NEWS: Cheney forces event attendees to sign loyalty oath

POLITICS: Cheney forces event attendees to sign loyalty oath

VP Dick Cheney's campaign stop in New Mexico this weekend required potential attendees to sign a "loyalty oath" in order to witness the wonder that is Dick.

The oath reads, in part, as follows:

So much for freedom of assembly, and of the press. Local RNC organizers selectively enforced the pledge requirement - a reporter for the Albuquerque Journal who is a registered Republican was not required to comply.

Lawyers who attempted to obtain a last-minute court order to open the event to the public were shot down.

Woah.

As far as I know, they're not stepping on anybodies rights by doing this. If you want to have a private club you can have a private club.

I think the idea is to avoid situations like this:

HOLDING THEIR GROUND [PAUL WOLFOWITZ's PROFILE]
As Critics Zero In, Paul Wolfowitz Is Unflinching On Iraq Policy
by Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post
December 23, 2003

In late September, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz appeared in Manhattan at an event sponsored by the New Yorker magazine. As he began to speak, he was interrupted by shouts of "War criminal!" and "Murderer!"
"I can't resist," he said evenly, surveying the audience. "This is what is wonderful about this country. It is -- "

Another shout: "Shame on you."

Wolfowitz drove on: " -- and what is finally wonderful is 50 million, roughly 50 million Afghans and Iraqis, are finally able to speak this way without having their tongues cut out."

A few minutes later, a young man ran to the base of the stage, jabbed a finger at Wolfowitz and shouted: "You should be tried for treason, you Nazi!"

If Wolfowitz was jarred by the attack, he showed no sign of it. Rather, he looked a bit distant as he coolly responded: "Frankly, my own reading of history is that exactly this kind of tactic is what the Nazis did and what the totalitarians did in trying to stop people from listening and talking."

Saddam Hussein, he went on to say, was a malevolent dictator who clearly needed to be removed for the good of both the American and the Iraqi peoples. "I think anyone with the slightest bit of moral sense understood what an evil man Saddam was and how much better off the world would be with him gone." Later in the same session, he added, "To me, it's almost beyond argument."


http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/827

Impeach Cheney

[Edited on Aug 01, 2004 12:11PM]

It does sound like kind of a dumb tactic. Isn't this the definition of "preaching to the choir?"

Hey! this is a link to the larouche website. That guy is a nutcase

I realize that they aren't breaking any laws in doing this, and that it is their full right to want to stock this appearance with hard core bush-cheney supporters. However, seeing the administration do this and using other tactics to subvert free speech, association, and the opinion of ALL of the electorate is really starting to make me feel a little sick to my stomach. I'm not even referring to disgust, although I suppose I do feel that from time to time. This is more a feeling of worry and grief at the state politics in this country are in right now. I won't pretend that this is only a republican movement, as I'm sure there are instances of democratic groups acting along the same lines, but this as a small example of the conservative attempts to consolidate power where they have it, and to polarize and divide the american people to suit their own ends makes me sad, and afraid for our country. I want an administration that won't willfully use fear in the manner that this presidency has as a political tool, and who won't use the spectre of terrorism and violence to frighten people into reelecting the incumbent. Is that terribly much to ask?

Everyday I'm more confused at stockula's habit of posting totally irrevalent articles as responses; it's like he's not even trying anymore

whoa. I mean its just....whoa. Talk bout the New World Order. I'm waiting for Shock Troopers to Come and break my door down....

I think he meant, "They've learned that they have a lot more enemies than supporters, so they have to be kind of picky or it'll turn into an anti-campaign rally."

Loalty oaths? like in <i>Catch-22</i>?

Im just wondering how many people I know signed it. A bunch of guys I work with were on the lighting and sound calls for the Cheney event. Did the crew have to sign on?? Eeep. What a thought.

Well, that's one sure way to make sure you have a captive audience!!! Sheez! This is just weird. Like he's afraid to take criticism in an open forum. He should be able to stand up in front of an audience comprised of all U.S. citizens, irregardless of party affiliation, to speak. And face the fucking music!!!

so much for democracy.....

If someone attends the event, signs the form and then yells out that he's a war criminal what are they going to do? Will they sue someone because they said they were a supporter and it turned out they weren't?

What if someone went along and part way through thought "hang on... I thought I supported this guy but now that I've heard some of what he's saying I realise he's an immoral asshole and a war criminal. That piece of paper I signed no longer adequately represents my opinion so I'd better make sure they understand how I feel now with a little shouting out". Or something.

There's no problem with signing it then voting for Kerry. It's not a legally binding document. It's like high school kids signing the "I promise not to fuck" pledges -- it doesn't mean anything. They're going to use the list for an ad campaign where they'll say X amount of people promised to vote for Bush, trying to make the undecided "VOTE FOR TEH WINNAR!@#$" since everybody else seems to be doing it.

EDITED to add:
I wonder how much spam the people who pledged their allegiance are going to receive.

[Edited on Aug 01, 2004 5:27PM]

No, an asshole-ish move is going to a political rally/meeting of the opposing party and attempting to drown them out with catcalls and shouts, thus forcing them to do stuff like this.

You mean you *really* can't see the relevance?
Gee, one article describes a bunch of people interrupting a political speech, another describes a subsequent meeting attempting to prevent such actions. Yeah, totally irrevalent [sic].

[Edited on Aug 01, 2004 by Helter]

Well, last year they tried to crash homecoming so it was kind of a no brainer in my book.

I object to the sinester conspiricy overtones.
Does anyone know who the mystery group is?

This is exactly the same as coke bannin pepsi billboards at their coke rally.
It's a campaign rally, not a public forum.

You know, they lock their front doors too s5, isn't that "shutting off access to the people who he supposedly represents?"

Nutcase, perhaps... But this man wants what I want so maybe I'm a nutcase too!

The enemy of my enemy is my friend?
Dangerous thinking.