Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Equal opportunity ejectors
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, February 01, 2006

One of the various stories about the SOTU is the ejection by Capitol Police of Cindy Sheehan from the House gallery for wearing a t-shirt with an anti-war slogan.
Schneider said Sheehan had worn a T-shirt with an anti-war slogan to the speech and covered it up until she took her seat. Police warned her that such displays were not allowed, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said.
Of course they led her away in handcuffs and now she's alledging police brutality (big surprise).

Naturally, this is news around the world.

Also ejected was Beverly Young. Ms. Young is the wife of Rep. Bill Young of FL. Seems she too was wearing a t-shirt with a message.
The wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Indian Shores, told a newspaper that she was ejected during the State of the Union address for wearing a T-shirt that says, "Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom."

Beverly Young told the St. Petersburg Times that 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.

She said she reluctantly agreed, but argued with several officers in an outside hallway.
Of course the fact that she left without having to be arrested tells you all you need to know about Sheehan's intent. She obviously got what she wanted.

But back to Ms. Young. After she left, she apparently had a bit of a conversation with the Capitol Police:
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.

``They said I was protesting,'' she told the St. Petersburg Times. ``I said, ``Read my shirt, it is not a protest.' They said, 'We consider that a protest.' I said, 'Then you are an idiot.'''
I happen to agree with her assessment although I'd note that the police were simply doing what the law or rules required they do. The idiot, per se, is the group or person who made it a law or a rule.

Look, there is nothing especially sacrosanct about the House of Representatives. I can understand rules or laws which proscribe behavior that might infringe upon the ability of the House to conduct it's business in an orderly fashion. But two women sitting quietly in t-shirts that happen to have messages on them doesn't qualify as disruptive in my estimation.
``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,'' Sheehan wrote. ``I didn't want to be disruptive out of respect for her.''
And apparently she, to that point, hadn't been (that doesn't mean she didn't intend, at some point, possibly afterward, to be disruptive ... but that's conjecture).

Lord help me but I agree with Cindy Sheehan and Beverly Young on this one. Somewhere, pigs are flying.

HT: Newslinker

UPDATE: From MSNBC. Charges dropped as Capitol Hill police admit mistake:
Capitol Police dropped a charge of unlawful conduct against antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan on Wednesday and apologized for ejecting her and a congressman’s wife from President Bush’s State of the Union address for wearing T-shirts with war messages.

“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.

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

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Next year, someone needs to wear a headband with "Rozelle" (or, "Jim McMahon"?) on it, eh?
 
Written By: Nathan
URL: http://brain.mu.nu/
Yeah, I’m inclined to be sympathetic to her position, too.

Still, I’m having trouble reconciling the view that the local security has the right to make and enforce whatever rules they think important, with the view that a t-shirt just isn’t the same as a "disturbance". I do, however, think it’s difficult to assign political blame for this. I don’t think Congressional security was directed to harrass anti-Bush protestors, per se.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I dont know McQ. It seems to me the only reason to wear shirts like those (both cases) is to draw attention to the shirt, it’s message, and by extension, yourself. Which I think is disruptive in that setting, especially when factoring in the press.

I mean really, you’re going to the SOTU itself, wear something nicer than a t-shirt, whatever it says. Add on a ribbon or some other non-distracting symbol for your message.
 
Written By: Chris
URL: http://
Yeah, flying.

But will the count of landings equal the number of takeoffs?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
I don’t think Congressional security was directed to harrass anti-Bush protestors, per se.
Yup ... hard to make that case when a "protester" wearing a message that could be seen as "pro-Bush" (or at worst, neutral) was ejected too.

Frankly I think it’s a dumb rule or law.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I dont know McQ. It seems to me the only reason to wear shirts like those (both cases) is to draw attention to the shirt, it’s message, and by extension, yourself. Which I think is disruptive in that setting, especially when factoring in the press.
An electric green bowtie would draw attention, Chris.

I can read silently and their message is a silent one. I see nothing disruptive about that. And, it is political speech, which is supposed to be protected. I might feel differently if it were overtly disruptive as the need of the House to be able to conduct its business without interference would seem to override my concern with their ability to exercise their right to free speech there. They could be taken outside where they could exercise it to their heart’s content.

Nope, can’t buy into t-shirt messages rising to the level of "disruptive".
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
No doubt. I think security was over zealous in both instances. It was a t-shirt for God’s sake. These ladies should be publicly flogged for poor taste, rather than being removed for "protesting"? T-shirts at the SOTU? What would Mr. Blackwell say?
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
1999:
WASHINGTON A Pennsylvania school teacher was yanked out of a VIP Senate gallery and briefly detained last week during the impeachment trial for wearing a T-shirt with graphic language dissing President Clinton.

Dave Delp, 42, of Carlisle, Pa., and a friend had just settled into their seats last Saturday when four Capitol security guards approached them. Delp said yesterday he was ordered to button his coat and follow the guards. Outside the chamber, he was told "several people felt threatened by your shirt," which said, "Bill Doesn’t Inhale He Just S—-s."

Even after establishing that Delp was a guest of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), the guards wouldn’t let him back in and escorted him to a basement security area, where they questioned and photographed him.

After being given one of the photos as a souvenir, Delp said he was banned from the Capitol for the rest of the day. "They were polite and professional," Delp added, "but they really did scare me. I think I should have been given the chance to cover up."

Capitol police declined to comment.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
It’s long been in the US Code that no demonstrations of any kind are allowed in any of the Capitol buildings.


Here’s a link with the statute.

The relevant clause has to do with displays:

(2) display in the Grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.

T-shirts would count as "other devices" for this purpose. It doesn’t matter whether the display is disruptive, it’s still against the gallery rules. And the rules are evenly enforced, as we saw last night.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
Good Grief — the point is that ’protest’ has become villianized so that even wearing an article of clothing with an image or words on it becomes an issue of ’disruption’. In young’s case, her t-shirt ’message’ was the ’officially’ acceptable one of enthusiastic support for our troops. What’s next— ejecting folks for prominently wearing American Flag lapel buttons? But more idiotic — how is a statement of support for troops a ’protest’?

In each case, both re: Sheehan and Young, they weren’t even given the option of buttoning-up their jackets. Initial CNN report and similar ’news’ accounts apparently using the same unconfirmed source allege Sheehan had ’unfurled a banner’ — AS if something like a banner could have been brought or smuggled into the House Gallery. Numerous commentors seized on this report as further proof of how dangerous and disruptive Sheehan is.

What this incident DOES show is to what extent the political ’leadership’ in Washington has become so paranoid and intolerant of criticism that screen-printed t-shirts are now considered ’disruptive’ and security threats. The highly-public spectacle of Capital Police trampling free-speech (becoming an issue of International News) is arguably FAR more disruptive to participatory democracy — even as it reveals enormous irony and contradiction. America claims to be defending freedom and human/civil rights in far-flung wars and covert operations — while freedoms and rights here at home are being diminshed.

Why is it so hard for some folks to realize this is just unacceptable?

Starman
 
Written By: Starman
URL: http://
But not quite evenly enforced — the congressman’s wife was taken into the hallway and quietly informed that her shirt was out of order, then let go. Mrs. Sheehan was arrested and held under guard for 4 hours. If you read her statement, she says she had no intention of protesting and would have covered or removed her shirt if asked. You can believe her or not, as you choose. I might suggest the public should donate a few plain white t-shirts to the capitol cloakroom for emergency situations. Black tie optional.
 
Written By: Susan
URL: http://
T-shirts would count as "other devices" for this purpose. It doesn’t matter whether the display is disruptive, it’s still against the gallery rules. And the rules are evenly enforced, as we saw last night.
No one is questioning it’s existence nor whether it was evenly enforced. What’s being questioned is whether it is good law.
But not quite evenly enforced — the congressman’s wife was taken into the hallway and quietly informed that her shirt was out of order, then let go. Mrs. Sheehan was arrested and held under guard for 4 hours.
That’s because unlike Ms. Sheehan, Ms. Young voluntarily left the gallery and Ms. Sheehan ignored the police until they were left with no choice but to forcibly remove her. Had Ms. Sheehan acted like Ms. Young, there’s little doubt she’d have been able to leave as well.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Sadly, in Bynum vs Capitol Police, the US District Court found that: "Believing that the Capitol Police needed guidance in determining what behavior constitutes a ’demonstration,’ the United States Capitol Police Board issued a regulation that interprets ’demonstration activity,’" and that regulation specifically provides that it "does not include merely wearing Tee shirts, buttons or other similar articles of apparel that convey a message. Traffic Regulations for the Capitol Grounds, § 158" (emphasis added).

So both women have the right to wear whatever T-Shirt they want in the capitol. Sheehan simply was more vocal about it.

Court case info via Glenn Greenwald
 
Written By: Tom in Texas
URL: http://
So both women have the right to wear whatever T-Shirt they want in the capitol. Sheehan simply was more vocal about it.
From the accounts I’ve read, she wasn’t vocal at all. What she did is ignore the police, which is not a good policy. They will get your attention eventually. And they will remove you if you don’t cooperate at that point. But vocal?

I don’t think so.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
That’s because unlike Ms. Sheehan, Ms. Young voluntarily left the gallery and Ms. Sheehan ignored the police until they were left with no choice but to forcibly remove her. Had Ms. Sheehan acted like Ms. Young, there’s little doubt she’d have been able to leave as well.
I expect the idea that the woman was also an actual relative of one of the congressmen also played into the differing outcome.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
I find several of these posts to be deliberately annoying. Thanks to our republican congress and president that is now criminal. You are all under arrest.


cnet news
 
Written By: cindy
URL: http://
Sadly McQ I think you are right and it undercuts your point. If she was in no way vocal, then she was in no concievable way demonstrating, which means there were no grounds to remove her. First Amendment anyone?
 
Written By: Tom in Texas
URL: http://
Sadly McQ I think you are right and it undercuts your point. If she was in no way vocal, then she was in no concievable way demonstrating, which means there were no grounds to remove her.
That’s been my point all along, Tom. I think it’s a bad law.

The differentiation I was making is the reason Sheehan ended up in jail is she refused to acknowledge the police when she was asked to leave thereby leaving them not choice but to forcibly remove her (and then charge her).

Young, otoh, acknowledged the police, left when asked and thus was not arrested.

That doesn’t change the fact that I agree both women should have been left alone as long as they were quietly wearing the t-shirts and not causing a disturbance.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Mr. Greenwald is entirely too free in declaring that given statements or behavior is "clearly legal" or "clearly illegal". In this case Ms. Sheehan was not "merely" wearing the shirt. Think of pirhana fish in the wading pool - are they merely swimming prior to someone stepping into the pool?
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
Humbly, I agree upon rereading the post that I completely misinterpreted your original point sir, and I apologize. However, Sheehan did not argue with the police. She did not yell or scream at them. They did not have to remove her. In fact, there was no reason to, and no earthly reason to arrest her. According to the article linked (and BTW I don’t think I have ever seen MTV.com as a link before), Sheehan was quickly removed and offered no resistance. Why on earth was she charged with anything?
 
Written By: Tom in Texas
URL: http://
Specifically for Bob2, you cannot arrest someone because of something they may do in the future. You need evidence, of which there was none, that Sheehan will commit or has committed a crime. What she did was clearly no crime. She was no pirahna — she was a middle aged mother sitting in an aisle listening to a speech.
 
Written By: Tom in Texas
URL: http://
Dammit man; show more class than the elected folks on the floor, and put on a suit.
 
Written By: Coffee
URL: http://
However, Sheehan did not argue with the police. She did not yell or scream at them. They did not have to remove her. In fact, there was no reason to, and no earthly reason to arrest her. According to the article linked (and BTW I don’t think I have ever seen MTV.com as a link before), Sheehan was quickly removed and offered no resistance. Why on earth was she charged with anything?
Because she ignored them when asked to leave, Tom.

Thus they had to physically remove her. Had she done what Ms. Young did, they’d have had no reason to arrest her.

Sheehan was charged with "unlawful conduct" which was related to her refusal to acknowledge and cooperate with police in the execution of their duty.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Good gawd.

HAve none of you been in the House of Reps before?

The rules are quite clear outside the viewing balcony. No slogans, no banners, no talking, no gum, no cell phones, nothing. You are required to remain silent while the house is in session etc.

Ignorance of the rules is not an excuse. period. quit appologizing for her, or this dreamt up assault of the 1st ammendment.

 
Written By: navtechie
URL: http://
In each case, both re: Sheehan and Young, they weren’t even given the option of buttoning-up their jackets
Mrs. Sheehan was arrested and held under guard for 4 hours. If you read her statement, she says she had no intention of protesting and would have covered or removed her shirt if asked
You are both wrong. Here’s the CNN story

Sheehan was given the option of covering up her shirt, according Sgt. Kimberly Schneider of the Capitol Police. So, Sheehan is lying.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
But Navtache, she had no banner or cell phone — she (unlike certain lady senators with far reaching ambition) was not even chewing gum. She was not talking. As per my earlier post, she broke none of these rules you speak of.
 
Written By: Tom in Texas
URL: http://
The rules are quite clear outside the viewing balcony. No slogans, no banners, no talking, no gum, no cell phones, nothing. You are required to remain silent while the house is in session etc.

Ignorance of the rules is not an excuse. period. quit appologizing for her, or this dreamt up assault of the 1st ammendment.
Good grief: the fact that the "rules are posted" has zip to do with whether or not it is or isn’t a first amendment violation.

That’s like saying if the rules against it are posted outside the Kremlin, executing someone for speaking out against the government within it’s confines is ok.

In my estimation this is indeed a 1st amendment violation, rules be damned.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I think it is a good rule and that it was right they were ejected. I don’t think it appropriate for sloganed T-Shirts or hats or banners or whatever to be used in that setting. Not wearing such attire is as simple a rule as a dress code, and well within the limits of enforcement for an event. Similar to yelling ’fire’ in a crowded theatre there are times that free speech is not the overriding concern.

As for Mrs. Sheehan’s intention, I reccommend you read her intentions in her own post where she states she planned to wear her protest shirt because news crews had been informed she would be present and she would be able to send her message when she was put on TV. This is why messages to the ’viewing’ audience aren’t allowed during the SOTU address. The rules are enforced by police and disobeying isn’t a free speach issue, it’s a crime. All makes sense to me, and as we’ve ready by now this isn’t the first time it was done. Here’s the link: http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index_594.html

The laws related to managing free speech have repeatedly been upheld, it’s why you can for example reserve a street corner or other public place and then for that time exclude people who are looking to cause a disturbance or disagree with your point of view even if you are a communist or the KKK. The laws do not prevent people with opposing opinions from speaking, just from causing a disturbance of the peace... in this case the capital hill cops were correct as are the standards that are enforced for all who enter the venue.
 
Written By: Bill
URL: http://
BTW, although in this case it was free speach what if it was a logo’d shirt for Coca Cola or ’My Porn Site’.com or an advertisement that someone wanted run during the SOTU - still protected speech? Still something that we ’need’ in the middle of the SOTU address?
 
Written By: Bill
URL: http://
Specifically for Tom, you are not in the liberal cocoon here. Here facts are important. If you demonstrate that you like to change the facts to support your argument or alter quotations for that purpose you will have no credibility. Arresting someone for what they may do in the future is your strawman, not my statement. Cindy Sheehan carrying a rolled-up flag anywhere near a crowd is not “merely” carrying a parcel. Ditto the shirt. It is not “clear” that what she did was not disorderly conduct. She is no pirahna, you got that right. She was not sitting in the aisle and the speech was not due to begin for 45 minutes. I know, you are a liberal and “forged, but true” is close enough on the facts for you, but in the real world facts do exist. You need to get yours straight.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
Come on, McQ, there are limits to the first amendment, especially when it comes to the House Chamber. When you sit in the viewing balconey, you are an invited guest of Congress and, as such, have to abide by it’s rules. Can you imagine what Committee meetings and House/Senate sessions would be like if we didn’t have these restrictive rules? Look, you either follow the rules and use your "free speech" outside the viewing balcony, or you don’t sit in the balcony. You’re way off on this one.
 
Written By: JFH
URL: http://
The rules are quite clear outside the viewing balcony. No slogans, no banners, no talking, no gum, no cell phones, nothing. You are required to remain silent while the house is in session etc.
So what did she say JFH? And what was disruptive about her sitting quietly in the gallery with a t-shirt on?
Ignorance of the rules is not an excuse.
This isn’t about ignorance of the rules for the fiftieth time. It’s about the legitimacy of the rules.
quit appologizing for her, or this dreamt up assault of the 1st ammendment.
Well you keep asserting it isn’t about the 1st amendment, but as I recall, the 1st amendment prohibits the government from banning or suppressing free speech. What would you call what happened?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
What rolled up flag are you referring to Bob? I have not seen such a reference in any article I have read. As for the futerecrime "strawman" you reference — you likened her to a pirhana swimming and waiting for someone to approach — in other words you claim she was planning to commit a disturbance. There is no evidence for this, other than the T-shirt she was wearing that is specifically protected from the rules against demonstrating. I am not creating a false argument — I am asking you show me any evidence there may be that shows she was planning to demonstrate. Absent that, she would have been arrested for a future crime.
 
Written By: Tom in Texas
URL: http://
McQ,
Mrs. Sheehan was not prevented from expressing her opinion, she could have sat in her seat and shook her head ’no’ throughout the address or put a thumbs down out every time she disagreed, she was not prevented any more then any of the actions taken by other senators who showed their disagreement/displeasure with the President during the speech.

However, her ’right’ does not include the right to post or display a message or to take any action that might be considered a disturbance and since the rule is - no logo / message attire guess what... it means ’no’. That isn’t a violation of her freedom of expression. Especially since she was at a protest where she was more then allowed to express her opinion before the event and has since had and used ample opportunity to continue to express her opinion. Here opinions her freedom is not being supressed based on a dress code.

This isn’t a first ammendment issue and those taking it to court should be charged for the govt’s cost in explaining how ’right’ doesn’t mean you can do anything you want anytime you want. All of our rights come with limits, and in this case preventing all message based attire is a reasonable limit.
 
Written By: Bill
URL: http://
Actually, convincing you that she is guilty of a future crime might be easier than getting you to understand about your strawman. And the hypothetical flag? Tom, there is no flag involved here. And it isn’t about wearing a shirt. Perhaps some tourist’s small child wearing a t-shirt with a slogan who remains quiet while visiting on a routine day would be allowed a pass. That is “merely” wearing a shirt. Cindy Sheehan (or any other given female of her age) wearing a shirt with a slogan large enough to be visible on TV to a SOTU speech is not “merely” wearing a shirt. Get it? No, I thought not. If she lit a bomb fuse with her cigar you would be expostulating that she was “merely” lighting her cigar. No, Tom, there was no bomb or cigar involved.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
Yes Bob I "get it." Because there were TV cameras there and it was the SOTU speech as opposed to a regular business day at the Capitol, you argue that the normal rules do not apply. I have to beg to differ. If the Capitol Police Board Regulations allow T-shirts to be worn in the Capitol, then they are allowed no matter the setting, IMHO. As long as she was not causing a disturbance, she and Mrs. Young both have that right. She committed no crime in wearing that shirt.
 
Written By: Tom in Texas
URL: http://
Sheehan, who had been invited to attend the speech by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., was
charged with demonstrating
in the Capitol building, a misdemeanor, said Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider. Her confession is on Kos. Next case.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
Wow Bob I hadn’t read her diary. Very revealing that she claims she was never asked to remover the shirt but was simply arrested. Contrasts quite "clearly" (to use a word you hate) with Mrs. Young’s tale, doesn’t it?

BTW all charges were dropped. She was innocent. Next case.
 
Written By: Tom in Texas
URL: http://
Notherbob2 said:
Ditto the shirt. It is not “clear” that what she did was not disorderly conduct. She is no pirahna, you got that right. She was not sitting in the aisle and the speech was not due to begin for 45 minutes. I know, you are a liberal and “forged, but true” is close enough on the facts for you, but in the real world facts do exist. You need to get yours straight.
Oh Notherbob2, wrong again. It is clear that it was not disorderly conduct.
Capitol Police dropped a charge of unlawful conduct against antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan today and offered apologies to her as well as a congressman’s wife after they were ejected from President Bush’s State of the Union address for wearing T-shirts with war messages.

Police removed Sheehan and Beverly Young, the wife of Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young, R-Fla., from the visitors gallery Tuesday night. Sheehan was taken away in handcuffs before Bush’s arrival at the Capitol and charged with a misdemeanor, while Young was not arrested.

Capitol Police did not explain why Sheehan was arrested and Young was not. However the unlawful conduct charge against Sheehan was being dropped, according to Deputy House Sergeant of Arms Kerri Hanley. And in a private meeting Wednesday, Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer apologized and planned to issue a statement, Rep. Thomas told reporters.

"They were operating under the misguided impression that the T-shirt was not allowed," Hanley said today. "The fact that she (Sheehan) was wearing a T-shirt is not enough reason to be asked to leave the gallery, or be removed from the gallery, or be arrested."
Notherbob2 or notherbob2. You want to start apologizing now?

The best part of this episode is that I imagine Sheehan knew exactly what she was doing. I imagine she did the research. I imagine that she knew she wasn’t violating the law. And I imagine she knew the Capitol 5-O would overreact. And I imagine that she knew that all the crazy wingers out there would go off about what a lawbreaker she was, only to have it thrown back at them. Way to go Cindy!

You can’t buy this kind of publicity.


 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Let’s see how rightwing protofascists like Michelle Malkin and Rusty Shackleford cover their tracks on this one.

Probably by making a "Michael Moore is fat" joke.
 
Written By: Geek, Esq.
URL: http://
Let’s see how rightwing protofascists like Michelle Malkin and Rusty Shackleford cover their tracks on this one.
No - here’s what they are going to do. They are going to argue that lefties were arguing that Bush was conspiring to kick Sheehan out, and this shows he wasn’t conspiring, and that they are all a bunch of moonbats, blah, blah, blah.

Of course they will never admit that they were wrong when they asserted Sheehan broke the rules. Here is a typical post, from Steverino:
T-shirts would count as "other devices" for this purpose. It doesn’t matter whether the display is disruptive, it’s still against the gallery rules. And the rules are evenly enforced, as we saw last night.

Of course, it wasn’t against the gallery rules. But don’t expect many corrections.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
???????Well, MK, we have all been wondering where you get your stuff. Imagination, huh?
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
Let’s just say constipation isn’t an issue, Bob.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Sometimes a comment loses it intended meaning by "developing news". My guess is that the international liberals were even more upset about the Sheehan incident than the Americans. Someone at a high level said "Kill this." So the Capitol security guys take one for the team. Up becomes down and left becomes right. The left will exult that they have won a major victory. Well, they won a victory. Too bad they didn’t pick a more productive fight.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
Of course, it wasn’t against the gallery rules. But don’t expect many corrections.
Well, if it isn’t The Man From Snotty River.

Hey, I freely admit that my prior information was wrong. When will you start admitting to your numerous mistakes? Oh, and please explain the 1999 incident that Bithead posted up above....we all know Bill Clinton would never use the force of the law to silence his political opponents, right?
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
A meeting body is entitled to enforce order in its own house. I don’t think it’s so reprehensible for Congress to control the horizontal and the vertical in its own House. I don’t think Jefferson or Madison would have put up, or have been expected to put up, with any equivalent Colonial-era nonsense.

Equality of result, unaddressed by the left: Both parties were removed. Yes, one arrested, one a Rep.’s wife. One quietly, in a cooperative fashion (her no doubt heartfelt comment of "idiot" perhaps aside), and one who claims to have gotten the vapours from the brutes, cads and mashers who violated her suffrage and her civil right of free TV.

Besides, the Mother Of Casey Sheehan was done a favor. A woman like that would have cameras on her all night—and a woman like the Mother of All Antiwar Protesters can’t go 45 minutes without picking her nose, I don’t doubt. Fox would have got the clip and she would be destroyed on TV. Mama Casey got just what she wanted. She will keep doing crazier and crazier things till she is somehow destroyed by her new life. Maybe drink, drugs, palpitations from taking offense. I hope she gets better but I doubt it.

Maybe she will live to write a tell-all exposé one day of The Movement and how they wrung her out like a sponge. If such a one were inflicted on Clinton somehow during his term, imagine the difference (or would Clinton have caved to it, and withdrawn from Bosnia or Somalia or wherever, given his political instinct to coopt and appease?) in how the press would have covered it and the treatment accorded?

Anyway, heaven and earth alike revolt against the notion that any sort of discretion in enforcement be allowed, eh?



BTW - am I missing the paragraphing in the preview or are there no returns in the above? So sorry.
 
Written By: Nichevo
URL: http://
Free speech doesn’t mean shouting fire in a crowded theater.

C’mon. D-E-C-O-R-U-M is important here.

I like the idea of banning any T-Shirt.

If you want to wear a be-sloganed T-Shirt choose a more appropriate venue.

Same with the Clinton Sucks shirt.

Or we can drop these rules and have a bunch of people who’s shirts spells out "Hillary is a bitch" in 2009. It’s just not right for the SOTU address.

 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Mistake?
The policy has been in force for decades. How can following a well-established policy have been a mistake on the part of the CH Police? Argue about the policy if you want, certainly. But those cops don’t set that policy, they merely obey it. Blaming them for following a policy handed down to them years previous and followed in so many examples as have been listed here and elsewhere seems scapegoatish to me.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
The best part of this episode is that I imagine Sheehan knew exactly what she was doing.
If that’s true, then she made a calculated error.

Cindy Sheehan, and her opinions, would have been better served by NOT wearing a tee-shirt. Why?
Isn’t it obvious? The story now becomes the tee-shirt, doesn’t it? Not the message.

Sheehan, like all protesters, gain credibility when perceived as mainstream thought. And wearing a tee, or holding cartoon representation, or painting one’s face, or banging on bongo drums, or singing kumbaya, and on and on, only reinforces the image of protesters as “extremists” or “out of touch”.

If Cindy Sheehan wore a nice suit and sat there quietly, her image would have been that of sympathy, not protester. The cameras would have jumped to her when the President mentioned Iraq, and the public would have been reminded of her loss, and the loss of so many other military families.

I once had sympathy for Sheehan; but now, every time she is mentioned, it just twists my nipples.
Because her misguided ranting serves only to drown out legitimate concerns about the War in Iraq.

Go home, Cindy. And live out the rest of your days remembering your son and his sacrifice. Your sympathy capital has been spent. I am sad to say.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
The best part of this episode is that I imagine Sheehan knew exactly what she was doing.
If that’s true, then she made a calculated error.
Her ’confession’ was posted at the Kossack site yesterday. She knew full well what she was doing. So did Wollsey.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
"Just wearing a T-shirt is not unlawful," [U.S. Capitol Police Chief] Terrance
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. “
See my comments above re: “merely”. So we have the closest of calls that has been second-guessed – or, more accurately, political intervention into the criminal system. OK. But check out the reaction of the left. Greenwald claims total vindication, victory, the coming of the millennium, the age of Aquarius, wets his pants and demands retractions from the entire right blogosphere. And look at MK’s reaction. These guys are so starved for a winner they lose all control when they win a coin flip. Jeez. Have we freed the slaves? Cured cancer? No. We can now have demonstrations in the Capitol. Yeah, we needed that.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
So, if this was of such import, why didn’t we have a longish line of liberals going spastic back in 99, on behalf of Dave Delp’s right of free speech?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Take a look at this (Marc Cooper) if you want to see how I think the left should be handling the Sheehan affair. Mr. Mahone also has the right of it.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
Is a raised finger with a purple ink-stain not a "device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement"?

And a member of the public is a "guest" at the House? I’m pretty sure it belongs to "We the People".
 
Written By: Rey Fox
URL: http://
So, let me understand this;
You’re arguing that the celebration of an entire country voting for the first time is something to be avoided?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
I take it back. Mahone has his head up his *ss (did I do that right?). See another thread.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
"...So, let me understand this;
You’re arguing that the celebration of an entire country voting for the first time is something to be avoided?..."

They were not celebrating Iraq voting. Obviously it was an attempt to reinforce that the reason for going to war Iraq to bring them democracy, not the original lie about WMDs. Try not to be so naïve about the intentions of politicians.

And when you start a sentence "You’re arguing...", you are letting everyone know you are preparing to erect a straw man. Sooo transparent.
 
Written By: Rey Fox
URL: http://
Oh, come now.
WMD was only oen reason of many.
Still, it was a valid one.... a point which I suggest you’ll be finding out on 2/17 or thereabouts.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider