This is what desperation looks likeFollow

http://www.abqjournal.com/elex/204620elex07-30-04.htm

Unless you're a registered Republican member of the press, you can't cover a Cheney speech.

Gogo free press!



An endorsement form provided to the Journal by Random says: "I, (full name) ... do herby (sic) endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United States." It later adds that, "In signing the above endorsement you are consenting to use and release of your name by Bush-Cheney as an endorser of President Bush."

A Journal reporter, who is a registered Democrat, called to inquire about a ticket Thursday afternoon. He was asked for his name, address and driver's license number but was not told over the telephone that he would need to sign any endorsement form. He got the news after arriving at the Bush-Cheney office.

Never said it was illegal. Just desperate.

It is cowardly. And desparate. This just gets better and better.

Here would be an example of a non-desparate, non-cowardly approach: "When Kerry visited Albuquerque earlier this month, a contingent of Bush supporters were in the crowd. The Associated Press has reported that the group chanted "Viva Bush!" during the event. The AP added that Kerry urged the crowd to tolerate the Bush supporters."

He was a reporter, not a demonstrator. I know you can't keep democrate and lazy, shiftless bum seperate in your mind but I would have assumed you could keep "guy who wants to report the news" seperate from "guy who wants to make news" in your mind, but then I know you can, you are just following this administrations example and using obfuscation and misdirection.

Sad really.

No desperate is keeping Ann Coulter from publishing her article with for the USA Today paper, because the Democrats are afraid of her. Keep her to the Right Wing rags and hope that only the conservatives will read her rantings.


Speaking of desperation....

Are you trying to imply that one moderate paper not publishing an extreme right wing columnist, a paper who also doesn't publish any left wing columnists and in general probably tilts slightly to the right...

Is even vaguely simmilar to requiring REPORTERS to sign a political endorsment form to listen to the sitting VP speak??

This is beyond apples and oranges, this is vibrators and oceans.




Ensuring people supporting your candidate only attend a rally to keep out the expected Democratic disruption is not desperation it is ensuring your message gets out with out your candidate or supporters are harrassed during the rally.


The press are going to harass Cheney? Reporters are going to harass his supporters during a rally??

If this was limited to not allowing random citizens with no party affiliation in, fine, who cares. Requiring the press to sign an ENDORSMENT of Bush/Cheney that will be used later in the campaign is desperate. Sorry, there's no way around it, it's desperation.



Amazing though, how these folks are trying to be pro active and your side finds it being cowardly.


How isn't it cowardly? How can it not be?

I'd be just as deperate if the Kerry campaign required anything even vaguely simmilar. Which they of course don't, not being sociopathic peseudo-fasicsts and all.



Maybe they should have allowed the demonstrators in so that the speech could be disrupted and then the national media could blame the Republicans for responding by removing the demonstrators. This is a situation where the opposing side of your beliefs can never win.


Maybe they should have let the PRESS in. No one cares about keeping demonstrators from the other party out, that's a rational logical thing to do. Making members of the press sign an edorsment form is Desperate

Golly gee. Lookie here! Right in the first paragraph! They are not just making the Press sign the endorsements, but everyone! STOP SPINNING THIS sh*t AROUND, YOU'RE MAKING PEOPLE DIZZY!


Well, god damn, lookey here!

Right in the first post!!


A Journal reporter, who is a registered Democrat, called to inquire about a ticket Thursday afternoon. He was asked for his name, address and driver's license number but was not told over the telephone that he would need to sign any endorsement form. He got the news after arriving at the Bush-Cheney office.


They are making the press sign a form endorsing Bush.

Now, who do you think is more likely to have their endorsment show up in an ad? A reporter from the loacl newspaper or your random trailer park dwelling Republican?

There's no spin here. They are making the press sign endorsment forms. They are making people who aren't in the pres sign endorsment forms.

Both are wrong, making the pres sign them is a weak desperate ploy that smacks of Nixon.

Learn to read, Stok.

When we did the WWII Memorial Inaugural, SS requested Name, address, SSN, DOB and place of birth for everyone from a caterer to a ex-senators. With all that info, someone's race is just a click away. Forget racist and incendiary---If anything, they're just being lazy.


You know better than that. Being able to find something out and requiring it are two vstly diffrent things. It's illegal to ask a woman you're interviewing for a job if she's married or single, but you could find out fairly easily.

Smash, you're adorable.

No. Here lies the difference between you and I. I do not believe ANYONE should be treated any differently than another person regardless of their profession. Press Credenentials or not, this should not give them the right to free and unadulterated access to any event around. During the DNC in Boston there was a special event where corporate sponsors of the DNC where allowed access to Kerry in the Fleet Building but none of the Press was allowed in. Shall we start comparing the two events? The one at the DNC was for the big time endorsers, what was the requirement at the Cheney rally? Signing an endorsement with a standard blurb that says attending this event means that if a picture is taken of the event and you are in it, the Party is saying you endorse the candidate. C'mon Smash it is not that complex an issue.

I wonder why the press wasn't even allowed into the meeting with Kerry. Probably because the DNC didn't want the publci to see Kerry stroking off all his big money contributers. BTW I heard this story on NPR.

You can't honestly want to compare these two events, can you?

One was meant to be a public event. The other was private.

The two events are apples to oranges

Actually the events should be compared. Why are the Democrats allowing big money corporations unfettered access to private events when they are the party that cries foul of big corporate backing and industry backing of their opponent.

Actually the events should be compared. Why are the Democrats allowing big money corporations unfettered access to private events when they are the party that cries foul of big corporate backing and industry backing of their opponent.


Hey, if you can't find an issue relevant to the topic, just go ahead and pick a random one that you might do better with!