07/08/2008
McCain Campaign Ejects Librarian from Town Hall Meeting
Here's Carol Kreck, a 61-year-old librarian, being removed from a McCain town hall meeting in Denver on July 7th, and ticketed for trespassing, for holding a "McCain=Bush" sign...
Kreck asks, but why would Republicans find a "McCain=Bush" sign so offensive?
According to Think Progress, "In 2005, the White House had three activists expelled from a Denver public forum with President Bush because it was the administration’s policy 'to exclude potentially disruptive guests from Bush’s appearances nationwide.'"
Watch it, AFTER THE JUMP...
Posted 9:38 AM EST by Andy Towle in Election 2008, George W. Bush, John McCain, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
"Kreck asks, but why would Republicans find a "McCain=Bush" sign so offensive?"
girl, if you didn't strike some nerve. love it!
Posted by: the queen | Jul 8, 2008 9:52:54 AM
Surprised he didn't come out to personally call her a cunt.
Regardless of how brilliant this is, I doubt many people outside select internet blogs will ever see it. Too many other things going on for cable news to cover McCain having an old lady with a harmless sign nearly arrested, like more Reverend Wright or something.
Posted by: Wes | Jul 8, 2008 9:56:24 AM
Can any of you lawyers out there tell me if she can sue the Denver Police for violating her right to free assembly.
Posted by: JerzeeMike | Jul 8, 2008 10:17:03 AM
Whoever made this gemstone of a video should send it to everybody that they possibly can so that it DOES get out there. Somehow this public has to realize that we no longer live in a country where our rights (remember that word?) are upheld and valued.
It just makes me sick...
Posted by: Chris | Jul 8, 2008 10:22:36 AM
Whoever made this gemstone of a video should send it to everybody that they possibly can so that it DOES get out there. Somehow this public has to realize that we no longer live in a country where our rights (remember that word?) are upheld and valued.
It just makes me sick...
Posted by: Chris | Jul 8, 2008 10:24:08 AM
I think she's terrific, but to be honest I'm having my morning coffee and the officer involved got my attention right off the bat. Has he been identified?
Posted by: JJ | Jul 8, 2008 10:24:45 AM
Two thoughts:
That tall cop is sort of hot, even though he's acting like an ass.
Second, the first amendment is subject to limits at private events, even those held in public spaces when they're leased for limited private uses.
I don't know the terms of the agreement between the McCain campaign and the owners of the meeting venue, and I don't know the relevant laws in the city of Denver. But even if it is a public property (which the librarian says it is), the campaign is likely leasing the space by contract which I believe entitles it to establish whatever reasonable (and otherwise legal) access and participation rules it chooses for what is now its own--technically-speaking--"private" event. Those would be subject to the terms of the contract and could not violate other relevant city statues and rules of use. But the first amendment is not in full force once this becomes a private event.
Not to mention that the first amendment is subject to all sorts of restrictions even in public venues and events in the interest of security and order. (And that is likely the basis on which the Secret Service would be excluding a sign-carrying "potential protester" from an event like this.)
It's ironic that this should have happened in Denver because of the fight that's now brewing over the issue of where protesters will be allowed to gather at the Democratic convention there later this summer. Protesters allege the city-designated "first amendment zone" is so remote that their protest will be unseen, unheard and ignored. The city claims otherwise on security and crowd control grounds.
Don't misunderstand me, I am NOT defending either of these things. I think the McCain campaign should be ashamed of itself, and I hope that this video gets HUGE play because it's so appalling. All I mean to say is that technically I believe the campaign is within its rights.
Posted by: Hermes in DC | Jul 8, 2008 10:36:34 AM
I agree with what Hermes in DC is saying. Free speech is limited. Also let's face it if this librarian was at an Obama meeting with a sign that said Obama=Muslim she would have been tossed there too.
Posted by: Josh | Jul 8, 2008 10:56:47 AM
The only thing about your example, Josh, is that "Obama=Muslim" is an objectively false statement. Whereas, and this is the genius of this woman's sign, "McCain=Bush," while contestable in its truth or not, is clearly NOT objectively false. AND it puts Republicans in the divinely uncomfortable position of having to explain why it is even a protest sign.
In my opinion, this woman gets an early nomination for best performance by a lead activist in campaign 2008.
And I still think the cop is hot.
Posted by: Hermes in DC | Jul 8, 2008 11:08:47 AM
Love her! Smart! Smart! Smart!
And the cop, even in doing his icky job, is a 6'6" package of "let me get you outta those pants".
Did anyone forward this on to Anderson Cooper?
Posted by: noteasilyoffended | Jul 8, 2008 11:20:03 AM
My favorite thing about this video is the "Peas in a Pod" guy in the background!
Posted by: Gabe | Jul 8, 2008 11:20:59 AM
"Also let's face it if this librarian was at an Obama meeting with a sign that said Obama=Muslim she would have been tossed there too."
JOSH, I've read alot of ridiculous comments here on Towleroad but yours is prize winning. Congratulations on securing the gold in absolute stupidity.
Posted by: John in Manhattan | Jul 8, 2008 11:26:37 AM
The Land of the Free and Home of the Brave huh? It looks great, big police officer picking on a woman. What does it say about freedom of speech? Bush trumpets how he is fighting in Iraq, etc. in the name of freedom, how it is that this does not apply to a politics of protest? What gives?
Posted by: Sean R | Jul 8, 2008 11:31:18 AM
Don't mess with librarians.
Posted by: anon | Jul 8, 2008 11:34:25 AM
It was an example. Should I have said, "Obama=Flipflop" The flipflop of course was his promise to only use public funding and then he opted out of it. He tried to play it off like the public funding is a broken system when in reality he just realized he could raise more without it.
It blows my mind that you people think Obama is this great candidate and McCain is this evil incarnation. They both flip flop. They both lie. Neither one is going to do anything for gay rights once they get in office. I don't know which is more a slap in the face being told that gay rights will be an issue and then doing nothing about it or just saying I don't like you up front.
I mean when we elected this Democratic Congress there was suppose to be all this change. I haven't seen it have you?
I mean how crazy is it to tax big oil on windfall profits? What if you owned a company and you started making a good profit because of economic factors and the government said I'm sorry but your making too much money you need to give us some back. Didn't we learn anything from the late 70's early 80's with the windfall profits. Not to mention I'm sure a lot of the people on here have Oil company stocks in their retirements (IRA and 401(k)s).
Second I can't believe anyone would want Universal Healthcare. I mean look how bad social security is screwed up. We should let the government dictate that too?
Posted by: Josh | Jul 8, 2008 11:40:58 AM
LIBRARIAN=BRILLIANT
I haven't seen a point so quietly and effectively made since I don't know when. The only reason her speech was limited is because it was unliked by someone inside the McCain royal court, and, in a "free" country, that shouldn't be a good enough reason to boot her.
Posted by: Ernie | Jul 8, 2008 11:43:39 AM
P.S. Somehow, whenever there's a McCain post, the comments eventually turn into aimless rants against Obama with absolutely nothing to do with the original topic. Hmmm . . . what's that about? I suppose gratuitous Obama bashing (preferably with Muslim or Hussein thrown in for good measure) is easier than finding one positive thing to say about McCain.
Posted by: Ernie | Jul 8, 2008 11:52:14 AM
JOSH, my mind was reeling at your post. Multiple segues and non-sequiturs.
1. The guys were right to call you out on the Obama=Muslim line; it's not true and is something that Americans would (unfortunately) make a big deal out of if it were true. If you wanted to say something like Obama=Bill Clinton, then people would be fine. See how I'm comparing 2 politicians from the same party, one who was a prez and one who's the next prez candidate? Crazy the way logic works, I know.
2. There's a big difference between "flip-flopping" (which I prefer to refer as changing [part of] one's position) and lying; McCain has contradicted himself time and again and refuses to acknowledge or clarify the issues. Obama has the decency and the brains to answer questions, even if more liberal people don't like the answer. And let's be honest, almost ALL candidates gravitate further to the centre/right when they run for prez; sadly McCain is getting even groovier with the fundies than Obama ever could.
3. Not sure what Obama has to answer RE: Congress - he's a Senator running for Presidency. It's a pity that the Congress have been so weak, but maybe a clever and progressive president, like Obama rather than McCain, might change the momentum.
4. Oil companies are not family businesses making a tidy living and buying that second Lexus they've always wanted. They rape the land of PUBLIC resources (I fail to understand how oil is ever a private resource - it should be owned by the government and private companies allowed to bid to pump it at a modest profit), DESTROY the environment, IGNORE laws in developing countries, BRIBE officials and give us presidents like GWB. Taxing companies that do well is not a bad idea - most large companies in the US do well because the robber barons made so much money from slavery (so yes we should give more jobs to black people whose ancestors were used to build the US and world economies), cheap labour in the US and abroad, poor and uninformed consumers, etc. They owe the public a little dosh, I reckon. Sure, they're in our pension plans but we can all click the mouse and change where we earn our $$$.
5. And what f**king country are you living in that the current system of privatised, insurance company-controlled health "care" is actually desirable?! It is a bad system that no other industrialised country would even consider implementing. It feeds money into companies who are essentially useless 3rd parties, when we could be using the government (at a local level) to organise it. It could not be any worse. How is it that dozens of other countries, in Europe, Asia, South America, can do it but we can't? Are we that stupid? Or are people afraid of some invisible communist doctors stealing their brains and inserting NPR radio receivers in their ears?
Posted by: Universal Love | Jul 8, 2008 12:33:57 PM
Universal Love,
Your comments are spoken like a true Marxist.
Oil is not a public resource. If it is found on land the oil company pays the land owner for it's use. Also many landowners are pumping the oil themselves as was recently seen on ABC nightly news. Should they too fall under the windfall profits tax? Also the drilling of oil is vastly more safe than it was in the 50's and the new technology proves this. Norway drills offshore for it's oil and they are very liberal/environmentalist country. France also gets roughly 70% of their power from nuclear power.
Ok Obama isn't flip-flopping. He is changing his viewpoints. I guess when Romney ran for president his views on gays simply changed he didn't flip flop.
I think you are crazy that we should get our healthcare from the government. Yes, government should help children, and those in a poverty status but for you and me we should pay for it. Healthcare comes in a benefits package from your company. It's not a right.
I support gay rights. I want to be able to marry my partner but I want government to be as little involved in my life as possible.
Posted by: Josh | Jul 8, 2008 1:13:49 PM
being able to marry is a HUGE government involvement in your life.
Posted by: MAJeff | Jul 8, 2008 1:30:44 PM
JOSH -
I thought that the days of McCarthyism - and randomly labelling anyone who disagreed with the Right as 'Marxist' - were dead. If you actually understood Marxism you'd realise I don't fit the caricature. I believe in the free market, where appropriate.
How exactly is oil (which is a very limited resource and produced by nature) not a public resource? Yes, people have to work the land to access it (which is why companies should be paid to do that) but the landowners just bought the land as prospecters and basically won a lottery. So if I go and use the money my great-grandaddy made from slavery to buy a chunk of land for $100 and then allow Exxon to drill and they find oil, I should get $$$ for the randomness of my purchase? Odd considering the land was torn from the hands of Native Americans and poor Irish/Scottish/black immigrants in the first place.
I lived in Norway and I know how well it works for them - the industry is also heavily taxed and the profits enjoyed by the entire nation with their excellent UNIVERSAL health care system and other PUBLIC services funded from oil money. Funny, eh?
Do you want to list the flip-flopping Obama did? I can come up with a few minor changes he made, but don't know any instances where he completed turned 180 degrees, or even close. Enlighten us all, please.
Thanks for commenting on the state of my mental health. I'm not crazy, Josh, nor do I think we should get our health care from the government - doctors and nurses are much better at doing that. I do, however, think that a single payer system (which is not the same as socialised medicine) is the best way to ensure that everyone is covered. It allows a lot of choice - more than most people get from insurance companies now - and is cheaper and more efficient. Why should health care be part of a job package? Because that system is actually only a few decades old. And no other developed country uses that system. Bizarre, no? I guess the republicans got it right and all of the rest of the OECD got it wrong?
Sure, government involvement in life should be limited - but it should also be involved when the 'free market' fails, e.g. when the GOP are in power. I'm clearly more right-wing than you on marriage, because I believe the govnt. should have NO place in it - it should be private and mutual contracts. Am I a Marxist on that too? Or a libertarian?
Posted by: Universal Love | Jul 8, 2008 2:13:31 PM
I totally second that the cop while a jerk is hot -- why are so many jerks hot? And can Rufies solve that problem? Tune in next time....
Posted by: David B. | Jul 8, 2008 2:17:39 PM
Wow! This one went WAY off topic.
Uni Love, I agree with a lot of what you've said, but the windfall profits tax imposed after the second oil shock in the late 70s is universally regarded as a failure, although more for technical reasons than theoretical ones.
More to the point though, although the oil companies' profits have skyrocketed in absolute terms, their margins have not changed much. They're making more because they're earning largely the same percentage profit on a commodity the price of which has risen fourfold in the last 6 years. And that increase is largely a result of rampant demand increases, frequent short-term supply lags, deficient refining capacity, the crashing dollar and WILD speculation by hedge funds and other investors.
Yes everyone involved in the development, production, refinement and delivery chain is profiting some, but it's really the national oil companies (think Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, the UK, etc.) who "own" the raw product and speculators who are profiting the most.
And I agree that in this day and age health care should be treated as a right and not a privilege and that everyone in this country should have access to good, basic health care. But don't make the mistake of thinking that a single-payer system is "free" or necessarily cheaper and more efficient. We will all pay for it, including for insuring the 48 million Americans who have none now.
And don't neglect the fact that the way the system achieves cost control is through government-led budgeting and then rationing. There are efficiencies in a centralized system, and there's no doubt huge cost savings (as much as 10% of the premium dollar) in reducing the profit of the for-profit companies who now dominate the system.
But the real (largely unspoken) problem of expense in American health care is that once you have insurance, you basically become entitled to whatever you can convince someone to prescribe and then pay for without much regard to whether it is clinically appropriate, cost effective or quality-adding. Most experts agree (even while arguing, as you and I agree, that it is a crime that nearly 50 million Americans have no insurance at all) that the biggest source of avoidable expense in our system is inappropriate care.
All I mean to say is that a single payer system is NOT the nirvana that its proponents claim and there is NO single payer system anywhere in the world that does not ration.
And I still think the big cop is hot.
Posted by: Hermes in DC | Jul 8, 2008 3:13:26 PM
And Now.....The video has been removed...by WHOM?
Posted by: Themistocle | Jul 8, 2008 3:24:28 PM
Josh
spoken like a true rober baron
The land belongs to the fed and is only leased by oil companies. Heck if you own your home it is still technically fed land, then state land, you only get to lease your ownership. It isn't likely the gov will confiscate your land but they can force you off at any moment without notice and just the lowest average fair market value to shut you up.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jul 8, 2008 3:28:04 PM