Return of the McCarthy Era?

Published on August 21, 2004 By stevendedalus In Politics

Homeland Security Department issued a terrorist advisory for local law enforcement agencies to watch for home landers who have “expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the US government.”

At a Labor Day 2002 Pittsburgh picnic for Bush’s photo-op with work-people, a 65 year old retired steel worker was denied access for wearing a sign “The Bush Family surely love the poor, they make many of us,” though he was engulfed by other sign carriers in favor of Bush. The police arrested him for disorderly conduct. At his trial a detective testified that the local police was instructed by the Secret Service to confine people making statements against the administration. The judge threw out the case.

In St. Louis Bush appeared in 2003; sign protestors were shuttled off to a zone out of sight of the street where the President would be, and worse, the media could not cover the zone. The President visited Columbia, So. Carolina last year. Amid a sea of admirers some 200 yards away from the Bush, stood a brave soul, perhaps indiscreet, with a sign “No War for Oil.” He was escorted to a fenced in zone a half mile away because of the “content of the sign.”

Crawford Texas police believes that without a protest permit wearing a “peace” button would be considered violating city ordinance.

[Taken from The Nation reprint of Jim Hightower’s book, Let’s Stop Beating Around the Bush]

Comments (Page 3)

bakerstreet

on Aug 23, 2004

"And neither is yours Baker. "

I never said it was, and when my behavior spills over into your life, feel free to make an issue of it. When people take it upon themselves to "protest", that right carries a huge responsibilities. Responsibilities, I might add, that are ignored 99% of the time.

It is easy for me to be indignant because people's opinions of protest vary drastically based upon what is being protested. Liberals have no problem with abortion clinic protestors are drastically regulated, so regulation must be a good thing across the board, right? Obviously the unfettered right to protest isn't universal unless we are talking about anti-Bush protesters.

thatoneguyinslc

on Aug 23, 2004

What? theres a BIG difference between anti abortion protestors and Anti Bush protestors. Nobody is putting pictures of dead Iraqis in Bush's face, or trying to blow up the white house. They just want to exercise their right to protest against him and his platform. You post on this thread and act as if we make this stuff up. Well we don't. Legitimate and peaceful protest is a right. Moronic and violent protest is not. No matter which side is doing it.

And don't call me a liberal. Because i'm not. I'm a CENTRIST democrat. I have about as much use for most liberals that i know as i do neo-cons that i know.

It just so happens that i hate what Bush 2.0 and his buddies are doing to this country.

bakerstreet

on Aug 23, 2004

"What? theres a BIG difference between anti abortion protestors and Anti Bush protestors. Nobody is putting pictures of dead Iraqis in Bush's face, or trying to blow up the white house."

, you think? Not *everyone* is, granted. I think it is pretty blind to say that no one is, though. By your definition, the average abortion protestor wants to intimidate, kill and destroy, and the average anti-Bush protester just wants to scatter rose petals and sing kum bah yah... How's that for stereotypes?

No, I think you'll find that labor protestors, political protesters, evironmental protesters, abortion protesters, etc., have all had plenty of violent, obstructive, and tasteless protest habits. That's not really the issue here, anyway. Peaceful abortion protests have been as demonized (by groups like the ACLU) as violent ones, for the very reasons I list.

No one here is saying that people shouldn't have the ability to protest. I'm just laughing at the idea some here have that protest is some unfettered and untouchable right. When people make ignorant statements like...

" Actually I am allowed to protest wherever I want. "

...you have to expect people to point out the lunacy of it. There is no such right, not even if you limit that statement to "public property". Sure, protest is possible, and it is a heavily regulated "right", but don't fool yourself into thinking that "protest" is some sacred, untouchable relic. Freedom to protest isn't any different than freedom of speech, and people are just as ignorant of the truth of it.

thatoneguyinslc

on Aug 23, 2004

Yet again Baker, you selectively pick out what you want to see, and disregard the whole message.If you would have bothered to read a little further, you would have noticed i said this...

Legitimate and peaceful protest is a right. Moronic and violent protest is not. No matter which side is doing it.

Notice the part where it says..

No matter which side is doing it.

Deference

on Aug 24, 2004

Re: "Return of the McCarthy Era?" I don't think you have made your point. It is an inflammatory title for a very subjective factoid. Again, the link kingbee provides gets their information from Salon.com,

Bakerstreet, I like your fire, but understand that the Patriot Act did occur. The fact that you automatically connotate an attack from someone on the more restrictive laws of the day and broadening powers of the government with the Bush administration speaks loads. The democrats signed off on the thing too, Kerry has said that he will rescind only parts of it. Face it, we're giving our government too much power, and if a democrat takes over the White House, I'll expect to hear that you still want the government to have that power if you really are as much of a federalist as you make yourself out to be.

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 24, 2004

Holy shit Kingbee...that's too funny! Do you suppose Cohn would change the song title to "Live and Let Die...You commie sonofabitch"?

How 'bout changing "Band on the run" to "reds on the run"

"And the jailer man,
and sailor Sam,
They're searching everyone
For the Reds on the run
Reds on the run"

(hey! It works!)

bakerstreet

on Aug 24, 2004

"Bakerstreet, I like your fire, but understand that the Patriot Act did occur."

Oddly, so far, people have steamed about it a lot, but we haven't seen tangible damage. Nothing that stands up constitutionally, anyway. That is one of the brilliant parts of our nation, we can *react* to totalitarianism. We don't have to foresee it, and live as doomsayers as many seem to do now. If problems present themselves, the patriot act can be amended, changed, revised.

So far, nothing seems to have presented itself that warrants it. If you feel differently, contact your legislator.

Deference

on Aug 25, 2004

You may be right Bakerstreet. I think that the U.S. public is less likely to actually see amendments to the Patriot Act, however, as it seems our legislators are only debating (if they are even doing that) whether or not to renew the Patriot Act.

Perhaps you have not been privy to "tangible damage" but there are many who have felt the bite of P.A.'s restrictiveness. I have a little brother who protested at the WTO in Florida last year and was to be attending the RNC as well. Last week two spooks (FBI) showed up to interview him and basically give him the idea that it would not be prudent to attend protesting the RNC. You may have seen my posts in other forums as well, where I give my account of having a red stamp on the outside of an article of my mail (a spritual book and a journal) which reads,"Media inside, subject to check by a postal employee." Lastly, your (mine, and every other American citizen's) fourth amendment right is practically moot, and many of the effects of the Patriot Act cannot be seen as they are clandestine, such as the ability of the government to read one's email, bug one's phone, etc. I am currently in the process of voting out the rep. in my district and working to put a new one in his place, so some of us are acting and not just speaking. Both are important. When the American people become complacent, and are not speaking out, we know that America has already surrendered a part of itself.

Shawn Gray

on Aug 25, 2004

There are two rights in the constitution that apply to this discussion: the right to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble. A person's right to free speech does not trump another groups right to assemble. (which was alluded to above in the "family picnic" example). The government does not have the right to imprison anyone due to the content of their speech, but any party is due protection from having their peaceful gathering disrupted by harrassment from another group. This is why most protests that happen anywhere are usually required to register with local authorities so that the authorities (whose job it is to protect the constitution and local laws) can protect everyone's constitutional rights. You can thank this practice because you were able to watch the DNC without some right-wing wacko yelling KERRY SUCKS!! at the top of his lungs during quiet moments of his acceptance speech. The protesters were quarantined in a free speech zone where they could express their views without disrupting the assembly.

This is not "new McCarthyism" no matter how much you may want to hate the president. I wish that there was some reasonable debate on issues rather than attempts to demonize Pres Bush as the new Hitler, and Kerry as a spineless power hound. After the Election we are all going to have to work on the problems that confront us together no matter who wins.

Alphroman

on Aug 26, 2004

At these types of speeches, the cities designate a spot where the protestors stand. The media can go there and cover them, they arent banned from showing the protestors like you make it sound.

stevendedalus

on Aug 26, 2004

This is not "new McCarthyism" no matter how much you may want to hate the president. I wish that there was some reasonable debate on issues rather than attempts to demonize Pres Bush as the new Hitler, and Kerry as a spineless power hound.

Did you say the same when they demonized Clinton for eight years and now piggybacked to Hillary? Yet I agree, let's meet the real issues head on.

Again, it is ideology versus reality. It is very difficult to balance the rights of protesters, those they protest against, and the rest of us who may or may not give a damn, and would prefer to go about our day undeterred.

Plays into the hands of a totalitarian state.

bakerstreet

on Aug 26, 2004

Plays into the hands of a totalitarian state.

As opposed to the opposite. You wouldn't appreciate this ideology of unchecked speech and protest any more than anyone else. We have a society wherein protest is possible, and where it isn't exploited or used as an excuse for destruction, intimidation, or to impose on the rights of others. It is a good balance.

In this, as in all the other claims of fascism by the current administration, it is easily remedied through due process. The system works. As it stands, it doesn't seem as though knee-jerk, civil liberties folks have a big audience for their complaints. If the situation becomes truly disturbing, I doubt that would be the case.

Deference

on Aug 27, 2004

You wouldn't appreciate this ideology of unchecked speech and protest any more than anyone else. We have a society wherein protest is possible, and where it isn't exploited or used as an excuse for destruction, intimidation, or to impose on the rights of others. It is a good balance.

Of course not, but we didn't have a problem with our "balance" until after the Patriot Act and the rolling back of laws meant to protect citizens that were passed in 1972 to limit CIA activity. In many ways we've gone backwards in just these last few years in regards to civil liberties.

In this, as in all the other claims of fascism by the current administration, it is easily remedied through due process. The system works. As it stands, it doesn't seem as though knee-jerk, civil liberties folks have a big audience for their complaints. If the situation becomes truly disturbing, I doubt that would be the case.

You are correct. Right now "civil liberty folks" don't have an audience as most people aren't concerned about some of these new policies because they aren't seeing the teeth they carry with them. Eventually people may wake up, but by then these types of laws may be too entrenched to weed out.

I'm going to bastardize this old saying as I can't remember specifically how it goes:

"When they came for the socialists, I said nothing, when they came for the communists, I said nothing, when they came for the Jews, etc., etc., I said nothing. When they came for me, there was no one left to say anything."

bakerstreet

on Aug 27, 2004

"Of course not, but we didn't have a problem with our "balance" until after the Patriot Act and the rolling back of laws meant to protect citizens that were passed in 1972 to limit CIA activity. "

Well, gee, after the kind of brow beating the government got for having a hamstrung CIA, I wonder what people thought would happen. I wonder how much you'll like the new NID?

"You are correct. Right now "civil liberty folks" don't have an audience as most people aren't concerned about some of these new policies because they aren't seeing the teeth they carry with them. Eventually people may wake up, but by then these types of laws may be too entrenched to weed out. "

Ah, the beauty of Democracy. If you can't convince the majority, then perhaps they aren't as trusting in prophesy as the minority seems to be. If it ain't broke...

"I'm going to bastardize this old saying as I can't remember specifically how it goes:

"When they came for the socialists, I said nothing, when they came for the communists, I said nothing, when they came for the Jews, etc., etc., I said nothing. When they came for me, there was no one left to say anything.""

. People villainize Bush for not protecting the US from the weakening influence of civil libertarians, then, once steps are taken, people like you liken his administration to Nazis. Great job, you turned a perfectly good reply into a knee-jerk, reactionary whine. When in doubt, paint on a little moustache...

Deference

on Aug 27, 2004

People villainize Bush for not protecting the US from the weakening influence of civil libertarians, then, once steps are taken, people like you liken his administration to Nazis. Great job, you turned a perfectly good reply into a knee-jerk, reactionary whine. When in doubt, paint on a little moustache...

I don't know who is complaining about "Bush not protecting the US from the weakening influence of civil libertarians" except you with your many pro-federalist comments on these numerous boards.

people like you liken his administration to Nazis.

People like me? Who am I Bakerstreet? Why don't you tell everyone so that we all have a good idea?

Yes, that's right, you don't know, so don't make anything up and pretend that you do or insinuate otherwise. Read my last post (since you failed to the last time) as I did no such thing as liken Bush to the Nazi's.

Great job, you turned a perfectly good reply into a knee-jerk, reactionary whine.

I'm not the one throwing a bellicose tantrum like the power hungry hard-on you make yourself out to be half the time. This belligerant and condescending tone you take with people on the boards obscures your otherwise sometimes intelligent posts.

When in doubt, paint on a little moustache

I'm sure you are the only one who does that. Probably in the mornings...............in front of the mirror.....with a little shoe polish or personal excrement....pretending that you are King Of the United States while saluting yourself nude.

Thank you for the many laughs.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!