Presidential candidate John Kerry delivered a speech in Albuquerque in July. He was greeted by throngs of enthusiastic supporters and a number of detractors.
Unobserved at first, anti-Kerry members of the crowd began clacking their sandals together, over their heads. The sound of the flip-flops was emblematic of the protesters’ opinion that Kerry “flip-flops” on issues, in particular first voting to send troops to Iraq, then opposing it. Facing crowd of detractors as well as supporters is the price public figures have to pay.
Regrettable as it is, politicians can’t dictate the tenor of the moment; it’s lamentable that one can’t predict whether the gathering will be peaceful or disruptive.
Experts agree that appearances in public by politicians need to be regarded with caution. Because of many unknown factors in what is shaping up to be an extremely volatile campaign, virtually every partisan speech is going to be attended by protesters as well as supporters.
Politically speaking, nothing seemed out of the ordinary when Vice President Dick Cheney agreed to an engagement at Rio Rancho’s Mid-High School last Saturday to fire up his supporters. It’s standard practice to issue tickets to those wishing to attend the speech, due to limited seating. However, organizers of Cheney’s appearance added a new twist: In order to attend the speech, people who aren’t verified George W. Bush supporters needed to sign a kind of loyalty oath.
Arriving at the Bush-Cheney office to pick up their free tickets, members of the public learned of the catch: those who were not certifiably Bush-Cheney supporters needed to sign a form endorsing Bush for reelection. The bottom of the form contained a statement that signers consented to the use and release of their names as endorsers of Bush.
Rather than risk signing an endorsement, which they believed, was simply wrong, a number of people walked out without tickets.
Anyone can almost understand the reluctance of the organizers, the Albuquerque Bush-Cheney Victory Office, to allow non-Cheney supporters to crash the party. We say “almost” because such logic is flawed:
Not only is Cheney the Republican incumbent, he is the vice president for ALL the U.S., not simply members of his fan club and contributors;
Other, non-Republican members of the public, can rightfully question the thinking behind the organizers of the speech. Since Cheney’s speech, delivered in a taxpayer-funded public school, was designed to bolster his and Bush’s chances for reelection, the rally, cleansed of any constituents save Bush-Cheney supporters, amounts to “preaching to the choir.” GOP supporters already plan to cast their ballot for the incumbents; the “pledge of allegiance” therefore makes the opportunity to convert others to his side appear unlikely;
Introducing the “pledge” only after ticket-seekers have arrived at the office smacks of deceit and mistrust;
And quite venomous is the proviso that the names of the people who signed the pledge, for whatever reason, may be used against them. If, for example, someone who attended the speech later wrote a letter to the editor critical of Cheney, it would be a simple matter for Cheney apologists to write back, “But that person who now criticizes the current administration even signed a pledge of allegiance for Bush. Oh my! See how he flip-flops!”
Cutting off a large portion of the electorate in order to avoid the possibility of any disturbance, or the asking of tough Haliburton-related questions, is deceitful, self-serving and unfair.
Humorist Jay Leno recently quipped on The Tonight Show that Cheney had issued a statement to the effect that Kerry and running mate John Edwards “are out of touch with main-stream Americans.” Added Leno, “Cheney made the statement from a ‘secure and undisclosed’ location.”
Exclusive appearances of this type by the vice president, in a venue cleansed of all traces of dissent, speaks more volumes about the incumbent himself than of those with differing points of view who might or might not attempt to interrupt Cheney’s speech. Even swing voters may have been deterred.
Near the end of his speech, delivered in a hot and stuffy gymnasium, amid chants of “Four more years!” Cheney said, “I really like this crowd.”
Effectively orchestrating the speech-rally to include only a homogenized constituency may have done wonders to stroke the ego of a man in need of such a boost. But it’s a small wonder that he declared an affinity to his admirers–as they were virtually handpicked.
Yet, such a deliberate exclusion of citizens of different political and philosophical persuasions makes us wonder what could possibly have impelled Cheney to accept and even participate in such a choreographed event. What reason would he have? The answer may be more obvious than we realize.