Way to wait and see if she violated any House rules or United States laws before you cried “fascist!” ‘Cause we know she’d never do anything on purpose to make a scene and get herself arrested.
Was there a category for “Republican Leadership” standing ovation…
Oh, and in the category of hypocrisy…
During Clinton administration the Republicans blocked the line item veto… now he got a half ovation from the Republicans for it… (Although why on earth he needs it when he holds both houses of congress.)
oh, and the dems unsettled him with the un expected dems only half ovation…
“look at all the money we put into alternative fuel! (too bad we gave an order of magnitude more to the record profit making oil industry)”
“with these tax cuts (most of which went to the rich) we will cut the deficit in half! (which I increased exponentially more than any other President in history)”
“We need to support our troops in Iraq and can’t pull out now (but I’m not going to give them the troop levels they need cause we are spread too thin, nor the equipment they need to do their job”
“look at all these jobs we created (even though there is no proof they were good jobs, and it doesn’t count all the jobs we lost”
“we need to reform health care (too bad I won’t privatize it even though medicare is far more efficient than private insurance companies)”
“Social Security needs to be saved, but you mean Democrats rejected my plan (even though there was little to no support for it actually being a feasible plan)”
I could have sworn that everyone was for the line item veto but the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional. It fundamentally changes the balance of power.
Whether you agree with Cindy Sheehan or not, that was a cheap stunt by Congresswoman Woolsey to give her a ticket to the SOTU. Woolsey should be ashamed of herself.
It’s terribly sad that this woman cannot see that she is being used time and time again
I think it has separation of powers issues, but I don’t necessarily object to it. Congress should, perhaps, be given the opportunity to reject the bill as changed or to reject the line item changes. there are times when votes are gained through single line items that then could be zapped later that might make the difference in passage which could be considered being really really nasty in terms of playing politics.
Whether you agree with Cindy Sheehan or not, that was a cheap stunt by Congresswoman Woolsey to give her a ticket to the SOTU. Woolsey should be ashamed of herself.
I find myself agreeing with the conservative on this one.
C’mon. That was only to make a scene; while it might be argued that the audience-candy that every president packs the chamber with — soldiers, brave foreigner, grieving mother, etc. — serves some of the same purpose, Sheehan has a history of making an ugly scene just for the publicity.
Also, the madwoman was arm-in-arm with Hugo Chavez. Grr.
Once again, you’re ignorant of the facts. If Sheehan was just wearing t-shirt and sitting quietly, she likely wouldn’t have been bothered. She was doing more than that. But in your world, removing an obnoxious protesting idiot from the House Gallery is equivalent to a “police state”.
NEWS FLASH: Sheehan wanted to get arrested! What tree have you been living in for the past 6 months?
Lojo, first it is not the President’s right to have it is his duty to preform. Second, there is no evidence yet that she failed to behave just that she was exercising her first amendment rights in a non disruptive manner. Now, at this point it is not certain this is a content based restriction on speech or a content neutral restriction against wearing t-shirts generally in the gallery of the house (I don’t much feel like getting gallery tickets and wearing a plain grey t-shirt to find out). This is not Bush’s god damn cotillion. Finnaly, he should count himself blessed he does not have to face what the Prime Minster of England has to deal with every week - the Prime Minster’s Questions… Bush would have been crying home to mommy inside of a month if he had to deal with that.
GWU Law Prof. Jonathan Turley sez on the Tee Vee that it was Unconstitutional. / Nono not the LineItem Veto, the Sheehan Shirt Collar. :> / Says the peelers have charged her with an Offense. Yes she’s now Mis Demeanor of 2006. :) States further that the Rules of the House ~ which are not Law, exactly ~ call for the Wearing of Appropriate Business Attire. / Why the hell didn’t they Wait until she commenced some Actual Disruption? Then the Deal would have Gone Down MUCH better, PR-wise. Well worth enduring the interruptive Moment of Screechy Indignity. But, Noooo! Instead they’ve needlessly handed her a symbolic-speech Issue, here. / Well. Apparely so, anyway. ;}
Well, business attire requirement can be construed as a content neutral restriction. Although who is to say what the hell “business attire” is these days.
During the Clinton impeachment hearings, an anti-Clinton protester was removed for his t-shirt. He complained that the police did not even give him the chance to cover-up.
Sheehan knew the rule - there’s no demonstrating, period. It applies to everyone, not just left-wing anti-war activists.
MikeII, I don’t doubt that there would be a policy against wearing such a shirt, and if Sheehan violated the policy and needed to be asked to leave thats fine. But explain to me why it was necessary to handcuff her while escorting her out? Yeah that was absolutely necessary.
BTW, whether relevant or not, but pointing it out because its first time I read it. Apparently she was asked to cover her shirt by capitol police. She refused and then got in an argument with them.
“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.”
Whether one agrees or not with this policy, it does seem like it is applied evenly.
No David, because according to reports she AGREED to leave when asked, whereas Sheehan did not. One is cooperating, the other is not. You, know this word, right? Cooperating?
And the protester from the NY Daily News story WAS handcuffed and arrested.
Tell you what. Next time you get pulled over for speeding (my apologies for assuming that you do, but let’s say you do for the sake of hypothetical), and the officer asks you to turn off your car or step out. Tell him ‘No’, and inform us of the results.
She wasn’t handcuffed for a t-shirt, she was handcuffed for not cooperating with the officer. Somehow, I think that the Rep’s wife would have been handcuffed if they asked her to leave the seating and she refused.
Now, if your issue is that the policy of pulling out people with political T-shirts is silly, make that argument. But given the two examples I have given and Sheehan’s incident, it is not being enforced prejudicially.
“(2) Violent entry and disorderly conduct. - An individual or group of individuals may not willfully and knowingly -
(A) enter or remain on the floor of either House of Congress or in any cloakroom or lobby adjacent to that floor, in the Rayburn Room of the House of Representatives, or in the Marble Room of the Senate, unless authorized to do so pursuant to rules adopted, or an authorization given, by that House;
(B) enter or remain in the gallery of either House of Congress in violation of rules governing admission to the gallery adopted by that House or pursuant to an authorization given by that House;
(C) with the intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of official business, enter or remain in a room in any of the Capitol Buildings set aside or designated for the use of either
House of Congress or a Member, committee, officer, or employee of Congress or either House of Congress;
(D) utter loud, threatening, or abusive language, or engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct, at any place in the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings with the intent to impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of a session of Congress or either House of Congress, or the orderly conduct in that building of a hearing before, or any deliberations of, a committee of Congress or either House of Congress;
(E) obstruct, or impede passage through or within, the Grounds or any of the Capitol Buildings;
(F) engage in an act of physical violence in the Grounds or any of the Capitol Buildings; or
(G) parade, demonstrate, or picket in any of the Capitol Buildings.”
Did she refuse to leave or did she refuse to cover/change the shirt? All the reports that are being circulated seem to imply that there was no problem having her leave the venue she just refused to change/cover the shirt. If thats true then yes I think it is ridiculous to hand cuff her. If she was refusing to leave then perhaps it was warranted but so far that does not appear to be the case.
A better analogy would be school dress codes. If you come to school wearing a shirt that violates the dress code (say it has a beer ad on it) and they ask you to take it off and you refuse, but when told that means you have to leave you do so, is it right to handcuff you for refusing to change your shirt? I think not.
Well, I’m not privy to the incident report, but if she refused to cover her shirt, I imagine a warning to leave or be arrested followed.
School is one thing, but nowhere near analogous, because your talking about minors and school officials. Here, we’re talking about an adult and a police officer. A police officer is not going to keep asking until you do what he asks. He’s going to give you a chance to cooperate and thats it.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but do you really believe that a policeman is going to sit there arguing with her until she complies?
But, again, I didn’t see video and can’t tell what happened from the photos I’ve seen. Still, given the US code, one can argue she seems to be in violation of 2(D) and 2(G).
I’m not sure I would argue it, but I can respect the position. Besides, she’s going to contest with a First Amendment filing with the court. Frankly, I’m a little interested to see what they say, WHENEVER that happens.
Lojo - are you curious about who might have suggested to her, in all innocence, that she just might want to wear certain things, and do certain other things at certain times … just innocent suggestions, of course … ?
David, you’re bending over backwards to give every possible benefit of the doubt to an attention-seeking crackpot desperately trying to cling on to her 15 minutes, and it’s a riot . . . almost as if you just arrived from another planet and had no idea who Cindy Sheehan was. Come to think of it, that would seem to explain a lot of what you say.
You know Joe, you are getting almost as bad as Alasdair. Lojo and I were having a perfectly decent discussion about the issue and you have to chime in with partisan tripe.
I am quite aware of who Sheehan is and I think its more relavent to ask if she was treated this way because others knew who she was.
My point is simply this, I think handcuffing someone in order to escort them out because they refused to change or cover up their shirt is over the line UNLESS she was also refusing to leave and was otherwise causing trouble. If she was willing to leave but unwilling to change the shirt it is a gross over reaction.
I am not bending over bacwards to defend her, if she broke the rules (as it appears she has) then I have no problem with her being first asked to change/cover the shirt, and when she refuses to do so being told to leave. Why this is such an outrageous concept for you is difficult to understand other than your hard core neo-con leanings.
Fine, you dislike Sheehan and think shes nuts. I have no problem with that. You think what she did was against the rules. I have no problem with that. But when you try and imply that by criticizing what I see as a partisan over reaction as someone being as crazy as she is? Thats the reason I hate political parties (both sides). Your position if you disagree with them becomes so warped and distorted its impossible to even have constructive dialogue (although thank you Lojo for your civil and very reasonable responses)
“Your position if you disagree with them becomes so warped and distorted its impossible to even have constructive dialogue.”
This from the guy who goes on about the “worst, most corrupt administration in history” at every opportunity. Very constructive. You couldn’t be more self-descriptive if you tried, David.
See there you go Joe, you just can’t accept anything but what you believe to be true.
And I’ll address your blatant logical fallacy as well. Yes I believe this is the most corrupt and inept administration in history. So what? I make my arguments and you are of course free to agree or disagre with them. But that doesn’t change the fact that this might in fact be the worst administration in history. Or it might be the best. Regardless of which view you take an opinion or argument can not be dismissed based on the fact that one loves or hates how Bush is running this country. If we hold to that standard than it would be impossible to ever criticize an adminstration that was bad.
I believe that this is the worst administration in history, yes and I could give you the many reasons I choose to believe that. I believe it is my duty as an American to stand up and speak my mind because of this. You apparently would have me simply sit down and shut up because you disagree with me, which is frankly just about the most un-American thing I can think of.
Most important is the fact that I have come to believe what I believe because of the actions and inactions of our current President. When he was elected I gave him the benefit of the doubt, after 9/11 I thought he might prove my doubts about him wrong, that his performance in that arena woudl outweigh his earlier mistakes. I doubted I would ever rank him as my favorite President but I thought I could atleast respect him. I supported our actions in Afghanistan and supported the President in that, and when he told the American people that we had evidence that proved that Saddaam had Weapons of Mass Destruction I believed him and supported him despite the fact that I agreed with him on very little otherwise.
But alas my hopes died a quick death. Soon it became evident that the war in Iraq was being mishandled, that there had in fact been no hard evidence to suggest Saddaam had WMD’s. Bush continued to white wash the difficulties we were having in that war, and in other areas I saw more and more what the President was truly like.
He stood in front of the country and told us to support the troops, told us he supported the troops, all the while not providing them with adequate armor, ignoring military advisors, and cutting veterans benefits and combat pay.
He touted his tax cuts as relief for the middle and lower classes, but in reality the bulk of the cuts disproportionatly benefited the rich.
He talked about being a uniter and not a divider but has gone out of his way to push an extreme conservative agenda, polarizing our country like nothing we have seen in the last 100 years.
His administration outed a CIA agent in retaliation for criticisms by her husband.
He talks about supporting education but won’t fund it.
He has raised the national debt to astronomical levels.
His cronyism contributed to the failed federal response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans.
And now he is violating the law and the Constitution all in the name of fear.
The list of his failures could go on and on and on. In fact in his 6 years in office now I can think of nothing that he has done to make this country a better place except perhaps the invasion of Afghanistan and removal of the Taliban. When I asked that very question in another thread a while back, what has Bush done to make this country so much better, no one could give me an answer.
In fact about the only policy I think in his entire administration that makes sense is the Guest Worker Program he has proposed.
In short I have given him numerous opportunities to prove me wrong. To prove to me that he is a good President and what he is doing will make America a better place, that his policies are the best policies. And despite what you or Alasdair or any of the other Neo-Con posters on here might think I am not hoping he fails. I frankly would be much happier to have been proven wrong, to have had his policies and actions turned out better because if they had it would have meant that America was better because of it.
When someone betrays your trust, when they lie to you, or mislead you, when he continously let you down, well any sane person would doubt them. Bush has let me down, and he has let this nation down on far too many occassions. So yes I am incredibly critical of him and his policies and his decisions because I beleive that is the only prudent thing to do. And I will continue to speak out against the man I believe to be our worst President ever, because doing nothing, now that would truly be un-Patriotic.
David - let us deal with just one of the items you list … try this …
“According to USA Today, Plame worked in the Langley, Virginia, CIA headquarters since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, and married Joe Wilson and had her twins.”
1997 + 5 => 2002 …
The hypothetical ‘outing’ of the covert Plame was in 2003 …
So you are saying that someone who commuted to CIA HQ for 6 years was still a covert agent …
That’s one heck of a cover story … albeit entirely in keeping with CIA ’sophistication’ …
Getting a lecture about logical fallacies and what I supposedly can and can’t accept as true from someone who is so narrow-minded he could be blinded by the head of a pin is precious.
The truth is I could care less about what you think of this or any other administration . . . I just point out your errors for sh*ts and grins. And I sure as sh*t CAN dismiss an opinion based on an irrational love or hatred of Bush (usually the latter, because it’s so much easier . . . one doesn’t need to think to hate whoever the president is, it’s axiomatic in our society that the guy sucks; sorry to burst your bubble, but opinions like yours are hardly a profile in courage), and doing so obviously doesn’t make it “impossible to ever criticize an adminstration that was bad.” You can criticize whoever the hell you want, just don’t bet on anyone not converted to your political faith taking your emotional harangues seriously. I certainly would not have you “simply sit down and shut up” because I disagree with you. On the contrary, I think people who incessantly make that entirely imagined charge often disprove themselves without any outside help.
And maybe some other dupes buy your I-used-to-think-Bush-was-an-ok-guy-but-now-I-think-he’s-evil bit, but not me. That’s a common refrain from many Bush-haters nowadays; seems like everyone who wants to justify their hatred feels the need to explain how reasonable they once were. Whatever. The idea that you now think this is the worst administration in history
. . . HISTORY!!! makes it kind of hard to take you seriously. I mean, the idea that you think you can pass any worthwhile judgment on a presidency that isn’t even over yet, knowing full well (or not, most likely) that history can’t even make up its mind on such things until generations later, is utterly preposterous.
Do yourself a favor and read a little about what was said and thought about Lincoln, probably regarded as the greatest president ever, while he was in office. Or Roosevelt (either one). Or Truman. I’ll save you the trouble: It’s indistinguishable from the misinformed, ideological nonsense you’re spewing now. Now, I’m certainly not saying Bush is Lincoln or Truman. But what I AM saying is that your opinion is based on little more than emotion, and no number of bullsh*t talking points you can ring up about Plame, education spending, or “constitutional violations” will change that. It’s called confirmation bias. I’d be happy to educate you on each of the points in your tired, overwrought “list of failures”, but we both know that would be an exercise in futility.
Joe Mama, the fact that you think I am an extremeist speaks volumes. In any case its clear you have no interest in listening to someone who disagrees with you nor are you willing to have a civil discussion. Since thats the case I will simply not continue this one, its pointless.
Aaarrrgggg … first, we had Mendacious Mouse … and now we have Dowager David, who just swep’ out, sniffing indignantly …
Dowager David - devastating response to the simple arithmetic I showed you, above … does this mean you are finally counted out on this topic, at least ?
Glad to see you held up on your promise to Mike to drop the one liners and disparaging names, but since you asked I will respond to your “arithmetic” as you call it.
First of all, where are you getting the information that the first instance of the outing occured in 2003? The information may have been printed in 2003 but was it only told to them at that point or earlier?
Again if it was as simple as you say it is, that she was no longer classified as covert, then why is there even an investigation.
While it is true she was not stationed overseas after 1997 she did in fact serve overseas, traveling to various countries and meeting with people in her capacity as a CIA covert operative.
So your math while accurate on the face, misses a crucial fact that makes it pretty much irrelevant.
I don’t know about you, but Alasdair and I have something in common: we are jealous of Cindy Sheehan because we both like to be handcuffed by burly men in uniforms.
Look guys, David has a valid concern of whether it went to far, and I illustrated why I think that wasn’t a concern.
But I respected the fact that his concern was reasonable. Not based in that it was Cindy Sheehan who got handcuffed, but a private citizen for wearing a t-shirt.
*points to Brendan’s new thread on this*
I think Brendan highlights my argument well in that non-compliance with a Officer’s orders gets you handcuffed.
“Again if it was as simple as you say it is, that she was no longer classified as covert, then why is there even an investigation.”
That’s a joke, right? You’re not really that obtuse, David. How else could they determine her status under the law without doing at least some investigation? You think they’d just call her (a nonlawyer) up and ask what her status was under the law — something that still can’t even be agreed on — and that would be the end of it?
AGAIN, the CIA, NSA, and numerous other gov’t agencies make referrals of this sort to the DOJ on a regular basis whenever they suspect a leak of classified info. In other words, there are numerous similar investigations going on right now that you don’t even know about (presumably because they don’t warrant a special counsel, because the suspected leaker doesn’t always work in the WH or some other high profile area, and the info in question isn’t so ideologically charged).
I agree absolutely that part of this investigation is determining her status. Alasdair however has repeatedly asserted that it is not even a question worth asking, that she was not covert and no crime was commited. He, as usual, leaves no room for any position but his own to be even considered reasonable, and you apparently are close on his heals.
January 31st, 2006 at 8:46:01 pm
Cindy Sheehan has been arrested. Bad idea to invite her. Worse idea to pull a Police State on her.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:02:47 pm
A&A beat me too it.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:16:22 pm
Coretta Scott King died?
January 31st, 2006 at 9:17:39 pm
Way to wait and see if she violated any House rules or United States laws before you cried “fascist!” ‘Cause we know she’d never do anything on purpose to make a scene and get herself arrested.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:41:37 pm
you know, State of the Union in high definition makes all these old white dudes look older.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:44:09 pm
Was there a category for “Republican Leadership” standing ovation…
Oh, and in the category of hypocrisy…
During Clinton administration the Republicans blocked the line item veto… now he got a half ovation from the Republicans for it… (Although why on earth he needs it when he holds both houses of congress.)
oh, and the dems unsettled him with the un expected dems only half ovation…
January 31st, 2006 at 9:44:36 pm
oh, and get to work Brendan, your live bloging is more boozing.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:48:26 pm
Oh, and now we have ovations by congressional caucus instead of by party… This might just be because of more crowd shots.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:58:29 pm
“look at all the money we put into alternative fuel! (too bad we gave an order of magnitude more to the record profit making oil industry)”
“with these tax cuts (most of which went to the rich) we will cut the deficit in half! (which I increased exponentially more than any other President in history)”
“We need to support our troops in Iraq and can’t pull out now (but I’m not going to give them the troop levels they need cause we are spread too thin, nor the equipment they need to do their job”
“look at all these jobs we created (even though there is no proof they were good jobs, and it doesn’t count all the jobs we lost”
“we need to reform health care (too bad I won’t privatize it even though medicare is far more efficient than private insurance companies)”
“Social Security needs to be saved, but you mean Democrats rejected my plan (even though there was little to no support for it actually being a feasible plan)”
the list goes on and on and on….
January 31st, 2006 at 10:06:09 pm
wow, shockingly short.
January 31st, 2006 at 10:15:22 pm
I could have sworn that everyone was for the line item veto but the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional. It fundamentally changes the balance of power.
January 31st, 2006 at 10:16:27 pm
Line item veto, I believe, was ruled unconstitutional, so it puzzles me why it is still being spoken of and proposed as a law.
January 31st, 2006 at 10:19:35 pm
Whether you agree with Cindy Sheehan or not, that was a cheap stunt by Congresswoman Woolsey to give her a ticket to the SOTU. Woolsey should be ashamed of herself.
It’s terribly sad that this woman cannot see that she is being used time and time again
January 31st, 2006 at 10:41:36 pm
line item, you are correct, my recollection in that case was off. Perhaps they think they’ve got it now with Alito?
January 31st, 2006 at 10:45:32 pm
Perhaps they’ll figure out some way to pass a line item veto that doesn’t violate the constitution.
It will be interesting to see how the parties line up on the LIV - it was, I think, a Republican majority that passed it for Clinton.
January 31st, 2006 at 10:56:52 pm
I think it has separation of powers issues, but I don’t necessarily object to it. Congress should, perhaps, be given the opportunity to reject the bill as changed or to reject the line item changes. there are times when votes are gained through single line items that then could be zapped later that might make the difference in passage which could be considered being really really nasty in terms of playing politics.
January 31st, 2006 at 11:17:52 pm
That f*ckwit Sheehan is a microcosm of why Bush wins: He’s extremely lucky in his opposition.
February 1st, 2006 at 12:11:54 am
Whether you agree with Cindy Sheehan or not, that was a cheap stunt by Congresswoman Woolsey to give her a ticket to the SOTU. Woolsey should be ashamed of herself.
I find myself agreeing with the conservative on this one.
C’mon. That was only to make a scene; while it might be argued that the audience-candy that every president packs the chamber with — soldiers, brave foreigner, grieving mother, etc. — serves some of the same purpose, Sheehan has a history of making an ugly scene just for the publicity.
Also, the madwoman was arm-in-arm with Hugo Chavez. Grr.
February 1st, 2006 at 12:25:27 am
Possibly, but taking her for questioning because she was wearing a t-shirt with an anti-war slogan, supposedly taking her away in handcuffs even.
February 1st, 2006 at 12:44:49 am
Just once I’d wish that twit would learn what a REAL police state is like.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:59:38 am
Your right, just because she was wearing a t-shirt protesting the war she should be shown a police state….
p.s. just because there are places where things are worse doesn’t make arresting her the right thing to do.
February 1st, 2006 at 8:43:50 am
David -
Yes, a police state that arrested her, and released her 3 hours later on her own recognizance.
Some police state. Was it too much to ask for her to BEHAVE herself in a forum that is the President’s right to have?
February 1st, 2006 at 9:22:23 am
David,
Once again, you’re ignorant of the facts. If Sheehan was just wearing t-shirt and sitting quietly, she likely wouldn’t have been bothered. She was doing more than that. But in your world, removing an obnoxious protesting idiot from the House Gallery is equivalent to a “police state”.
NEWS FLASH: Sheehan wanted to get arrested! What tree have you been living in for the past 6 months?
February 1st, 2006 at 9:31:51 am
Lojo, first it is not the President’s right to have it is his duty to preform. Second, there is no evidence yet that she failed to behave just that she was exercising her first amendment rights in a non disruptive manner. Now, at this point it is not certain this is a content based restriction on speech or a content neutral restriction against wearing t-shirts generally in the gallery of the house (I don’t much feel like getting gallery tickets and wearing a plain grey t-shirt to find out). This is not Bush’s god damn cotillion. Finnaly, he should count himself blessed he does not have to face what the Prime Minster of England has to deal with every week - the Prime Minster’s Questions… Bush would have been crying home to mommy inside of a month if he had to deal with that.
February 1st, 2006 at 10:47:33 am
GWU Law Prof. Jonathan Turley sez on the Tee Vee that it was Unconstitutional. / Nono not the LineItem Veto, the Sheehan Shirt Collar. :> / Says the peelers have charged her with an Offense. Yes she’s now Mis Demeanor of 2006. :) States further that the Rules of the House ~ which are not Law, exactly ~ call for the Wearing of Appropriate Business Attire. / Why the hell didn’t they Wait until she commenced some Actual Disruption? Then the Deal would have Gone Down MUCH better, PR-wise. Well worth enduring the interruptive Moment of Screechy Indignity. But, Noooo! Instead they’ve needlessly handed her a symbolic-speech Issue, here. / Well. Apparely so, anyway. ;}
February 1st, 2006 at 10:56:45 am
Well, business attire requirement can be construed as a content neutral restriction. Although who is to say what the hell “business attire” is these days.
February 1st, 2006 at 11:26:09 am
During the Clinton impeachment hearings, an anti-Clinton protester was removed for his t-shirt. He complained that the police did not even give him the chance to cover-up.
Sheehan knew the rule - there’s no demonstrating, period. It applies to everyone, not just left-wing anti-war activists.
February 1st, 2006 at 11:40:51 am
MikeII, I don’t doubt that there would be a policy against wearing such a shirt, and if Sheehan violated the policy and needed to be asked to leave thats fine. But explain to me why it was necessary to handcuff her while escorting her out? Yeah that was absolutely necessary.
February 1st, 2006 at 11:44:57 am
In addition to her attire, Sheehan was also trying to unfurl a banner.
February 1st, 2006 at 11:50:35 am
it was neither necessary nor unnecessary - it is up to the arresting officer.
February 1st, 2006 at 11:58:54 am
Again, it was necessary to handcuff her because?
February 1st, 2006 at 12:04:08 pm
Sheehan has been arrested at least twice before in DC. You don’t think she may have been a little combative? Maybe? Just a little bit?
They also escorted a Republican’s wife last night for wearing a t-shirt with a support-our-troops message.
February 1st, 2006 at 12:17:28 pm
If true RE: the republican, I am willing to agree that this is a content neutral restriction properly enforced.
February 1st, 2006 at 12:44:09 pm
dcl -
BTW, whether relevant or not, but pointing it out because its first time I read it. Apparently she was asked to cover her shirt by capitol police. She refused and then got in an argument with them.
February 1st, 2006 at 12:55:54 pm
Also, certainly seems like they weren’t targeting her in particular,
http://www.local6.com/news/6647094/detail.html
February 1st, 2006 at 1:07:42 pm
I give credit to the Capitol Police for removing a Representative’s (?) wife for wearing a “Support the Troops” T-shirt, too.
At least they are fair and balanced iut seems.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:17:58 pm
Nun -
From NY Daily News, circa late 90’s:
“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.”
Whether one agrees or not with this policy, it does seem like it is applied evenly.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:19:19 pm
OK - who’s pretending to be Mendacious Mouse ?
Who are you, and what have you done with the real Mendacious Mouse ?
Is there a pod in this blog’s basement ?
Does this blog even *have* a basement ?
(grin)
February 1st, 2006 at 1:21:28 pm
I give credit to the Capitol Police for removing a Representative’s (?) wife for wearing a “Support the Troops” T-shirt, too.
At least they are fair and balanced iut seems.
Was she taken away in handcuffs?
February 1st, 2006 at 1:38:20 pm
David -
No David, because according to reports she AGREED to leave when asked, whereas Sheehan did not. One is cooperating, the other is not. You, know this word, right? Cooperating?
And the protester from the NY Daily News story WAS handcuffed and arrested.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:41:28 pm
She refused to cover her shirt so that warrants being handcuffed?
February 1st, 2006 at 2:05:45 pm
David -
Tell you what. Next time you get pulled over for speeding (my apologies for assuming that you do, but let’s say you do for the sake of hypothetical), and the officer asks you to turn off your car or step out. Tell him ‘No’, and inform us of the results.
She wasn’t handcuffed for a t-shirt, she was handcuffed for not cooperating with the officer. Somehow, I think that the Rep’s wife would have been handcuffed if they asked her to leave the seating and she refused.
Now, if your issue is that the policy of pulling out people with political T-shirts is silly, make that argument. But given the two examples I have given and Sheehan’s incident, it is not being enforced prejudicially.
February 1st, 2006 at 3:34:52 pm
File this under: I Love the Internet
“(2) Violent entry and disorderly conduct. - An individual or group of individuals may not willfully and knowingly -
(A) enter or remain on the floor of either House of Congress or in any cloakroom or lobby adjacent to that floor, in the Rayburn Room of the House of Representatives, or in the Marble Room of the Senate, unless authorized to do so pursuant to rules adopted, or an authorization given, by that House;
(B) enter or remain in the gallery of either House of Congress in violation of rules governing admission to the gallery adopted by that House or pursuant to an authorization given by that House;
(C) with the intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of official business, enter or remain in a room in any of the Capitol Buildings set aside or designated for the use of either
House of Congress or a Member, committee, officer, or employee of Congress or either House of Congress;
(D) utter loud, threatening, or abusive language, or engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct, at any place in the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings with the intent to impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of a session of Congress or either House of Congress, or the orderly conduct in that building of a hearing before, or any deliberations of, a committee of Congress or either House of Congress;
(E) obstruct, or impede passage through or within, the Grounds or any of the Capitol Buildings;
(F) engage in an act of physical violence in the Grounds or any of the Capitol Buildings; or
(G) parade, demonstrate, or picket in any of the Capitol Buildings.”
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/40C51.txt
Now, NO!! I am NOT accusing Cindy Sheehan of all of these, I am just being verbose in quoting from the code.
February 1st, 2006 at 3:36:53 pm
Did she refuse to leave or did she refuse to cover/change the shirt? All the reports that are being circulated seem to imply that there was no problem having her leave the venue she just refused to change/cover the shirt. If thats true then yes I think it is ridiculous to hand cuff her. If she was refusing to leave then perhaps it was warranted but so far that does not appear to be the case.
A better analogy would be school dress codes. If you come to school wearing a shirt that violates the dress code (say it has a beer ad on it) and they ask you to take it off and you refuse, but when told that means you have to leave you do so, is it right to handcuff you for refusing to change your shirt? I think not.
February 1st, 2006 at 3:49:57 pm
David -
Well, I’m not privy to the incident report, but if she refused to cover her shirt, I imagine a warning to leave or be arrested followed.
School is one thing, but nowhere near analogous, because your talking about minors and school officials. Here, we’re talking about an adult and a police officer. A police officer is not going to keep asking until you do what he asks. He’s going to give you a chance to cooperate and thats it.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but do you really believe that a policeman is going to sit there arguing with her until she complies?
But, again, I didn’t see video and can’t tell what happened from the photos I’ve seen. Still, given the US code, one can argue she seems to be in violation of 2(D) and 2(G).
I’m not sure I would argue it, but I can respect the position. Besides, she’s going to contest with a First Amendment filing with the court. Frankly, I’m a little interested to see what they say, WHENEVER that happens.
February 1st, 2006 at 4:06:25 pm
Lojo - are you curious about who might have suggested to her, in all innocence, that she just might want to wear certain things, and do certain other things at certain times … just innocent suggestions, of course … ?
Damn Karl Rove !
(grin)
February 1st, 2006 at 4:50:44 pm
David, you’re bending over backwards to give every possible benefit of the doubt to an attention-seeking crackpot desperately trying to cling on to her 15 minutes, and it’s a riot . . . almost as if you just arrived from another planet and had no idea who Cindy Sheehan was. Come to think of it, that would seem to explain a lot of what you say.
February 1st, 2006 at 5:01:03 pm
You know Joe, you are getting almost as bad as Alasdair. Lojo and I were having a perfectly decent discussion about the issue and you have to chime in with partisan tripe.
I am quite aware of who Sheehan is and I think its more relavent to ask if she was treated this way because others knew who she was.
My point is simply this, I think handcuffing someone in order to escort them out because they refused to change or cover up their shirt is over the line UNLESS she was also refusing to leave and was otherwise causing trouble. If she was willing to leave but unwilling to change the shirt it is a gross over reaction.
I am not bending over bacwards to defend her, if she broke the rules (as it appears she has) then I have no problem with her being first asked to change/cover the shirt, and when she refuses to do so being told to leave. Why this is such an outrageous concept for you is difficult to understand other than your hard core neo-con leanings.
Fine, you dislike Sheehan and think shes nuts. I have no problem with that. You think what she did was against the rules. I have no problem with that. But when you try and imply that by criticizing what I see as a partisan over reaction as someone being as crazy as she is? Thats the reason I hate political parties (both sides). Your position if you disagree with them becomes so warped and distorted its impossible to even have constructive dialogue (although thank you Lojo for your civil and very reasonable responses)
February 1st, 2006 at 6:36:42 pm
“Your position if you disagree with them becomes so warped and distorted its impossible to even have constructive dialogue.”
This from the guy who goes on about the “worst, most corrupt administration in history” at every opportunity. Very constructive. You couldn’t be more self-descriptive if you tried, David.
February 1st, 2006 at 7:23:59 pm
See there you go Joe, you just can’t accept anything but what you believe to be true.
And I’ll address your blatant logical fallacy as well. Yes I believe this is the most corrupt and inept administration in history. So what? I make my arguments and you are of course free to agree or disagre with them. But that doesn’t change the fact that this might in fact be the worst administration in history. Or it might be the best. Regardless of which view you take an opinion or argument can not be dismissed based on the fact that one loves or hates how Bush is running this country. If we hold to that standard than it would be impossible to ever criticize an adminstration that was bad.
I believe that this is the worst administration in history, yes and I could give you the many reasons I choose to believe that. I believe it is my duty as an American to stand up and speak my mind because of this. You apparently would have me simply sit down and shut up because you disagree with me, which is frankly just about the most un-American thing I can think of.
Most important is the fact that I have come to believe what I believe because of the actions and inactions of our current President. When he was elected I gave him the benefit of the doubt, after 9/11 I thought he might prove my doubts about him wrong, that his performance in that arena woudl outweigh his earlier mistakes. I doubted I would ever rank him as my favorite President but I thought I could atleast respect him. I supported our actions in Afghanistan and supported the President in that, and when he told the American people that we had evidence that proved that Saddaam had Weapons of Mass Destruction I believed him and supported him despite the fact that I agreed with him on very little otherwise.
But alas my hopes died a quick death. Soon it became evident that the war in Iraq was being mishandled, that there had in fact been no hard evidence to suggest Saddaam had WMD’s. Bush continued to white wash the difficulties we were having in that war, and in other areas I saw more and more what the President was truly like.
He stood in front of the country and told us to support the troops, told us he supported the troops, all the while not providing them with adequate armor, ignoring military advisors, and cutting veterans benefits and combat pay.
He touted his tax cuts as relief for the middle and lower classes, but in reality the bulk of the cuts disproportionatly benefited the rich.
He talked about being a uniter and not a divider but has gone out of his way to push an extreme conservative agenda, polarizing our country like nothing we have seen in the last 100 years.
His administration outed a CIA agent in retaliation for criticisms by her husband.
He talks about supporting education but won’t fund it.
He has raised the national debt to astronomical levels.
His cronyism contributed to the failed federal response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans.
And now he is violating the law and the Constitution all in the name of fear.
The list of his failures could go on and on and on. In fact in his 6 years in office now I can think of nothing that he has done to make this country a better place except perhaps the invasion of Afghanistan and removal of the Taliban. When I asked that very question in another thread a while back, what has Bush done to make this country so much better, no one could give me an answer.
In fact about the only policy I think in his entire administration that makes sense is the Guest Worker Program he has proposed.
In short I have given him numerous opportunities to prove me wrong. To prove to me that he is a good President and what he is doing will make America a better place, that his policies are the best policies. And despite what you or Alasdair or any of the other Neo-Con posters on here might think I am not hoping he fails. I frankly would be much happier to have been proven wrong, to have had his policies and actions turned out better because if they had it would have meant that America was better because of it.
When someone betrays your trust, when they lie to you, or mislead you, when he continously let you down, well any sane person would doubt them. Bush has let me down, and he has let this nation down on far too many occassions. So yes I am incredibly critical of him and his policies and his decisions because I beleive that is the only prudent thing to do. And I will continue to speak out against the man I believe to be our worst President ever, because doing nothing, now that would truly be un-Patriotic.
February 1st, 2006 at 8:06:07 pm
David - let us deal with just one of the items you list … try this …
“According to USA Today, Plame worked in the Langley, Virginia, CIA headquarters since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, and married Joe Wilson and had her twins.”
1997 + 5 => 2002 …
The hypothetical ‘outing’ of the covert Plame was in 2003 …
So you are saying that someone who commuted to CIA HQ for 6 years was still a covert agent …
That’s one heck of a cover story … albeit entirely in keeping with CIA ’sophistication’ …
February 1st, 2006 at 8:45:11 pm
David,
Getting a lecture about logical fallacies and what I supposedly can and can’t accept as true from someone who is so narrow-minded he could be blinded by the head of a pin is precious.
The truth is I could care less about what you think of this or any other administration . . . I just point out your errors for sh*ts and grins. And I sure as sh*t CAN dismiss an opinion based on an irrational love or hatred of Bush (usually the latter, because it’s so much easier . . . one doesn’t need to think to hate whoever the president is, it’s axiomatic in our society that the guy sucks; sorry to burst your bubble, but opinions like yours are hardly a profile in courage), and doing so obviously doesn’t make it “impossible to ever criticize an adminstration that was bad.” You can criticize whoever the hell you want, just don’t bet on anyone not converted to your political faith taking your emotional harangues seriously. I certainly would not have you “simply sit down and shut up” because I disagree with you. On the contrary, I think people who incessantly make that entirely imagined charge often disprove themselves without any outside help.
And maybe some other dupes buy your I-used-to-think-Bush-was-an-ok-guy-but-now-I-think-he’s-evil bit, but not me. That’s a common refrain from many Bush-haters nowadays; seems like everyone who wants to justify their hatred feels the need to explain how reasonable they once were. Whatever. The idea that you now think this is the worst administration in history
. . . HISTORY!!! makes it kind of hard to take you seriously. I mean, the idea that you think you can pass any worthwhile judgment on a presidency that isn’t even over yet, knowing full well (or not, most likely) that history can’t even make up its mind on such things until generations later, is utterly preposterous.
Do yourself a favor and read a little about what was said and thought about Lincoln, probably regarded as the greatest president ever, while he was in office. Or Roosevelt (either one). Or Truman. I’ll save you the trouble: It’s indistinguishable from the misinformed, ideological nonsense you’re spewing now. Now, I’m certainly not saying Bush is Lincoln or Truman. But what I AM saying is that your opinion is based on little more than emotion, and no number of bullsh*t talking points you can ring up about Plame, education spending, or “constitutional violations” will change that. It’s called confirmation bias. I’d be happy to educate you on each of the points in your tired, overwrought “list of failures”, but we both know that would be an exercise in futility.
February 2nd, 2006 at 1:21:02 am
Joe Mama, the fact that you think I am an extremeist speaks volumes. In any case its clear you have no interest in listening to someone who disagrees with you nor are you willing to have a civil discussion. Since thats the case I will simply not continue this one, its pointless.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:33:32 am
Aaarrrgggg … first, we had Mendacious Mouse … and now we have Dowager David, who just swep’ out, sniffing indignantly …
Dowager David - devastating response to the simple arithmetic I showed you, above … does this mean you are finally counted out on this topic, at least ?
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:23:52 am
Glad to see you held up on your promise to Mike to drop the one liners and disparaging names, but since you asked I will respond to your “arithmetic” as you call it.
First of all, where are you getting the information that the first instance of the outing occured in 2003? The information may have been printed in 2003 but was it only told to them at that point or earlier?
Again if it was as simple as you say it is, that she was no longer classified as covert, then why is there even an investigation.
While it is true she was not stationed overseas after 1997 she did in fact serve overseas, traveling to various countries and meeting with people in her capacity as a CIA covert operative.
So your math while accurate on the face, misses a crucial fact that makes it pretty much irrelevant.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:25:17 am
BTW, I think I am beggining to understand why your argument seldom if ever make much sense. Is English not your native language?
Dowager: dow∑a∑ger (dou’?-j?r)
n.
A widow who holds a title or property derived from her deceased husband.
An elderly woman of high social station.
Cause that makes sense…
February 2nd, 2006 at 9:13:02 am
David,
I don’t know about you, but Alasdair and I have something in common: we are jealous of Cindy Sheehan because we both like to be handcuffed by burly men in uniforms.
February 2nd, 2006 at 9:14:54 am
David,
P.S. I don’t think language itself is native to Alasdair.
February 2nd, 2006 at 9:18:05 am
David -
I appreciate the compliment and to you.
Look guys, David has a valid concern of whether it went to far, and I illustrated why I think that wasn’t a concern.
But I respected the fact that his concern was reasonable. Not based in that it was Cindy Sheehan who got handcuffed, but a private citizen for wearing a t-shirt.
*points to Brendan’s new thread on this*
I think Brendan highlights my argument well in that non-compliance with a Officer’s orders gets you handcuffed.
February 2nd, 2006 at 10:15:50 am
“Again if it was as simple as you say it is, that she was no longer classified as covert, then why is there even an investigation.”
That’s a joke, right? You’re not really that obtuse, David. How else could they determine her status under the law without doing at least some investigation? You think they’d just call her (a nonlawyer) up and ask what her status was under the law — something that still can’t even be agreed on — and that would be the end of it?
AGAIN, the CIA, NSA, and numerous other gov’t agencies make referrals of this sort to the DOJ on a regular basis whenever they suspect a leak of classified info. In other words, there are numerous similar investigations going on right now that you don’t even know about (presumably because they don’t warrant a special counsel, because the suspected leaker doesn’t always work in the WH or some other high profile area, and the info in question isn’t so ideologically charged).
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:44:45 pm
I agree absolutely that part of this investigation is determining her status. Alasdair however has repeatedly asserted that it is not even a question worth asking, that she was not covert and no crime was commited. He, as usual, leaves no room for any position but his own to be even considered reasonable, and you apparently are close on his heals.
February 2nd, 2006 at 10:17:48 pm
Again, for the misinformed, Bush was asking for a line-item veto constitutional amendment, not a law.