08/25/2002 Archived Entry: "Ban Bush From Portland!"
As I was attending undergraduate school at Portland State in the late 80's and early 90's, there were many protest events against Quayle and Bush I that were much larger and forceful than what recently occurred as Bush II visited Oregon. Portland, with this protest that numbered 1000-1500 in number, continues its' reputation as The Vanguard in gathering and speaking against the Bush efforts.
The main problem that seems to have occurred when the guests of the fundraiser were unable to get by the protesters into the event:
Donors caught in middle Bush was attending a fund-raiser for Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., who is being challenged by Secretary of State Bill Bradbury, a Democrat. A long line of donors, including Republican gubernatorial candidate Kevin Mannix, found themselves pressed against parking lot walls near Fifth and Taylor, unable to move past the protest. Police said they did not set up a corridor for donors to get to the event, but only those trying to walk up Taylor Street encountered trouble. A few protesters screamed obscenities and attempted to block the Republican supporters. Mannix said one protester blocked his path as he and his wife walked toward the Hilton. "I said 'I'm just trying to get through here,' " Mannix said. After about 10 seconds, "I put my hands on his left side and just brushed past. "I'll just say it was tense," Mannix said.
William Rivers Pitt gives an account of what occurred: "We Are Not The Enemy!" - The Battle of Portland. If you want to follow the frontline accounts of what occurred, then go to the Portland Indymedia website (lots of pictures). You won't be the only one there. An interesting quote that came out alongside Ari Fleischer saying we didn't have a clue about the impending protests:
However, an agent with the Secret Service office in Portland said the demonstration should have come as no surprise. "We knew there were going to be protesters," he said, declining to give his name. "The president's staff was well-informed." Clark said the bureau told the Secret Service that things were "looking bad" because of the bureau's inability to connect with protesters before Thursday and because protest Web sites appeared to grow more intense. Clark said the bureau will compile an after-action report reviewing the response. Katz said she thinks police acted professionally and will meet with the chief Monday afternoon to get a more in-depth account of their actions. Five people were arrested, accused of disorderly conduct, failure to disperse or interfering with police. A sixth was cited for urinating in public.
The Secret Service is probably monitoring the Democratic Underground and other left-oriented sites. As one protester stated: "It is interesting that we own the streets, we pay the taxes and these people's salaries, yet we have to be shot at to voice our first amendment rights." Don't forget the spook that we are paying to monitor our writings on the web...
For the dissidents, we have the Free Amendment Zone that is a mile away from the event, behind the 6-foot Cyclone fencing. In DC, we have the Senators giving permission to the FBI to interrogate them-- that is, the executive branch agency is probing the actions of legislators whose job is to oversee FBI and intelligence agencies.
I just watched The Majestic on DVD a few days ago, which dealt with the McCarthyism of hunting down Communists amidst the media. During the Red Scare, any voices which spoke in sympathy of free-speech, or gathered alongside communists were treated as such, and declared Un-American. Similarly, we have just begun the process of seeing the Homeland Security, FBI, and other authorities turning their powers inland, upon the people who speaking against the current administrations actions. Thus begins the process of turning the country into a de facto Police State-- where any protest or voices that do not stand United With Bush are treated as potentially terrorist and dealt with through the means of heavy force. The rightwing cultural war upon the rest of us has become a war upon all those who dissent. At least we can still vote them out, for now. 800 days left until Bush is voted out of office.
Replies: 22 comments
"At least we can still vote them out, for now."
"For now" is the key. I do not think we can wait another 800 days. It is time to vote the GOP out of the House and reduce their numbers in the senate less than 100 days from now. Sending Barr home was a good start. Sending Hutchinson and Gekas home would be great.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/25/2002 11:59 AM PST
I had a bad dream last night that is relavent to this story. I dreamnt that I attended a Bush fundraiser, and the President ordered me to hand over my wallet. I refused, and the Secret Service tackled me, threw me in a police car and took me to the FBI building, where they threw me in a prison cell with my enemy from school (without a trial, mind you). Spooky, eh? Luckily, there's a happy ending-the ghost of RFK came and freed me, and years later, when I apparently got elected to Congress, I successfully passed a bill making the FBI building the RFK building.
What's the relevence? Well, the part of being thrown in jail without trial for not doing as the President says sounds real, doesn't it?
Posted by Mr. Liberal @ 08/25/2002 12:09 PM PST
What the article doesn't tell you is that there was even an even larger group of protesters supporting Bush! You have to read between the lines to find these things out. But of course, the mostly liberal media won't report (looks at watch, waits for some libwhack to say "Duh...the media is controlled by big corporations, therefore the media is conservative!"). Please, if that is your best argument for the media being conservative, don't waste my time.
Mr.Liberal, you been smoking something? There's no way Bush could throw people in jail without a trial. There's no way any president Democrat or Republican could get away with that in this day in age. However, your hero put over 100,000 innocent Japanese-Americans into concentration camps during World War II. But of course, you will probably blame that on right-wingers too.
Posted by RWG @ 08/25/2002 01:48 PM PST
"There's no way Bush could throw people in jail without a trial."
They already have. It is known as Guantanamo Bay! Just label someone an enemy combatant.
"There's no way any president Democrat or Republican could get away with that in this day in age."
Bush has, with apologists such as Professors Jan Ting and Doug Kmiec supporting him.
"However, your hero put over 100,000 innocent Japanese-Americans into concentration camps during World War II."
It ran across party lines and the attitude was along racial lines. Members of Bush's Civil Rights Commission have suggested that internment of Arab Americans could happen. Again, it is along racial lines, and not along party lines.
"But of course, you will probably blame that on right-wingers too."
Yes. But, then right-wingers such as Senators Eastland and Talmadge were in the Democratic Party. Two are still in the Democratic Party...Robert Byrd and Ernest Hollings. However, a majority of them these days are in the GOP after Nixon's infamous Southern Strategy...these include Tom Tancredo who may actually like to intern Asian Americans if given the opportunity.
Extremists of the right and the left are made up of crazies who probably belong in the mental asylum.
Posted by G. C. Raj @ 08/25/2002 02:47 PM PST
There's no reason for the discussion to turn into mudslinging. RWG could bring it down a notch.
RWG clearly overstates his case when he says "There's no way Bush could throw people in jail without a trial." Guantanamo Bay probably is not the best counterpoint, however, because no one believes that they were picked up on American soil.
Far more disturbing if one believes (as RWG seems to) that people shouldn't be put in jail without a trial is the use of the so-called material witness statute. The statute has been used to detain young muslim men -- no of whom have been accused of anything, much less anything related to 9/11 -- under the pretext that they are needed to testify before a grand jury. Perhaps the saddest example of the abuse of this statute involves the detention of Abdallah Higazy. The FBI not only detained him but somehow "got" a 9/11 confession out of him even though he had nothing to do with 9/11 (Judge Rakoff in the Southern District of New York has asked for the Attorney's office to example how *that* happened).
It is certainly true that FDR imprisoned over 100,000 innocent Japanese-Americans into concentration camps during World War II, but what does that mean? Has anyone been defending that? The only way that argument makes sense is if one accepts the premise that if a president is a Democrat, then all Democrats are forbidden from being critical of him as well as forbidden from criticizing Republican administrations that do something less harsh but nonethless troubling.
How about this: Both FDR and Bush were/are wrong because they (or their admistrations) allowedpeople not charged with crimes to be detained -- no trial, no charges, no suspicions.
And this isn't something that happened in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Just last month, Chief Judge Mukasey in New York released an opinion that it was okay to detain "John Doe" as a material witness. Jose Padilla was also a material witness under Chief Judge Mukasey -- where's his trial? Where is the evidence against him? How many others there are we don't know because no one will tell us.
Anway, I hope RWG takes some of my comments seriously -- its okay to vote to the right as long as you support your views with reason, not invectives.
Posted by Eric Arthur Blair @ 08/25/2002 04:25 PM PST
RWG,
Look, FDR did a number of great things for America in the 30's and 40's, but as a man he was deeply flawed. Like Clinton, he carried on an affair behind his wife's back (Margueurite LeHand and Lucy Page Mercer), and, like his famous cousin, was a "gentleman's racist". Unlike Teddy Roosevelt, he also did nothing for Jews, and let them be murdered during the Holocaust without doing a thing to help until it was too late. (This includes not bombing Auschwitz, which US bombers could easily have done, and not ordering the bombing of train tracks leading to the concentration camps)And that's not even forgetting the act of placing 100,000 Nisei Americans (Americans of Japanese origin)in interment camps. No, FDR was a man of deep flaws indeed-but the things he gave to America cannot be forgot. Those include Social Security, the TVA, an activist federal goverment, and the CCC and other groups that got Americans off the breadlines and to work again. Now, with that settled, let me say that I am not a partisan-I see good in Republicans and Democrats alike. I admire many Republicans, and up to FDR, far more Republicans than Democrats. Let me say that, until the age of Al Smith, I would have been a Republican (a progressive one, at that). I am not a Democrat first-I am a liberal. Partisanship means nothing to me-you will not see me bashing a Republican for who he is, only for what he stands for. Right now, the Democratic party is the party most likely to both suceed and support liberalism (and the Greens can't win, so I wouldn't support). If, say, the Republicans became the party they were under TR and Lincoln, and the Democrats became the party of Richard Russell and Eugene Talmadge, then I would be a Republican. If the Democratic party moves all the way to the right, then I might well become a Green party member, even if they have no chance of winning anything.
I COULD say some things about Reagan, except that I think he had a vision, and was very good at communicating the presidency to the world. Likewise, many Democrats have their flaws, just like many Republicans do.
Oh, and thank you Raj for helping.
Posted by Mr. Liberal @ 08/25/2002 05:14 PM PST
The problem with the protesters is that they tried to exercise their first amendment rights by trying to deny others theirs.
Posted by Mr. Moderate @ 08/25/2002 06:18 PM PST
Well, Mr. Moderate, I have to do a Mea Culpa with you. Back on politicalwire in January, I said with the case being dropped that Torricelli would easily win. Well, you disagreed, and now you're right-he'll probably lose too. Still, it's not as bad as BushRep's woes in Pennsylvania right now...
Posted by Mr. Liberal @ 08/25/2002 06:33 PM PST
As far as Roosevelt and the Holocaust, I have always thought that deposing the entire Nazi regime was a pretty good way of ending the Holocaust. Bombing Auschwitz, as mentioned by Mr. Liberal might have slowed the pace of the Holocaust for a bit, until new camps were built, Auschwitz repaired, or whatever. The same can be said about other periferal schemes, but no one can deny that defeating Hitler and occupying all of Germany ended the Holocaust.
Posted by etc. @ 08/25/2002 10:16 PM PST
I think the problem, Mr. Lib, was that none of the pundits gave the people of New Jersey enough credit to know what a sleaze Torricelli is and then bounce him. I don't think it's too outlandish to see Torricelli lose by ten points or even more. (Not that it wouldn't be outlandish for Torricelli to win, either.. I just think that this race is Forrester's to lose.)
It certainly can't hurt that the GOP has finally gotten serious about his chances... it took way too long for Bush to announce a fundraising trip for Forrester. Torricelli's attacks are falling flat (he has no credibility), and while Forrester is going to be getting a financial surge, the Torch will be finding it harder and harder to get that $15,000,000 he said he'd raise for this campaign. People don't like backing losers, and they certainly don't like backing sleaze. (Unless Toricelli find some more of those magical envelopes full of cash -- which I certainly wouldn't put past him at this point.)
The worst part for the democrats is that, while they may very well have a stellar night nationwide, Torch's personality might convince enough Democrats to stay at home that Scott Garrett will likely have no trouble winning re-election. Nevertheless, give Sumers my best.
Posted by Mr. Moderate @ 08/25/2002 10:47 PM PST
"The Secret Service is probably monitoring the Democratic Underground and other left-oriented sites" - Democratic Underground as left LEANING??!! LEANING?? Are you joking? My god, then what is hard left wing to you?
What bugs me about the denfense of FDR on the camps is this "It ran across party lines". The first defense is to say, well the other guys did it, so its ok.
Why is it that FDR, JFK, RFK, and Clinton get points for being "deeply flawed" as adding to their human qualities, but a GOP screws up and he should be throw out on his ear.
I don't think the meida is left wing, but I do think they know what sells. Telling people that its not their fault, blame someone else works every time. Some think that is liberal but AI think it is just what sells.
Posted by jimGAGOP @ 08/26/2002 06:32 AM PST
you know what gets me?? is that the violence was provoked by the police not the protesters.
Like the man that is being accused of the anthrax, and according to the Justice Department he is a "person of interest", and there is no legal term for that.
There is also no legal presidence under the constitution for pepper spraying babies either.
Posted by Real Michaud @ 08/26/2002 06:51 AM PST
JimGAGOP:
As far as FDR interning the Japanese, let me be very blunt. The problem was with white people of the first half of the 20th century in general, rather than the Dems and the GOP. Let us not forget that blacks were being lynched in large numbers during that period. White hate and contempt ran across party lines. Japanese internment was the tip of the iceberg. One cannot forget Rosewood, Marion and Tulsa. Calvin Coolidge, the GOP President signed the racist National Origins Immigration Act of 1924 and Hoover signed the other racist Smoot-Hawley trade restriction bill. So the GOP was not innocent either.
In the 1960s members of both parties said that this mob violence had to stop. However, the GOP decided that it was going to appeal to white southern sensitivities and hence the Nixon southern strategy. Between 1968 and 2000, the GOP won most of the southern states and at least until 1984 used hidden racist agenda to get southern white votes. The Dems used to do this back before the 1960s. It is all well covered in a book recently released by one Mayer reviewed in Businessweek (September 2, 2002). I have been to Georgia several times. While attitudes have changed, the racist pockets which was nurtured by the Dem racism of the pre-1960s era and the GOP southern strategy still remain. Georgia ninth district represented by Nathan Deal is an example of this. I had a chance to sit near Nathan Deal on a flight to Atlanta in February, and he was complaining about globalization and how a Thai restaurant wanted to open in Dillard, GA. He said that this was not good for the Dillards Restaurant which served patriotic American food. You get the same garbage from folks in Hall, Forsyth, Fanine and other north Georgia counties. These are the folks who want US troops in Iraq. They want globalization to be an one way street..fine if it works for them, but would rather not face competition from a five employee Thai restaurant, and certainly do not want Thais living next to them. Typical product of nurture by both parties over the course of the century. They all have one thing in common. They all happen to be white.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/26/2002 06:54 AM PST
The people of New Jersey don't want the country to be run by conservative Republicans. Give them some credit for understanding the consequences of putting Forrester in the Senate. Torricelli can win because he agrees with his constituents on the issues--and he's out there every day reminding them.
Posted by VADem @ 08/26/2002 07:02 AM PST
jimGAGOP,
(("The Secret Service is probably monitoring the Democratic Underground and other left-oriented sites" - Democratic Underground as left LEANING??!! LEANING?? Are you joking? My god, then what is hard left wing to you?))
Try putting in "oriented" where you have "LEANING
Orient, from Latin orins, orient-, rising sun, east; from present participle there of oriri, to arise, be born....
Posted by myDD @ 08/26/2002 07:37 AM PST
oohh, my bad. Poor proofing. Really, my fault completely. Still Dem underground is proudly harshly slanted. I actually have no issue with that. I can't stand how many try to say they are moderate or left or right oriented or leaning whatever. People should be proud to favor one direction. Staying in the middle doesn't accomplish anything. large changes in pol landscape don't come from those unwilling to pick a side. Mydd or mr. Liberal, I may disagree 100% with you, but I appreciate that you pick a side and go with it.
I will never forget a newcast follwing one to the 2000 debates. It was a group of self defined "moderates" who said they were undecided. First, if someone can not make up their mind after a year of ads and tv time - get out of the way and let people who pick a side get on with things.
Second, a lady was critcal of Gore for being too wishy washy and not taking a stand. Give me a break, I may not have voted for Gore, but the man had to be ten different things to ten different people. As I said, one problem with making you base so wide is that you have trouble getting a message developed b/c it has to go through 1,000 filters.
Anyway, back to the "moderate" lady. When she said this about Gore some other heads nodded in agreement (or sleepyness). Then the newsperson doing the group interview took a poll. Some said Bush, some Gore. But the perosn then asked "Who may still change their vote?" The lady (plus several others) raised her hand. HOW can people complain that pols are too wishy washy when voters can't make a choice? I really felt for Gore b/c since Bush (and all GOP) are seen as unfriendly to diversity, all the pressure goes to the Dem that is running to be all things to all people.
Posted by JimGaGOP @ 08/26/2002 09:11 AM PST
VADem has a very good point about Jersey. My uncle from Bergen County despises the Torch, thinks he's the scum of the earth, would love to see him lose, knows and likes Forrester to boot, but really doesn't want a Republican Senate, and for that reason thinks he will probably hold his nose and vote for Torricelli. The better things look for Democrats nationwide, the more vulnerable the Torch is.
Posted by AVADem @ 08/26/2002 10:13 AM PST
"I really felt for Gore b/c since Bush (and all GOP) are seen as unfriendly to diversity, all the pressure goes to the Dem that is running to be all things to all people."
Regarding diversity, fuel to the fire is added when there are unqualified and incomptent whites running the show...such as the airline executives, steel executives (for whom Bush has provided good welfare benefits in the form of tariffs after resolving to be a free trader) and other firms which are perennially unprofitable. I for one would not even raise the issue of diversity if the white executives and professionals are half way competent and provide quality service to customers, instead of having to receive welfare in the form of steel tariff from the US government.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/26/2002 12:02 PM PST
RWG: Your comment that there was an even larger group of people supporting Bush is, to be frank, utter bullshit. Yes, you'd have to "read between the lines" to find that out because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. How do I know? I live in Portland. I had family members at the protest downtown. They saw next to no pro-Bush people. This is a myth propagated by the right-wing delusionals...We don't like your boy Junior here in Portland. Get over it.
Posted by Oregonian @ 08/26/2002 05:03 PM PST
I was simply trying to add balance to the debate. And show Mr.Liberal that not just GOP administrations undermine civil liberties.
Yes, conservatives/Republicans cooperated in the internment of Japanese-Americans. Likewise, liberals/Democrats cooperated in McCarthyism. Most prominently, JFK was quite the redbaiter.
One thing I found kinda funny in The Majestic was that, according to reviews of the movie, it took place in 1951. In 1951, Democrats were the House majority and thus had all the committee chairmanships, including that of HUAC. However, the chairman of the commitee in "The Majestic" seems pretty damn anticommunist. I guess the movie is fair considering that it never says anyone is a Democrat or a Republican. It just lets the viewer make his/her own judgement.
Posted by RWG @ 08/26/2002 09:05 PM PST
All these internments and lynchings were more non-white baiting rather than red-baiting at least before the 1960s.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/27/2002 07:37 AM PST
RWG -- I also live in Portland, and would like to verify what Oregonian said. Few or no pro-Bush people.
Your comment about the liberal media covering something up is 180 degrees wrong. Some of the conservative media made somehting up, and you bought it. You were lied to, but somehow I don't think that bothers you.
Posted by zizka @ 08/31/2002 12:32 PM PST
