Reply
Fri 14 May, 2004 06:31 am
Published on Thursday, May 13, 2004 by the Madison Capital Times
by John Nichols
The King made a royal visit to Wisconsin last week, and as is common when monarchs travel, individual liberties were suspended.
King George Bush's bus trip across western Wisconsin closed schools and roads, prevented residents from moving freely in their own communities, and prevented citizens from exercising their free speech rights.
All in all, it was a typical George W. Bush visit.
But there's a slight twist.
People in western Wisconsin, who hold to the refreshingly naive notion that they live in a republic as opposed to an imperial realm, are objecting.
"There's a pattern of harassment of free speech here that really concerns me," says Guy Wolf, the student services coordinator at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. "If they're going to call it a presidential visit, then it should be a presidential visit - where we can hear from him and he can hear from us. But that's not what happened here, not at all."
Wolf and other La Crosse area residents who wanted to let the president know their feelings about critical issues came face to face with the reality that, when King George travels, he is not actually interested in a two-way conversation.
Along the route of the Bush bus trip from Dubuque to La Crosse, the Bush team created a "no-free-speech" zone that excluded any expressions of the dissent that is the lifeblood of democracy. In Platteville, peace activist Frank Van Den Bosch was arrested for holding up a sign that was critical of the president. The sign's "dangerous" message, "FUGW," was incomprehensible to children and, no doubt, to many adults. Yet, it was still determined sufficiently unsettling to the royal procession that Van Den Bosch was slapped with a disorderly conduct ticket.
Up the road in La Crosse, the clampdown on civil liberties was even more sweeping. Wolf and hundreds of other Wisconsinites and Minnesotans who sought to express dissents were videotaped by authorities, told they could not make noise, ordered not to display certain signs and forced to stand out of eyesight of Bush and his entourage. Again and again, they were told that if they expressed themselves in ways that were entirely protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, they would be "subject to arrest."
"Everyone understood the need for basic security for the president, but none of us could understand why we had to give up our free speech rights," explained Wolf.
La Crosse Mayor John Medinger shares that concern. The Bush-Cheney campaign leased a portion of a local park where the royal rally was held. Yet, Wisconsinites who wanted to protest Bush's visit were told they could not use a sound system in a completely different section of the park.
"I want to find out why the whole park was used when only a portion was leased," Medinger told the La Crosse Tribune. "So when demonstrators were told they couldn't have (sound) systems, the question is why."
The Bush-Cheney campaign paid a $100 fee to use one part of the park, but disrupted much of the city. Medinger is now assessing the full cost of the royal visit and hopes to deliver a bill to the campaign, which State Elections Board attorney George Dunst says the Bush campaign should pay. Other communities, including Prairie du Chien, are looking at following Medinger's lead.
But the challenge should not just be a financial one. The Bush visit attacked First Amendment rights up and down the Mississippi. A lot of people are owed apologies.
In a monarchy, of course, the King never apologizes. But in a democracy, the president is supposed to be accountable to the people.
By pressing demands that the charges against Frank Van Den Bosch be dropped and that the White House and the Bush-Cheney campaign apologize for participating in an anti-democratic endeavor, residents of western Wisconsin can, and should, take up the cause of this country's founders. It is time once more to challenge a King named George.
First off, all this happens when any President travels, so if you want to make a big deal out of it, go ahead. Just remember to make another big deal of it when it is done by whatever democrat next holds the office of President.
CoastalRat
There's truth to that, and it has happened here too. But it is a fairly recent phenomenon and ought to be yelled about whenever and wherever.
coastalrat- Once again, you're just full of it and dead wrong.
From the article: Up the road in La Crosse, the clampdown on civil liberties was even more sweeping. Wolf and hundreds of other Wisconsinites and Minnesotans who sought to express dissents were videotaped by authorities, told they could not make noise, ordered not to display certain signs and forced to stand out of eyesight of Bush and his entourage. Again and again, they were told that if they expressed themselves in ways that were entirely protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, they would be "subject to arrest."
How well I remember the vile, obscene and insane protesters lining the streets of my city when President Clinton came to visit back in 1998. I was a college senior at the time. The rabid righties were frothing at the mouth and acted in ways that called into question their sanity. You would've thought Jeffrey Dalmer was visiting town.
But, no one prevented them from exercizing their First Amendment right of free speech. They were allowed to behave like fools and animals in plain view of President Clinton.
Such behavior would never be tolerated in the age of King George. No, he must be coddled and protected from "Joe Nation."
Believe it or not, and I know you would never be able to tell from A2K, but some people don't like the President. I know, I know, I find it unbelievable myself, but there are one or two freaks out there that would probably like to see our President dead. Especially some people from one or two middle eastern countries.
So, precautions have to be taken and that's just the way it is.
Equating the President of the US as a monarch seems some what disingenuous to me.
deecups
You're right too, in that this administration works dilligently to control potentially embarrassing media moments for Bush. Free speech is lauded, but negative speech is clearly inhibited and suppressed to a degree that wasn't true with Clinton.
As I said, it has happened here too. About a decade past, there was a large economic conference in Vancouver where similar restrictions were put in place. The rationale was security, but the reality was political appearance.
So, we'll get this somewhat wrong if we attribute the Bush administration as other than the worst example of a modern trend.
McGentrix wrote:Believe it or not, and I know you would never be able to tell from A2K, but some people don't like the President. I know, I know, I find it unbelievable myself, but there are one or two freaks out there that would probably like to see our President dead. Especially some people from one or two middle eastern countries.
So, precautions have to be taken and that's just the way it is.
Equating the President of the US as a monarch seems some what disingenuous to me.
Is this supposed to be a surprise?
McG
That's a mistake to put this to security.
FUGW
hee hee hee hah ha hha ha ha
I just got it
farmerperson
Ain't that a good one.
When our Queen travels, there are certainly some restrictions for security reasons but protesters are allowed to do their thing and will be prevented from physically approaching the monarch.
Of course, Her Majesty is always deliberately non-political in public.
As far as I am aware, Tony Blair faces plenty of criticism on the streets. Despite the Conservative Party's failings, Michael Howard and his team give much more valid and reasoned criticism in the House of Commons.
I'd love to see a live, unscripted debate between George Bush and a poltical opponent - every week, twice a week, televised. I don't think he could hack it. At least, popular opinion of his intelligence would be based on something concrete.
This sounds like the use of "security" reasons to suppress valid political dissent.
blatham wrote:deecups
You're right too, in that this administration works dilligently to control potentially embarrassing media moments for Bush. Free speech is lauded, but negative speech is clearly inhibited and suppressed to a degree that wasn't true with Clinton.
As I said, it has happened here too. About a decade past, there was a large economic conference in Vancouver where similar restrictions were put in place. The rationale was security, but the reality was political appearance.
So, we'll get this somewhat wrong if we attribute the Bush administration as other than the worst example of a modern trend.
and Blatham's comments are accurate as usual; except that in Canada there was a "Royal Commission Investigation' into the activities of the RCMP over that 'security' imposition.
Actually it's only 'fair'; if G"W"B can suppress his 'decent', which he does to the level of a personality trait, why then should his entourage not be permitted to enact their version, and suppress 'dissent' (or maybe they just can't spell!).
Bo
Right. On the other hand, it was so long in being set up and in coming to its findings, that it served much less purpose than one might have hoped for.
The incident was pretty despicable on the part of Cretien and his office. One individual who stood apart for her openness, honesty and bravery was the new (at the time) President of UBC.
On the rare occassions PM Tony "Poodle" Blair dashes out of No.#10 to attend a public event, I am unaware of MI5 or MI6 restricting placards that display criticism of his policy.
In fact, I have seen a fair number of blatantly critical placards that advertised rather cruel comments directed at everything from his close relationship with Bush, to the war, and even his sad little wife.
In Britain, it's something of a joke to many that Amerca's president behaves more like royalty than our very own Monarch.
Well, if it IS to suppress valid political dissent it's obviously not working. That would lead me to believe there are other reasons.
Dee:
There was a fairly infamous case of a protester in Austin, TX who dared to flip-off Lord Bush at a public event a few years ago. I think it was even a woman.
Anyway, the SS (Secret Service - not Hitler's SS, although I'm beginning to wonder) saw the miscreant, and nabbed her. She was arrested and immediately hauled off to jail.
Of course the charge(s) were later dismissed and she was released, but the story is emblematic of how insane things have gotten since Bush won his lawsuit.
Lord Bush must never see dissent from Joe Public.
McGentrix wrote:Well, if it IS to suppress valid political dissent it's obviously not working. That would lead me to believe there are other reasons.
McG
It doesn't have to be complete or successful to still be motivated for that reason.
The PR strategy is to avoid, as much as possible, a particular sort of 'positioning' where Bush is seen next to, or associated with, particular negatives, eg caskets, mourning relatives of deceased soldiers, protestors with signs, etc. Notice that whereas normally the administration members mention Bush in every third sentence (implying how he's at the helm), his name comes up very infrequently in association with Abu Ghraib (implying he wasn't at THAT helm).
There's another related strategy at work here too. Watch this one, because these guys are good at it. That is to load up the capacity of news media with their message, rather than anything else (which might be, or is) negative (to them). So, Rumsfeld yesterday goes to Iraq with a planeload of friendly news reporters and cameramen, and the news media conveniently cover that. If that capacity hadn't been loaded up with Rummy being chummy, it would have likely continued with abuse stories.
"So, Rumsfeld yesterday goes to Iraq with a planeload of friendly news reporters and cameramen, and the news media conveniently cover that." blatham
We're due for another Thanksgiving photo stunt starring Lord Bush.
Maybe he will secretly jet off to Iraq and hand out hot dogs and hamburgers to the troops on Memorial Day.
But like the Thanksgiving stunt and the plastic turkey, none of the hot dogs or hamburgers will be eatable -- they'll be plastic!
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace