Some would-be spectators hoping to attend Vice President Dick Cheney's rally in Rio Rancho this weekend walked out of a Republican campaign office miffed and ticketless Thursday after getting this news:
Unless you sign an endorsement for President George W. Bush, you're not getting any passes.
The Albuquerque Bush-Cheney Victory office in charge of doling out the tickets to Saturday's event was requiring the endorsement forms from people it could not verify as supporters.
I can understand the want/need to fill a campaign stop with only supporters, but isn't this crossing some sort of line? A loyalty oath required to see your vice president speak?
It's just weird.
If my intent was to crash the party, and I signed such an endorsement to gain entry, could that be used legally against me?
I don't know, maybe the repub's realize the hatred is so deep that the hardcore lefty's can't bring themselves to sign anything pro Bush anymore than a vampire can stand to drink holy water so they did that to screen them out
This is not right. Nothing new from the administration that does things like hold "enemy combatants" for 2.5 years without even charging them.
Now to hear Mr. Cheney speak in this instance, you'd have to sign allegiance to president bush. What does this serve? Nothing. If someone was anti republican and bent on crashing the party they easily could have fudged allegiance.
Reading the article, two things you fail to mention is that it was an RNC event meant to energize the party faithful (read: a semi-private gathering) and that it reportedly had been threatened by Dems to infiltrate and disrupt it. Presenting the impression that this was a open public appearance and that there was no legitimate reason for additional scrutiny of those requesting tickets is not a complete picture.
This is not that offensive. What is offensive is candidates wining and dining with that "Richest top 2% of Americans" they constantly chastise, charging them $3,000 a plate, and then somehow pretending they know about middle class America.
AFAIK the only two events that are traditionally treated that way are the conventions. Other than that, the VP is expected to be unbiased in the way he treats citizens--whether they support his party or not.
The purpose of conventions was originally to select a candidate. That's why it was private. The delegates are members of that party who cast a vote for the nomination for president.
I don't see the comparison between cheney's event and the much more different situation of electing a candidate by vote among delegates of the same party.
If someone was anti republican and bent on crashing the party they easily could have fudged allegiance, so that assertion also fails.
Speaking of wining and dining, my mom recieved an invitation to dine with Bush at the White House a couple of years back. It was like 2,000 a plate though. We had to save that for vacation as we are only middle class. But the autograph was nice.
I thought I had an autograph like that until I realized that the other half of my class was awarded it too and the only signature that bled through the paper was my principal's. They did a nice job, though, since everything up until then had been black, the "signature" being dark navy.
Pardon a poor non-american, for asking.
But what does signing an endorsment actualy mean?
I mean does it follow you into the polling both in November and force you to put X by Bush/Cheney.
Or is it a question of honour? Once you endorse then your stuck?
I can't think of any value the signatures would have. I seriously doubt there is any legal obligation to it.
If they really did it in the context it's been reported I would guess it was a dumb idea designed to discourage anti-Cheney types from attending.
At best it might have discouraged or exposed a few rabid-but-dumb-as-a-stump types but certainly no follower of the church of Michael Moore would have even been slowed down by it.
My intuition is the actual context has been misrepresented for maximum negative affect but there really was no good reason for it to begin with so the ridicule is warranted.
Will, I really appreciate your even-handed conservative viewpoint. I can't see any value for the signatures either; if someone could produce something, please stand forward.
