, 2006 09:30 PM

gkn,

Please change righties for lefties…change the word Bush to Sheehan and change the word Sheehan to Bush. Now you’ve gotten close to the truth.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 3, 2006 10:59 PM
Comment #120333

Marysdude:

Are you saying that Bush would disrupt the SOTU address? That doesn’t make sense.

But you are correct that I have not heard Sheehan say much of anything that I agree with.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 3, 2006 11:34 PM
Comment #120353

“Alledgely the congress and the office of the presidency should be accorded a modicum of decency.

Had I been the president,I would have slapped Alito on the back and mooned Ted Kennedy.”

these are the words from a reply close to the top of this list. does anyone else see anything here??? havent i seen this guy on fox news ??? if not, a brilliant future there awaits him. more contrary than o’reilly.

Posted by: BD at February 4, 2006 12:30 AM
Comment #120387

It is unconstitutional to remove her from the chamber because of a message on her clothing.

It would be unconstitutional for a person wearing a shirt that said “Fuck Liberals” to be removed from the chamber.

It is unconstitutional to regulate what students wear at school. “Distraction” does not work as an argument because anything can be a distraction to students in a class. I find ugly people to be a distraction. If someone in the desk in front of me is missing an arm, I will be far more distracted by that than any T-shirt they could be wearing. You cannot ban ugly people and amputees from school simply because they are a distraction.

Posted by: Deiouss at February 4, 2006 1:47 AM
Comment #120399

“Sgt. Schneider the Capitol Police spokeswoman was not there when Cindy Sheehan was arrested. Therefore, she was taking the word of the police who made the wrongful arrest. They must have claimed that they asked her to put her jacket back on and that she refused.”

And neither were you. Therefore, you are taking the work of Cindy who has refused to cooperate woth the police on numerous occassions.

“Moreover, the Chief of Police came out not long after Schneider’s statement and said they were wrong to arrest her because she had broken no law, and that all charges were going to be dropped. If she had been resistant and abusive during her arrest, I’m not so sure he’d have been so quick to announce that.”

Or maybe it was that since she had broken no law, they were going to overlook the resistance due to the circumstances.

“and in comparison to what happened to Ms. Young, shows a large double standard is working at Capitol Police.”

Again I point out as due many news reports that Mrs. Young cooperated with the police when asked to leave the chambers while Cindy did not. That is the most likely reason for the difference in the treatment.

Posted by: Kirk at February 4, 2006 2:30 AM
Comment #120403

Portions of an open letter to Bush by Cindy Shehann.
November 4, 2004
An Open Letter to George W. Bush

If you think I am going to allow you another four years to do even more damage, then you truly are mistaken. I will fight for a true vote count and if that fails, your impeachment. Also, the impeachment of your Vice President. The only thing is, I’m not politically savvy, and I don’t have a Karl Rove to plan my strategy, but I do have a big mouth and a righteous cause, which still mean something in this country, I hope.

your reckless and wanton foreign policies killed my son

your ignorant and arrogant lack of planning for the peace murdered my oldest child

Hard work is having your country abandon you after they killed your son.

We are going to do everything in our power to have you impeached

We are going to scream until our last breath

The 56,000,000 plus citizens who voted against you and your agenda have given me a mandate to move forward with my agenda

Being your political downfall will be the most noble accomplishment of my life

Based on the above, and her past history NO, I don’t think Cindy would have sat there quietly and listened to the SOTU address if she had been allowed to zip up her jacket and stay.

Posted by: Kirk at February 4, 2006 2:46 AM
Comment #120472

KCtim, I have also never called you a wingnut. I reserve that for the true nuts in the administration who truly deserve that. I enjoy your comments although I usually disagree 100% of the time. You are consistant which is more than the wing nuts usually are. It did annoy me when during the last presidential campaign you never capitalized Kerry’s name. Care to explain why? You thought that little of a man who went to war and instead championed (there’s that phrase again) a dope that moved to the head of the line of the TNG because of his connections. Can you ‘splain that one to me? Thank you in advance.

Posted by: Ray S at February 4, 2006 6:41 AM
Comment #120488

I find that the Right Wing of the Conservative movement has taken decidedly National Socialist ideas of freedom of expression. The physical manhandeling of Cindy Sheehan from the gallery overlooking the President before he bagan the State of the Union speech is a reminder of old Nazi propaganda films.

Posted by: john at February 4, 2006 7:36 AM
Comment #120526

Kirk -

You can’t pre-emptively arrest someone. Even if you suspect that they might disrupt things, you can only wait and see. It the way the law and America works. (Ya know… innocent until proven guilty.)

Posted by: tony at February 4, 2006 10:05 AM
Comment #120540

John,

Systematically removing protesters from view is nothing new to Bush & Co:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1026-04.htm

IMO only due to the intense media attention were Sheehan and her fellow protesters not hastled worse in Texas.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 4, 2006 10:51 AM
Comment #120555

Invitees are to be in compliance with the protocol, dress codes, etc. It is inappropriate to be indifferent to the requirements of being a guest. She embarrassed herself and the individual who invited her.

Posted by: steve smith at February 4, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #120567

>>You can’t pre-emptively arrest someone. Even if you suspect that they might disrupt things, you can only wait and see. It the way the law and America works.

Tony,

Your response to kirk was right on…however, ‘pre-emptive is the new conservative battle-cry. Isn’t that how we got into the Iraq mess in the first place?

I think the President used the word pre-emptive…I would have used the word presumptive.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 4, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #120589

Tony,

“You can’t pre-emptively arrest someone. Even if you suspect that they might disrupt things, you can only wait and see. It the way the law and America works. (Ya know… innocent until proven guilty.)”

And here is where the flaw in your argument is exposed.

You see Cindy was not “pre-emptively arrested”. Cindy was arrested after she refused to cooperate with a police officer.

A “pre-emptive arrest” claim would be valid if she had been arrested prior to being seated for instance, or before she was given an opportunity to cooperate. Once she choose not to cooperate with the police officer the claim of a “pre-emptive arrest” went out the window.

Posted by: Kirk at February 4, 2006 12:43 PM
Comment #120592

“Invitees are to be in compliance with the protocol, dress codes, etc. It is inappropriate to be indifferent to the requirements of being a guest. She embarrassed herself and the individual who invited her.

Posted by: steve smith at February 4, 2006 11:52 AM “

Steve,
Would it not then follow that the esteemed congressman’s wife embarrassed herself and her husband?
Who should have a better knowledge of proper “decorum”, Cindy Sheehan, or a long standing Congressman’s wife?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 4, 2006 12:52 PM
Comment #120613

>>She embarrassed herself and the individual who invited her.

Steve Smith,

I have seen nothing to indicate that either Cindy or her sponsor were embarrased in the least. Why should it embarrass someone to be in the right?

Posted by: Marysdude at February 4, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #120615

“Cindy was arrested after she refused to cooperate with a police officer.”

1 - If you read the police report and eyewitness accounts, then NO she did not resist the police.

2 - What, if she was not breaking any laws, did the police have the right to ask her to alter her outfit and ask her to leave.

3 - She was not verbally abusive or anywhere near as resistive as Mrs. Young. Why - if this was a proper conduct by the police and a legitimate infraction - why wasn’t Mrs. young arrested?

Cindy says she did not resist the poice, Mrs. Yound admits that she did. I don’t see the confusion here.

Posted by: tony at February 4, 2006 2:11 PM
Comment #120625

marysdude…

Don’t worry about it. Just trust them, this is really embarrassing to Cindy and to us and to all liberals. It is. THEY said it is, so I guess we must face the ?facts? and start appologizing.

Whhhheeeeew. I am just chagrinned. Dang.


I’m sure it would help if we would all just stop complaining and pointing out the problems with Bush and just try to look on the sunnny side of life. Ignorance is blisss…

Now breathe deep… Release. Smile. Now don’t you feel better.

Posted by: tony at February 4, 2006 2:48 PM
Comment #120626

>>Now breathe deep… Release. Smile. Now don’t you feel better.

Posted by: tony at February 4, 2006 02:48 PM

tony,

Ahhh, breeeeeathe…breeeeathe…breeeeathe…

Nope, but it was a good try, Tony, deep breathing only allowed a certain Cheney/Bush stench in…

If it will help our brethern on the right with their constipation though, I’ll keep trying.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 4, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #120647

John,

If this is an example of what motivates pro-dems to the polls then the democrats have real problems. Cindy violated a rule that applies to everyone. There is a level of decorum required WITHIN the capital building. She would not have been permitted in, if they saw her attire. Removing people for improper dress happens all the time.

Her right of free speech was not violated. Inside the capital building, ONLY elected officials, and their designated representatives have any right to speak, and then only within the rules agreed to by the members of House or Senate. As for free speech, she could have protested all she wanted, from outside and off the grounds. This is isn’t what the country is coming to but how it has always been.

Maybe you didn’t know this. I suspect Cindy knew this, or she wouldn’t have hid her attire under a coat. It looks like a cheap stunt, intended to give people who don’t know any better a chance to complain about “what this country has come too”. Many of my liberal friends have begun to question the tactics of the party. Too much hysteria, too much self-righteous indignation, too many poorly disguised publicity stunts, too many people (like Cindy) that reflect poorly on the decision making ability of the party supporters.

The nicest thing I can say about what is happening to the democratic party, including these little publicity stunts, is that at least they aren’t shooting at Fort Sumter, again.

Posted by: Wise_Skeptic at February 4, 2006 4:34 PM
Comment #120695

“If it will help our brethern on the right with their constipation though, I’ll keep trying.”

i wasn’t aware that they were constipated… they’ve seemed to have quite the opposite problem.

Wise_Skeptic -

What rules are you talking about? The police said they were repsonding to outdated protocol. Also, the California Rep. gave her ticket to Sheehan at a protest outside, and unless I read it wrong, Cindy basically went straight from the protest outside to the SOTU inside. She was dressed for a protest… so how does this make for a ‘stunt.’ I know your assumptions make for that, but really - show some facts. Else, it might sound better if you phased things as opinions.

I don’t doubt Cindy would not mind Bush seeing her there and reading her t-shirt. I do take issue with people’s concerns about exposure of political messages at the SOTU. IMO - wartime is a horrible time to stand on formalities.

Posted by: tony at February 4, 2006 7:24 PM
Comment #120705

just to back things up:

”The officers made a good faith but mistaken effort to enforce an old, unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol,” Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday.

http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_3470923

Posted by: tony at February 4, 2006 7:54 PM
Comment #120764

Well, does anyone here believe that there has been a systematic effort to keep dissent out of the view of Bush?

I left with three friends expecting to be at least within site of the motorcade and we were pushed back more than 20 miles. That’s not a typo: 20 miles!

http://www.arkcity.net/stories/012406/com_0002.shtml

There is very little coverage. Google Bush + Kansas + January 24, 2006.

I taped it but my son taped over it. Damn I need Tivo.

Of course he was very much loved, Kansas is 70% Republican after all but still he was faced with two questions he stumbled over.

#1. Student loans.

#2. Brokeback Mountain.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 4, 2006 11:43 PM
Comment #120775

Marysdude,

“Why should it embarrass someone to be in the right?”

It shouldn’t embarrassment comes from being in the left.

Sorry couldn’t resist that one.

Posted by: Kirk at February 5, 2006 12:09 AM
Comment #121091

Cindy’s son chose to joint our military and fight for a country he was proud of. His mother has shamed his name and memory by her actions. Of course she has a right to mourn but she should be supportive. Also, this is the same woman who shook hands with the dictator/murderer, Chavez. She doesn’t know what it means to be American.

Posted by: Theresa at February 5, 2006 3:53 PM
Comment #121121

>>She doesn’t know what it means to be American.

Posted by: Theresa at February 5, 2006 03:53 PM

Theresa,

Cindy is a far better AMERICAN than most of us. True Americans have never sat on their butts while bad things were happening to our country. She is aware that her son and thousands of other sons have died in an ignoble cause, and she’s shouting it from the highest hills. It would be UNamerican for her to do otherwise.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 5, 2006 5:23 PM
Comment #121131

Theresa -

D. Rumsfeld shook hands with Hussein, several times. What does that make him?

And who are you to judge what makes a good American and what does not? Sheehan is doing what she feels is needed, and she has sacrificed plenty in order to do so. I wonder if anyone here, on either side, has even made a single attempt at this.

As far as shame goes - she has added shame to Bush, not her son. Why are heroes of war so easily tossed away in honor of political benefit? How many times will the REPs impugn the honor of those who have actually served and sacrificed for our country simply because they disagree with Bush.

Posted by: tony at February 5, 2006 5:51 PM
Comment #121178

tony:

I am unclear about what exactly Ms. Sheehan has sacrificed to conduct her public protest. She is now a pet project for the Hollywood left with access to resources and funding that I suspect she didn’t have before. I doubt that she was jetting to exotic foreign and domestic locals prior to her publicity grab.

Don’t tell me she sacrificed her son. He choose how to live his life, and sadly died serving his country. All that happened before Ms. Sheehan began her campaign.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 5, 2006 8:12 PM
Comment #121325

>>Don’t tell me she sacrificed her son. He choose how to live his life, and sadly died serving his country. All that happened before Ms. Sheehan began her campaign.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 5, 2006 08:12 PM

gkn,

Maybe tony should have used the word ‘lost’ instead of sacrificed. Does it really change the facts and opinions on this case to worry about that word?

Cindy LOST her son, and wants an explanation as to why he had to die in a less than honorable cause. I’d kind of like to know too, and I havn’t lost MY son.

Cindy is the American patriot, because she challenges the powers that be, who wage the less than honorable war.

Surely you do not imply the either Cheney or Bush are patriots. They ran from their own service in order to join the military industrial complex. Nathan Hale they ain’t.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 6, 2006 6:09 AM
Comment #121333

Kirk:


Tony,
You see Cindy was not “pre-emptively arrested”. Cindy was arrested after she refused to cooperate with a police officer.

Actually the official charge was ‘Unlawful Conduct’. Furthermore, wasn’t it the police that apologized for arresting her and stated categorically that she should never have been arrested?

Unless, of course, you have something to the contrary.

Wise_skeptic:


If this is an example of what motivates pro-dems to the polls then the democrats have real problems. Cindy violated a rule that applies to everyone. There is a level of decorum required WITHIN the capital building.

This incident has nothing to do with decorum, rules, appropriateness, respect, morality or any other subjective argument. Who cares where the morality compass is pointing. This is about a woman that was wrongfully arrested for exercising her 1st amendment rights afforded to her in the constitution of this land.

Posted by: john trevisani at February 6, 2006 7:35 AM
Comment #124058

Shame on all of you who are saying that her son is rolling around in his grave. Shame on all of you who think that this “war” (which actually isn’t a war- we haven’t had a declared war since WW2) is justified in any way. I pity any of you that think there isn’t a draft. My cousin, may he rest in peace, was killed in action in Iraq. He was a Marine Reservist who would have done anything to not go. He HATED Bush. Yet he still served our country. I think there should be more Sheehans in the world. Face it, Bush’s approval rating is plummeting due to this Vietnam-esque war. Those of you who still believe in Bush are blind. I am the mere age of 16 and can see straight through his bullshit. The only reason he was re-elected was beacause during war time, the incumbant is generally re-elected (only once has this not happened). He created the war (a little suspicious huh?). Granted, Kerry wasn’t the best choice either, but you have to go with the lesser of two evils. Let’s also not forget who won the popular vote in 2000 (damn Florida and their “hanging chads”). Wake up America, Vote democrat in ‘08
“Rather be DEAD than RED”-maybe that’s coming true
Signed,
The Proud 48%

Posted by: Floyd07 at February 12, 2006 11:08 PM
Post a comment