Here's a video of the Republican students being banned from the Cantwell rally at Bellevue Community College.
hat tip: Patrick Bell was first of a few readers who e-mailed this.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 31, 2006 01:48 PM | Email ThisFor the record I think it's wrong when both parties do it. I think the wise thing to do is invite a representative protester up on stage for a little debate, because I think the type of person who would protest a political rally is generally not going to be composed and rational onstage. That way Cantwell could make these kids look stupid and Republicans could make the people that protest their rallies look stupid. My two cents.
Posted by: warren on October 31, 2006 02:12 PMPS,
B.C.C. V.P. Laura Saunders resembles the moonbat who asked me how I voted. Glad to see Laura got an education and I don't have to depend on her to defend me and mine in Iraq.
Legally however it is a bit more murky. There has not been a resolution as of yet to whether a political event, having rented public space, can keep people out at whim. This does not just apply to political events. Many churches use public spaces, especially school gymnasiums. Say I wanted to go into their service wearing a "Jesus sucks" or Satan rules" shirt. Could they exclude me? My hunch is yes. As long as the facility rental is open to all, those who rent can, within reason, discriminate.
Posted by: Giffy on October 31, 2006 02:35 PMIt's been going on for a very long time. I was going to attend an Al Gore rally in 1999 in Spokane, but I wasn't allowed in when I was asked who I voted for in the last election.
While both parties do practice this ind of thing, it's because it was made fashionable to interrupt political speeches many years ago by the hippie movement. Generally, I find it's the party of tolerance that interrupts political free speech the majority of the time.
Posted by: Ken on October 31, 2006 03:01 PM"For the record I think it's wrong when both parties do it."
Please tell us you're smart enough to have read that.
Again I agree, they should have been let in. I just didn't see a lot of right wing outrage when similar exclusionary tactics were employed to keep US citizens from attending speeches by the President of this ostensible democracy. Just saying.
Posted by: warren on October 31, 2006 03:04 PMI think nowadays it's pretty equal in terms of which party is interupting the other. That's how politics is in this age where people pull for their party like it was a sports team.
Posted by: warren on October 31, 2006 03:09 PMOn should consider the court free wire taps, suspension of habeas corpus, "secret" phone monitoring facilities, death of Net Neutrality that were put forth by the current President before yelling FOUL about a few protesters out from a private campaign event.
Posted by: Cato on October 31, 2006 03:13 PMYou've got to wonder if there's anyone intelligent running these Dem campaigns. Imagine the furor if McGavick tried to ban someone from coming in to one of his public events? So, he avoids that by just tolerating dissent, which is the sensible thing to do, even if you get a few loud mouths snickering. That kind of behavior reflects more on the attendees than the candidate.
Meanwhile, with the cameras rolling, Tim Barry bans a few BCC students who support McGavick and repeatedly insist they are not going to be disruptive. And if they were disruptive, Barry would have had plenty of time to capture the whole thing on video as a negative for McGavick. Instead, he just stands there blabbing on and on, pretending to be a lawyer like Darcy Burner, and making Cantwell looking worse and worse.
Cantwell and Burner are amazing. This kind of campaign management incompetence is just classic. Outright arrogance is the only way that one can understand such an obvious failure in public relations. If I were Cantwell, I'd have fired Barry on the spot. Based on the rumors of how Cantwell runs her campaign offices, I bet that Barry got a rather nasty scream-down from Cantwell.
Thanks Tim Barry and the rest of the Dems who helped out, you can't buy this kind of PR. This is priceless, seriously thanks, many polls show McGavick running neck to neck with Cantwell, and this kind of arrogant intolerance and cowardice of respectful dissent, will only help McGavick.
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 31, 2006 03:14 PMOf course that's another difference between McGavick and Cantwell--he actually takes questions from the audience.
Furthermore, as I pointed out at Postman's blog, a comment on the political, rather than legal nature of this situation--Cantwell most likely did tell her aides to screen for protesters and to KEEP THEM OUT!
Why do I say that? Because in Senator Cantwell's Amerikkka, political dissent is embarassing--and any potential embarassment should be avoided at all costs.
Don't you all remember what happend last time an Obama-rama was held at a local school? Scroll to about 1:49 in this video to refresh your memories. Cantwell most definately put her aides on HIGH RED ALERT, and she should most certainly pay the consequences (if there are any) for the actions of her staff.
Posted by: Patrick on October 31, 2006 03:18 PMI give McGavick credit for being better than the Nethercutt idiot the GOP picked to run against Murray.
For the record: They ejected three LaRouche supporters from the rally for being disruptive (they were singing).
Posted by: Cato on October 31, 2006 03:26 PMIt's more projection on the part of Cantwell. She saw what her somewhat aligned fans could do to her at a rally, and envisioned the worst from her opponents. The reality is what the left really fears their own visions of the great Republican boogeymen. That's why to them, all of the races are about a good Dem vs. the Evil Bush Boogeyman.
One has got to be awe-struck by the senseless narcissistic delusion and obsession with control that is so self inhibiting for the Dems. Even to the point of hurting their established incumbencies
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 31, 2006 03:32 PMThe fact that Kantwell has nothing to say about the blatant banning of taxpayers from a public building demonstrates how utterly clueless she is in matters as fundamental as the constitution. Kantwell is merely a talking skirt in a region that elects skirts over substance and experience. If not for the Bushhaters, she would be 6 and out. Heck, some say if not for Ron Sims finding some extra votes for her in 2000, she would still be temping for Rob Glaser.
Posted by: Organization Man on October 31, 2006 06:42 PMIs this called the "big tent" approach?
Posted by: Andy on October 31, 2006 06:55 PM