Bush/Cheney don't want undecided voters?

[PhillyKev 0]

So the Daily Show did a story about a speech Cheney was giving I think in New Mexico. The odd thing about it was, you were not permitted to enter unless you signed an oath of allegiance to the Bush/Cheney ticket. Kind of odd, you'd think they would want undecided voters to hear what he has to say.

But the funny part was, this is the exact wording of what they had to sign:

Quote

I, the undersigned, herby endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United States.

WTF????? That's funny no matter what party is doing it.

[larsrulz 0]

Democrate groups were planning to go in and disrupt the speech.

Maybe they thought everyone attending was named Herb and had a nickname of Herby.

I got a strong urge to fly, but I got no where to fly to. -PF

[Harksaw 0]

I heard this was only necessary for a few people they suspected of coming for the purpose of disruption.

__________________________________________________
I started skydiving for the money and the chicks. Oh, wait.

[crwtom 0]

Quote

I, the undersigned, herby endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United States.

if this is really the exact quote then it is indeed funny. It means something like
"I agree that GWB may elect the United States (to be his home country) again".
Actually I have no problem with that - he can even have any job in this country
other than the current one for all I care.

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[freeflybella 0]

In addition to your question, isn't he OUR vice president? ALL of ours?

So he only wants to speak to the Americans he's serving if we declare loyalty?

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[PhillyKev 0]

You're right, actually it wasn't everyone. Just registered democrats. Along with the oath they had to supply name, address, phone number, and driver's license number. It was selectively applied to democrats only. That's pretty f'd up IMO. And yes, the Dems having specific protest zones at the convention was wrong too.

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/07/30/news/wyoming/63b4fcb928fe8e6987256ee10054e715.txt

[TomAiello 26]

The first time I saw a "loyalty statement" like that, it was used by a democratic candidate for the House, when I was in college. In that case, as in this one, it was intended to prevent disruption of the speech. I know that because, as one of the College Republicans who arrived with signs, intent on disrupting the speech, I was told that I'd have to sign to gain admission to the speech.

The spelling error is kind of funny. And ours had grammar errors, as well. You have to realize that the thing was hurriedly produced up by a junior campaign helper at the door--after seeing us arrive and deducing our intent.

If you're wondering, I contacted the ACLU to ask if that was legal, and they told me that it was. Apparently folks making political (or other) statements (speeches, rallies, parades, etc) have a right to control the content of their expression. Go figure.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[larsrulz 0]

How about the fact that this was a campaign stop/rally. He wasn't speaking as the current vice-president, he was speaking as a vice-president nominee for the 2004 election...there actually is a difference. If Kerry did the same, I wouldn't hold it against him, just because he is a US Senator.

I got a strong urge to fly, but I got no where to fly to. -PF

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

He wasn't speaking as the current vice-president, he was speaking as a vice-president nominee for the 2004 election.

And only wanted to speak to people that already plan to vote for him? What kind of sense does that make? Unless the intent was to have a sympathetic crowd for news clips.

As John Stewart put it. Nothing convinces people like already convinced people.