From: TAF102@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: re: GOP Cowardice at Penn State and Elsewhere
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:07:29 GMT
Organization: Penn State University


In article <Sep.30.09.10.01.1992.1339@romulus.rutgers.edu>, Theodore
Kaldis writes:

>In article <92268.142017TAF102@psuvm.psu.edu> TAF102@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>
>> More on the violation of civil liberties at Penn State by Bush
>> supporters...
>
>While the violation of civil liberties here at Rutgers four years ago
>by Dukakis supporters at a Dukakis rally on the Rutgers campus was
>somehow overlooked.  Instead, those of us who vociferously complained
>about it were assailed as "brown shirts".

Excuse me but what does the Clinton campaign of 1992 have to do with
the Dukakis campaign of 1988.  If Dukakis supporters did what you say
then they were wrong...but their actions have no bearing on what
should be happening in '92.  When Hilary Clinton and Jerry Brown
appeared at Penn State last year, no one tried to prevent Republicans
from attending.

>> From the Daily Collegian, Penn State's student newspaper:

>From what I recall about the aftermath of the Dukakis rally, The Daily
>Targum here wasn't nearly as outraged about the conduct of the Dukakis
>campaign.

Again what does this have to do with what I said.  If Rutgers newspaper
didn't think that the actions you described were wrong, that's a real
real shame.  But this has nothing to do with what the Collegian writes.

>> "This lady, she told us that a private citizen--George Bush--had
>> rented out this land and was throwing a private party," says senior
>>Jeff Martin while describing the rationale for sign confiscation.

>There is something here that is somehow overlooked.  Just because an
>event takes place on some college campus does _NOT_ necessarily mean
>that there is a standing open invitation to all the students of that
>college to participate.

Look Mr. Kaldis...I never said that all events held on campus had to
be open to the public.  Events of this type, however, held on Old Main
Lawn are open to all because that is the University's policy.  As I
pointed out, University officials publicly stated that they were not
sponsoring Bush's visit, but were merely supplying him with the forum to
address the students and citizens of this area.  In return for allowing
this event to take place here, organizers were suppose to adhere to
the University's policies.  Read my post a little more carefully next
time.

>> [--Aside: Bush/Quayle DID NOT rent out Penn State!!]

>"Bush/Quayle" (which isn't the proper name of the national campaign
>organization, btw) is an entirely different and separate entity than
>citizen George Bush (who does _NOT_ relinquish his rights as a citizen
>simply because he happens to be President).

You are absolutely right, Mr. Kaldis.  But where did I say that Bush was
suppose to relinquish his rights?

> Lots of pointless and repetitive grand-standing by Mr. Kaldis deleted.

>> "But Secret Service agent Dennis McCullough said that his agency did
>> not stop anyone from entering because of a sign.  Such confiscation
>> would be in violation of the protestors' civil rights." [Thank you,
>> Agent McCullough!!  You obviously understand the Constitution and
>> the Bill of Rights better than many Republicans!]
>> "Bush volunteers can't force them to give up their signs," McCullough
>> said, adding that he thought the WHITE HOUSE (!!!) staff ordered the
>> no-sign rule

>Is Agent McCullough an official spokesman of White House policy?  Was
>this an official statement, or is this just what he, as a private
>citizen and possible Clinton supporter, thinks?
> because similar situations had occurred before!!

As far as I am aware, Agent McCullough was speaking as a representative
of the Secret Service at the Secret Service's temporary HQ here on campus.

>If a no-sign rule is in effect, then it applies equally to all signs,
>regardless of content.  When we were at the Dukakis rally here at
>Rutgers four years ago, we were not allowed to enter the cordoned,
>roped-off area close to the podium.  We were told there was a no-sign
>rule in effect, which was enforced by the Secret Service and campus
>police.  But once that area was filled in, Dukakis signs were then
>distributed to people within.  "They changed their minds" we were told
>by the Secret Service.

I agree with you on that point...if there was a no sign rule it should
have been applied to everyone! But it wasn't.

Again, what does Rutgers have to do with Penn State?  If Dukakis supporters
acted as you say that it was wrong.  Just because they were wrong, though,
does not mean that Bush/Quayle people had the right to act the same way.

>>So...once again I ask all the pro-Bush people out there...Why have you
>>been silent on this issue?

>Probably for the same reason that the Dukakis people were silent about
>what happened at Rutgers.  No, wait a minute ... they weren't silent
>-- they called us "brown shirts" for complaining about it.

I was not at Rutgers four years ago, Mr. Kaldis...I didn't call you
a "brown shirt".  It is not reasonable to equate me with people at
Rutgers.

>> Is freedom of speech only important so long as it is guaranteeing YOUR
>> rights but not those of people who have different views?

>Hah!  Liberals ain't got a pot to p*ss in with regard to this.  After
>all, how many conservative proponents of political correctness do you
>know?

What a load of BS!  Who said that I was a proponent of political correct-
ness.  What does that have to do with what I said?  Nothing...try thinking
rationally, Mr. Kaldis...not rationalizing.

>>This smacks of cowardice to me...and reminds me of Mr. Bush who said
>>at Penn State yesterday that he was ready and willing to debate
>>Governor Clinton at the same time that his people did not show up for
>>a meeting set up to negotiate this debate situation.  This morning, as
>>a result, the 2nd debate which was scheduled has been canceled.

>George Bush has proposed a compromise -- and Slick Willie now wants to
>compromise on the compromise!  (But there is nothing new or unusual
>here -- the candidates are just jockeying for position, as candidates
>always do.)

Oh...I see.  Pointing out that the debate proposal made by Bush would
result in conflicts with the World Series is on level with Bush's hemming
and hawing for weeks...

>>Cluck, Cluck George...

>Cluck, Cluck Slick Willie, as it stands now.

As I said, pointing out that Bush's debate schedule conflicted with
the World Series telecasts is not the same.  It is truly amazing the
way that you extrapolate things.  What is your major at Rutgers--
psychic prediction?


Tracy A. Freeling
Petroleum & Natural Gas Engineering
The Pennsylvania State University