via Marshall
Repeatedly since his re-election, President Bush has said he's willing to listen to "all ideas" about how to reform Social Security. And supposedly, that's why he's taking to the road and holding townhall meetings. To share his ideas, but also to hear how the people he represents feel about them. As New Jersey Representative Michael Ferguson, who invited Bush to speak in Westfield, NJ, this Friday said:
Friday's event will be "a conversation."
"He wants to speak to, listen to and talk to residents from around the state," Ferguson said.
Residents who agree with him already, that is.
The lone Democrat on the town's nine-member council objected to a town hall-style meeting being run like a campaign visit, with supporters packing the crowd.
"If the event is being billed as a town hall meeting for the purpose of eliciting views on one of his policy initiatives, there would be an expectation that people having differing views may be in attendance," Councilman Lawrence Goldman said.
But the public "hasn't been informed about how individuals can be selected to attend," Goldman said.
Most of the passes are being given out by the White House, according to Ferguson.
The chambers of commerce in Union and Somerset counties also will have tickets, according to Len Lasaius of the White House.
A few hundred tickets were passed on to Ferguson's office. Calls flooded the office once word of Bush's visit spread.
"It's essentially on a first-come, first-served basis," said Ferguson, with special priority given to teachers, students, first responders, military personnel and veterans.
"My sense is the people who would be most interested in being in an event with the president will be ones who are supporters," Ferguson said. "And I think it's important to hear constructive criticism ... that doesn't include disruptive behavior or obnoxiousness."
Perhaps Bush supporters will be the ones most interested in attending, but if Bush had any real interest in hearing "all ideas" he should be interested in having those who oppose his ideas attend. He should be making a big deal of giving tickets to Democratic Congressmen. At the very least so that he can try and convince them of the value of his plans. He's still waiting for even one Democrat in Congress to endorse his privatization idea.
If I were a newspaper editor, I would seriously consider not covering these fake town hall meetings. I mean, you might as well just read the press release. It's not like there's a lack of stories to cover.
Posted by: Katherine | March 02, 2005 at 11:59 AM
That's much the same decision I've come to recently as well, Katherine. For me, though, the WH's press machine is pure theater. Time to start treating it (and the MSM that covers it without scepticism) like entertainment. Commercials during the televised SOTU address, writing/directing/producing credits at the end of speeches, reviews in the theater section of local papers.
Posted by: Edward | March 02, 2005 at 12:09 PM
what would happen if a reporter write a story like this:
President Bush held a "town hall" meeting today, to discuss his plans for Social Security reform. The meeting was attended by a carefully-selected audience comprised solely of Bush supporters; people who disagre with the President's policies were not allowed to attend. As might be expected, he was warmly welcomed and his proposals were enthusiastically cheered.
the wingnuts would soil themselves in fury, of course. that can't be helped - it's what they do. but why shouldn't the rest of the country be told that the President has no clothes ?
Posted by: cleek | March 02, 2005 at 12:25 PM
"The last time the President was asked a question by an ordinary voter that had not been pre-screened in advance was..." would probably be gratuitous, but I'm really curious as to when it was.
Posted by: Katherine | March 02, 2005 at 12:40 PM
I think it's time to try something more like this (with apologies to Ben Brantley):
Posted by: Edward | March 02, 2005 at 01:56 PM
"that doesn't include disruptive behavior or obnoxiousness.""
There can be a medium between allowing in Michael Moore clones and Deaniacs to browbeat and shout down the President....and allowing in only the most deferential and enthuiastic supporters. Some filtering is not objectionable, tho this President is far too protected from opposing opinions.
In any case, as I understand the current state of the SS debate, it will be very hard to fill a room with nothing but supporters. They may need to look in neighbouring states.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | March 02, 2005 at 02:14 PM
Threadjack.
http://www.lifelikepundits.com/archives/000318.php>Gannon has a new interview
Posted by: postit | March 02, 2005 at 02:50 PM
OMG.
I couldn't ignore the sneaking suspicion while reading that interview that "Aaron" was yet another alias for G/G and that he was interviewing himself. I mean doesn't this question read like those G/G asked at the White House?
Posted by: Edward | March 02, 2005 at 02:57 PM
Reports were that Bush's people cancelled a "town hall" meeting in Germany because the Germans wouldn't let the audience's questions be pre-screened.
Lessons in democracy from the Germans. Quelle horreur.
It should bother more people that the President, the guy charged with defending America, is a *sissy.*
Posted by: Anderson | March 02, 2005 at 03:00 PM
There can be a medium between allowing in Michael Moore clones and Deaniacs to browbeat and shout down the President....and allowing in only the most deferential and enthuiastic supporters.
Bob McManus, your point is well taken, but your characterization is offensive. When have Dean supporters browbeaten and shouted down anyone at any event, much less a GOP campaign stop? And I can't even imagine what a "Michael Moore clone" is... someone who uses big visual props or stunt questions, I guess?
I'm a "Deaniac," in the sense of having supported his campaign for President and his campaign for DNC chair. Katherine is a "Deaniac." Literally millions of Americans are "Deaniacs". In the rare event where genuine questions and opposition can be expressed at these meetings, I would expect "Deaniacs" to be among the best at expressing objections to the campaign to phase out Social Security -- because many of them, through Democracy for America and local Democratic campaigns, have been working in their communities for the last two years in distinctly UN-obnoxious and UN-disruptive ways.
Unless you can cite a series of instances to the contrary, Bob, please withdraw the term as shorthand for obnoxious and disrupive, and an apology wouldn't hurt.
Posted by: Nell Lancaster | March 02, 2005 at 03:52 PM
I'm a Deaniac!
Posted by: sidereal | March 02, 2005 at 03:56 PM
Ich bin ein Deaniaker!
Posted by: Edward | March 02, 2005 at 04:04 PM
How do you screen for supporters of a proposal that is a chimera? Sometimes a proposal exists, but whenever specific criticisms of the most likely proposal are made, an apologist like Tom DeLay says that no proposal is on the table.
Apparently Bush now wants blind loyalty. That sounds like a recipe for electoral disaster next year for the Republicans.
Posted by: freelunch | March 02, 2005 at 05:12 PM
"Bob, please withdraw the term as shorthand for obnoxious and disrupive, and an apology wouldn't hurt."
Withdrawn, with apologies.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | March 02, 2005 at 05:34 PM
I suppose.
I have the utmost respect and admiration for Howard Dean and his supporters, whose prescience and political acumen are being I hope reassessed after the results of the last election. Those, like myself, who chose a "safer" candidate in desperation may have been very wrong. I aupported Rosenberg for DNC chair, but only by a hair, and was horrified that my own ex-Congressmen Frost was in the running. I have been umm, radicalized? Is that offensive?
"Obnoxious & disruptive" were not my words, tho I did quote them. Nor did I necessarily imply, that were I to be in a "town-hall meeting" with the President, obnoxious, disruptive, browbeating, or shouting-down would be in themselves inappropriate behavior. Nor would be necessarily unfair to think that the President and his supporters would have different standards than myself as to what an inappropriate question, in tone and content, might be.
This is fun, but I better stop before I get to an imaginary closed room, myself, and George Bush.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | March 02, 2005 at 05:50 PM
Oops. Before Timmy mindreads a posting-rule violation in that last line, I of course meant only a stern dressing-down. With vigorous expression of disapproval.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | March 02, 2005 at 05:57 PM
If I were a newspaper editor, I would seriously consider not covering these fake town hall meetings.
Count me in those uninterested in the Potemkin town hall meetings.
Posted by: Anarch | March 02, 2005 at 10:50 PM
What a delightfull thread! Sadly the MSM is going to continue to cover these things. If they didn't the danger that some real news might sneak in would be too great.
Posted by: Frank | March 02, 2005 at 11:34 PM
@ Bob: Apology accepted, and "I suppose.." second thoughts enjoyed! Also let me thank you for your articulate evaluation of Sen. Byrd in Sebastian's judiciary thread.
But: Nice work you and Gary F. do... Now I can't think of Robert E. Lee without cracking up at the Rommel/tanks line. A non-trivial thing, given that my town has R.E.Lee references at every turn.
Posted by: Nell Lancaster | March 03, 2005 at 11:46 AM