Investigation Into 'Town Hall' Meetings Continues

According to 9News.com, the Secret Service is still investigating claims that some people were removed from President Bush's Social Security "town hall" meeting last week in Colorado:

Some people who have stood up to disrupt Bush while he was talking have been removed. But a group called Americans United to Protect Social Security said there have been at least two instances where people have been removed or barred from a Bush event beforehand.

In February, a "black list" of people banned from getting tickets was obtained and published by the Forum newspaper. The White House and the Republican Party denied such a list existed and Gov. John Hoeven's staff said no one was denied tickets.

Brad Woodhouse, a spokesman for Americans United, called the Denver example the most egregious violation.

"They're screening the people who are allowed to come and then they're profiling them in the parking lot," he said. "It's quite extraordinary, and disappointing."

As we reported here before, Republicans have not been standing up in arms to defend Bush's Social Security plan, which is not polling well nationwide, and if these stories continue to gain traction it may put Colorado Republicans in a tough spot. Congressman Bob Beauprez, who does not want to engage wholeheartedly in this debate in advance of his gubernatorial run, can't be happy about this, especially considering the tickets came from his office.

Comments

[Mario Nicolais]

Just a quick comment here...

I was at the event and the biggest problem was getting out. It took half-an-hour for the security to let us leave after the event concluded.

As for getting tickets, I received them only two days before and in fact got tickets for some other people unknown to the ticket distrubutor.

The only requirements were a photo ID and listing your address. Really, anyone could have gotten them...

[Mario Nicolais]

Just a quick comment here...

I was at the event and the biggest problem was getting out. It took half-an-hour for the security to let us leave after the event concluded.

As for getting tickets, I received them only two days before and in fact got tickets for some other people unknown to the ticket distrubutor.

The only requirements were a photo ID and listing your address. Really, anyone could have gotten them...

[Strider]

The problem was not getting in, or getting tickets. The problem is that people were ejected because they dissagreed with the Presidents views on Social Security, at a *taxpayer* funded event. That is illegal (from what I understand).

[wonderwoman]

I was at a presidential event last year during the campaign and tere were several protesters who dicided that the president did not have the right to free speech and disrupted the event. My guess is that these folks that were asked to leave had protested the president in the past and would have started a protest during this event.

[Phoenix Rising]

Actually, if you read through accounts in the news, the three people ejected were identified by a "no blood for oil" bumpersticker on their car, after they had been admitted to the event. They were initially approached by the Secret Service and told not to disrupt the meeting, which they promised not to do. Then, before the event started, they were escorted out and told that this was "a private event". The Secret Service met with the ousted parties and their lawyer and told them point-blank that the Republican Party was the one doing the identification.

I don't give a flying you-know about campaign events; they're often private party functions, where the party pays for the venue, etc. But if a public place is used for an event paid for by taxpayer dollars, to "hold a town hall meeting" about the future of Social Security, I think we've crossed the line between free speech and government-funded propaganda (again).

When our government isn't willing to listen to half of the people, it is no longer a republic or a democracy. When it spends millions of taxpayer dollars on propaganda and other deceptive public relations practices, it's rapidly falling towards an American Fascism.

[Ter Ducken]

Phoenix Rising encapsulated the issue very well. If Bush hadn't called it a "town hall meeting" and pretended it was open to the public, then this is a non-issue. It's not a big deal to keep Democrats out of a Republican campaign event, and vice-versa, but this wasn't a campaign event. If it's not public, don't try to pull the wool over our eyes.

[John Routt]

I am sure that Phoenix Rising then agrees that I was wronged by the Clinton administration when I was asked to leave a forum on the universial health care plan being promoted by Hillary. I didn't even have a bumper sticker, one of the Dems recognized me and the next thing I know I am being shown the door. It was an official event and I had promised to behave myself, but I guess they didn't want to hear my point of view.

[Bob]

John Routt,

Maybe you could show us the newspaper articles that show the systematic censorship of the American people by the Clinton Adminstration. Please I am just curious, I am sure they are out there if what you claim is true. Please show us.

[Bob]

John Routt,

Maybe you could show us the newspaper articles that show the systematic censorship of the American people by the Clinton Adminstration. Please I am just curious, I am sure they are out there if what you claim is true. Please show us.

[Phoenix Rising]

John,

If it was a publicly-funded event, then yes, I do agree. Pres. Clinton was also the first to really use "Free Speech Zones", which I also find repugnant.

Our public officials serve at the whim of We, the People. When they aren't on the campaign trail being supported by party $$$, they are obligated to us as taxpayers.

[Phoenix Rising]

Bob,

As I posted in response to John, the Clinton administration did indeed control public access more tightly than previous administrations (though it was quite outgoing with media access). I don't know about John's specific example, though. But the Clinton years pale in comparison to the way Bush 43 has been "protected" from the public. And Clinton wasn't to my recollection involved in any of the blatant propaganda operations that this administration uses on its people.

[Stygius]

It's hilarious that the GOP is hiring Secret Service impersonators in order to intimidate people into cooperating to leave. Hopefully, people at future events will ask for identification prior to being escorted out.

Nobody's buying the Town Hall shtick anyways.

[John Routt]

Nobody is buying the Town Hall Shtick? Why does the Washington Times report that 60% of people over 55 support private accounts? These scare tactics are just politics as usual for Democrats.

[learnedhand]

>Why does the Washington Times report that 60% >of people over 55 support private accounts?

because it's the Washington Times.

>These scare tactics are just politics as >usual for Democrats.

It is Bush who uses the word "crisis" where there is not one. It is Bush who has not offered a plan to sustain Social Security in the future. It is pretty apparent that Bush is attempting to scare the public with this fictional "crisis" in the hopes that no one will notice that the Bush Social Security plan does nothing to protect the longterm solvency of the program.

Speaking the truth may or may not be scary but at least it is the truth.

[John Routt]

Speaking the truth? Then you should call the AARP and tell them that their pie in the sky mentality in there commercials that nothing is wrong with Social Security is way off base. Sure, nothing is wrong if you plan on being dead by 2041 and instead of fixing things now, or at the very least having an open discourse on how Social Security needs to be changed, the Dems are sticking their collective heads in the sand and hoping the problem solves itself.

[learnedhand]

>Dems are sticking their collective heads >in the sand and hoping the problem solves
>itself.

So is Bush!

He admits that his plan does nothing to ensure the future solvency of Social Security.

The Dems are more than willing to discuss fixes to social security that will ensure it's future solvency. Thus far the President has not offered a plan that ensures the future solvency of Social Security.

We are decades away from having to reduce payouts. In the meantime there are more pressing domestic issues.

[Phoenix Rising]

Why enter into a conversation when the party in charge is going around issuing statements like Wayne Allard's, that he doesn't think the US Government will repay its obligations to Social Security in 2017? Why enter into a discussion on how to tweak the system to fix a budget problem that the majority party isn't doing anything to fix? Why should the Democrats enter into a conversation with a group of people who believe - as the College Republicans at Sen. Santorum's Social Security event so candidly decried - "hey, hey, ho, ho, Social Security's got to go"?

The Republican Party has cried wolf on this issue for too long (since the founding of Social Security, in fact). If the President or the Congressional GOP leaders can present an actual plan instead of going around holding government propaganda meetings that aren't working, then maybe someone might come to the table. Or maybe not; dealing with this President is like dealing with the Devil - nothing that you're promised is delivered intact.

[learnedhand]

well said Phoenix.

[Eve]

Very true! Makes a chgane to see someone spell it out like that. :)