Demonstrators Swarm Around Rove's Home

[adios]

This story seemed to get hardly any coverage in the media. If it would have happened to one of Kerry's right hand men, the media would have had 24/7 coverage until the situation was defused /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

Demonstrators Swarm Around Rove's Home (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31890-2004Mar28.html)

Demonstrators Swarm Around Rove's Home

By Steven Ginsberg
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 29, 2004; Page B01


Several hundred people stormed the small yard of President Bush's chief political strategist, Karl Rove, yesterday afternoon, pounding on his windows, shoving signs at others and challenging Rove to talk to them about a bill that deals with educational opportunities for immigrants.



Protesters poured out of one school bus after another, piercing an otherwise quiet, peaceful Sunday in Rove's Palisades neighborhood in Northwest, chanting, "Karl, Karl, come on out! See what the DREAM Act is all about!"

Rove obliged their first request and opened his door long enough to say, "Get off my property."

"Seems like he doesn't want to invite us in for tea," Emira Palacios quipped to the crowd.

Others chanted, "Karl Rove ain't got no soul."

The crowd then grew more aggressive, fanning around the three accessible sides of Rove's house, tracking him through the many windows, waving signs that read "Say Yes to DREAM" and pounding on the glass. At one point, Rove rushed to a window, pointed a finger and yelled something inaudible.

Shortly thereafter, sirens shot through the neighborhood and Secret Service agents and D.C. police joined the crowd on the lawn. Rove opened his door long enough to talk to an officer, and the crowd serenaded them with a stanza of "America the Beautiful."

The protest was organized by National People's Action, a coalition of neighborhood advocacy groups based in Chicago.

Leaders said they want Bush to advocate for the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, a bill that would permit immigrants who have lived in the United States for at least five years to apply for legal resident status once they graduate from high school. The measure would eliminate provisions of current federal law that discourage states from providing in-state tuition to undocumented student immigrants.

Immigrant activists say that 50,000 to 65,000 undocumented students graduate from U.S. high school each year and that many students can afford college only at the reduced, in-state rates given to legal residents.

The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in the fall but has not been brought before the full Senate for a vote.

Asked for Bush's position on the bill, spokesman Jim Morrell said, "The president has laid out the principles he believes should guide immigration discussion, and he is willing to work with Congress."

When pressed to state Bush's specific position on the DREAM legislation, Morrell repeated his statement.

The coalition's leaders, who converge on Washington each year to advocate for various issues, said they targeted Rove because they could not get as close to the White House as they could to his house. Rove also is one of Bush's main advisers, and he did not reply to their requests for a meeting, leaders said.

"We want the DREAM Act, and Karl Rove is sitting on it," said Brenda LaBlanc, a member of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement.

Coalition leaders said the demonstrators were to protest other policies at the houses of two Cabinet secretaries, Elaine L. Chao of Labor and Ann M. Veneman of Agriculture.

But what the group really wanted was a conversation with Rove, who declined to comment to a reporter through a Secret Service agent.

And after about 30 minutes of goading by protesters in English and Spanish, Rove agreed to meet with two members of the coalition on the condition that the rest of the protesters board their buses and leave his street. The group obliged.

Rove opened his garage door and allowed Palacios and Inez Killingsworth to enter. The meeting lasted two minutes and ended with Rove closing the garage door on Palacios while she was still talking.

Palacios said that Rove was "very upset" and was "yelling in our faces" and that Rove told them "he hoped we were proud to make his 14-year-old and 10-year-old cry."

A White House spokesman said one of the children was a neighbor.

Palacios, trembling and in tears herself, said, "He is very offended because we dared to come here. We dared to come here because he dared to ignore us. I'm sorry we disturbed his children, but our children are disturbed every day.

"He also said, 'Don't ever dare to come back,' " Palacios said. "We will, if he continues to ignore us."

[GWB]

You are right. Remember how much coverage the few folks who chanted "Get Out of Dick Cheney's House" in front of the VP's house in late 2000 got?

Of course, they were right and Gore had to leave and Dick moved in.

W

[Cyrus]

From what I have read so far about Karl Rove, he is the Uber Nerd in the current administration.

I guess his childhood grievances and his various acquired psychoses have found a relief in government "work". Lucky bastard.

[Sloats]

undocumented immigrants. Does that mean illegal aliens? People who are not in this country legally?

I swear, people only seem to care about those who break the laws of this country.

[andyfox]

If I was Rove, I would have called the police immediately and not met with the demonstrators. There's a right way and a wrong way to try to influence public policy, and this way is 100% wrong.

[Lazymeatball]

Why does the article cal these people Protestors and not tresspassers and vandals? Probably the same line of reasoning that uses the term "undocumented immigrant" and not illegal alien.

[Boris]

lol. funny story. At least he didn't have to deal with a government inquisitor inspecting his oral sex life.

[andyfox]

Euphemistic language is the staple of government and journalism. Probably the same line of reasoning that uses the term "democracy" and not "government that will be good for us."

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
lol. funny story. At least he didn't have to deal with a government inquisitor inspecting his oral sex life.

[/ QUOTE ]

The government don't investigate private sexual conduct. We have an obligation to investigate Perjury though - that's what got Clinton in trouble.

W

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
If I was Rove, I would have called the police immediately and not met with the demonstrators. There's a right way and a wrong way to try to influence public policy, and this way is 100% wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
"We want the DREAM Act, and Karl Rove is sitting on it," said Brenda LaBlanc, a member of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement.

[/ QUOTE ]

The actions of these protesters defy some of the fundamental foundations of this country. I find it amusing they freely trample other's rights while demanding the DREAM Act.

Furthermore, just because a non-registered alien graduates high school, does not mean that person is somehow entitled to preferential status when it comes to paying for college. I know many people, of all colors, etc. who "could not afford college at out of state rates." They either found a way to pay for it, or they chose not to attend.

Something really bothers me about this, I am sure whatever it is does not produce a politically correct veiwpoint. I don't know, but for now, I don't see why justice demands the DREAM Act.

[andyfox]

Plus Karl Rove is not an elected official and is not answerable to the public on questions of policy.

[Oski]

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I was Rove, I would have called the police immediately and not met with the demonstrators. There's a right way and a wrong way to try to influence public policy, and this way is 100% wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
"We want the DREAM Act, and Karl Rove is sitting on it," said Brenda LaBlanc, a member of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement.

[/ QUOTE ]

The actions of these protesters defy some of the fundamental foundations of this country. I find it amusing they freely trample other's rights while demanding the DREAM Act.

Furthermore, just because a non-registered alien graduates high school, does not mean that person is somehow entitled to preferential status when it comes to paying for college. I know many people, of all colors, etc. who "could not afford college at out of state rates." They either found a way to pay for it, or they chose not to attend.

Something really bothers me about this, I am sure whatever it is does not produce a politically correct veiwpoint. I don't know, but for now, I don't see why justice demands the DREAM Act.


[/ QUOTE ]

Whether or not justice demands the DREAM act is questionable. I have no opinion on the matter since I don't really know enough about it to form an opinion. You can reasonably say these people went over the line in their protests.

However, I just do not see a damn thing wrong with having a protest for a cause you believe in. Remember, we live in a DEMOCRACY, which means, government by the public. If these government figures are so public, why is it so difficult to get a hold of them? These people went after Rove because chances are they were blocked from protesting anywhere Bush might possibly see them. The purpose of a protest is to get your opinions heard. If the government won't let you protest anywhere where the powers that be might see you, and if the national press ignores you because the story isn't "sexy" enough, how is a group supposed to get its views and opinions out there?

[Oski]

You are really just restating the whole point. We all agree these people have a right to demonstrate and use the political process properly. However, forming a mob is something quite different.

[Glenn]

So it's really not bad to throw all property rights and harassment laws out the window, so long as you have a cause? I think there would have been a lot more arrests and a lot differnt coverage if that were a group of anti-abortion protesters pounding on the windows of a doctor. The organization is sick. Do they post their home addresses on their website so we can go bang on their windows if we disagree?

[jokerswild]

I bet it was Cheney.

[Ruddiger]

oldish article on protest zones.
http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

nothing like a free country, as long as you are in approved "zones"

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
So it's really not bad to throw all property rights and harassment laws out the window, so long as you have a cause? I think there would have been a lot more arrests and a lot differnt coverage if that were a group of anti-abortion protesters pounding on the windows of a doctor. The organization is sick. Do they post their home addresses on their website so we can go bang on their windows if we disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pounding on the windows of a doctor's house isn't that bad. Shooting doctors, and calling women who go into an abortion sinners and whores is a different story, and a lot more serious than pounding on poor Karl Rove's windows and making him piss in his pants. That's what usually gets the press coverage.

The organization is "sick"? As far as I know they didn't vandalize his property or cause physical harm to him. The worst thing the crowd was quoted as saying in the article was that "Karl Rove ain't got no soul". Forgive me if I don't think this qualifies as "sick".
And perhaps this organization wouldn't be using such aggressive tactics if they actually thought they could get some face time somewhere where the president could actually see them.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
You are really just restating the whole point. We all agree these people have a right to demonstrate and use the political process properly. However, forming a mob is something quite different.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Forming a mob" is a little harsh. The worse the group did was bang on his windows. They did not become violent, nor were there any reports in the article about vandalization. It was aggressive, to be sure, but non-violent and non-destructive.

[hetron]

Am I the only one who thinks setting up such zones is a violation of the first amendment?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
The worse the group did was bang on his windows. They did not become violent, nor were there any reports in the article about vandalization. It was aggressive, to be sure, but non-violent and non-destructive.

[/ QUOTE ]

What they did was trample on Rove's rights to private property,Plan and simple.

The real issue is weather one group's right to free speech superceeds another individual's property rights. It should be clear to any rational person that it does not. If it did, individuals would have no rights to ask aggressive missionaries or non-violent sales people to leave thier door steps.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Pounding on the windows of a doctor's house......and calling women who go into an abortion sinners and whores is a different story, and a lot more serious than pounding on poor Karl Rove's windows and making him piss in his pants.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so?

Stu

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
You are really just restating the whole point. We all agree these people have a right to demonstrate and use the political process properly. However, forming a mob is something quite different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of my peaceful supporters want to conduct peaceful demonstrations outside of the Democratic Convention in Boston later this year. But John Kerry and his Massachusetts goons are trying to stop them from doing so. So much for John Kerry and free speech rights.

W

[BadBoyBenny]

I don't think setting up a zone in itself is a violation of the first ammendment.

I do agree that both Aschroft's language, and the administration's implementation of the law seem to very much a violation of the first ammendment.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pounding on the windows of a doctor's house......and calling women who go into an abortion sinners and whores is a different story, and a lot more serious than pounding on poor Karl Rove's windows and making him piss in his pants.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the shooting doctors part should be obvious. The harssment of Karl Rove I believe took place simply because without resorting to tactics like this, grassroots coalitions would not be seen or heard by any members of the Bush administration.

Contrast this with anti-abortion protesters, who often go out of their way to belittle or embarass young women going through a very difficult proces, in an attempt to stop them from getting legal abortions.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The worse the group did was bang on his windows. They did not become violent, nor were there any reports in the article about vandalization. It was aggressive, to be sure, but non-violent and non-destructive.

[/ QUOTE ]

What they did was trample on Rove's rights to private property,Plan and simple.

The real issue is weather one group's right to free speech superceeds another individual's property rights. It should be clear to any rational person that it does not. If it did, individuals would have no rights to ask aggressive missionaries or non-violent sales people to leave thier door steps.

Stu



[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly, I'm not going to argue that Karl Rove has no property rights.

However, I am going to argue that in our great democracy, the executive branch frequently shields the president from people with opposing viewpoints more than is necessary. Read the article Ruddiger supplied above. It is my opinion that groups would notuse such aggressive tactics with Karl Rove if they thought they could be seen by GWB.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
The harssment of Karl Rove I believe took place simply because without resorting to tactics like this, grassroots coalitions would not be seen or heard by any members of the Bush administration.








Contrast this with anti-abortion protesters, who often go out of their way to belittle or embarass young women going through a very difficult proces, in an attempt to stop them from getting legal abortions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a lot of Pro-Life demonstrators think like you do - that they must use these tactics to be "seen or heard" in the left-wing media. Who is to say it is ok for the groups you support to get away with it, but not groups you don't support - this doesn't sound like fair play to me.

You do a good job of spinning in the quote above /images/graemlins/wink.gif

W

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]


However, I am going to argue that in our great democracy, the executive branch frequently shields the president from people with opposing viewpoints more than is necessary. Read the article Ruddiger supplied above. It is my opinion that groups would notuse such aggressive tactics with Karl Rove if they thought they could be seen by GWB.

[/ QUOTE ]

People like this equate "not getting what they want" with "not being heard." After all, they know what is right and dammit if they could just get their point across, everyone would agree. Sorry, ladies and gents, part of being in a democracy is backing points of view that do not survive the political process. If you don't get what you want, you do not have the right to harass others.

I have read the article you suggest. I don't think this is a good policy, and I do believe it is deceptive. Of course, one must agree there are some valid security reasons for controlling "areas" the President is to visit. However, this is a lame excuse for suppressing 1st Amendment Rights. There must be a less intrusive means to protect the President. I sincerely hope this new policy is put in check.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
People like this equate "not getting what they want" with "not being heard." After all, they know what is right and dammit if they could just get their point across, everyone would agree. Sorry, ladies and gents, part of being in a democracy is backing points of view that do not survive the political process. If you don't get what you want, you do not have the right to harass others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent Point. Everybody read it again.

W

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


However, I am going to argue that in our great democracy, the executive branch frequently shields the president from people with opposing viewpoints more than is necessary. Read the article Ruddiger supplied above. It is my opinion that groups would notuse such aggressive tactics with Karl Rove if they thought they could be seen by GWB.

[/ QUOTE ]

People like this equate "not getting what they want" with "not being heard." After all, they know what is right and dammit if they could just get their point across, everyone would agree. Sorry, ladies and gents, part of being in a democracy is backing points of view that do not survive the political process. If you don't get what you want, you do not have the right to harass others.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not quite as simple as you paint it here. Yes, while it is true that if you back a cause that people don't agree with, you do not have a right to harass your fellow citizens about it. I don't agree with abortion protesters harrassing clinic doctors or their patients, and I certainly do not agree with PETA vandalizing zoos and animal research labs.

However, what goes on in Washington is a different ball game altogether. The DREAM act is a pertinent political issue. It has not been defeated yet, so it can't be a "lost cause". Grassroots organizations, like this one, tried to set up a protest close to the White House. They were denied. They then tried to set up a meeting with Rove. They were denied.
IMHO, this group was marginalized because a. they were everyday people without big bucks, and b. were in opposition to the president. To me, that's a big deal.

[adios]

You'll never make a spin doctor hetron. NPA is notorious for such tactics, it's their reason d'etre. There's a big difference than being denied the right to free speech and not listening to one's viewpoint. NPA has huge voice and backing in government, it's called the Democratic party.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The harssment of Karl Rove I believe took place simply because without resorting to tactics like this, grassroots coalitions would not be seen or heard by any members of the Bush administration.








Contrast this with anti-abortion protesters, who often go out of their way to belittle or embarass young women going through a very difficult proces, in an attempt to stop them from getting legal abortions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a lot of Pro-Life demonstrators think like you do - that they must use these tactics to be "seen or heard" in the left-wing media. Who is to say it is ok for the groups you support to get away with it, but not groups you don't support - this doesn't sound like fair play to me.

You do a good job of spinning in the quote above /images/graemlins/wink.gif

W



[/ QUOTE ]

Dubya, unfortunately I am not much of a spinmeister. Again, I disagree with your assessment. Abortion protesters catch flak when they shoot doctors or attempt to harrass young women out of their legal right to an abortion. This is much different than having an (albeit rather aggressive) protest to change public policy via the DREAM act IMHO.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
You'll never make a spin doctor hetron. NPA is notorious for such tactics, it's their reason d'etre. There's a big difference than being denied the right to free speech and not listening to one's viewpoint. NPA has huge voice and backing in government, it's called the Democratic party.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see you pulled back your post comparing the NPA to the Nazi party, with the uber right wing article calling them a left wing "goon squad". It's good to know conservative paranoia has SOME bounds. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[adios]

And I can see that you're changing the subject when you don't have a leg to stand on /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Well the shooting doctors part should be obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shooting doctors is pretty rare, I suspect politicians get shot at more than doctors.

[ QUOTE ]
The harssment of Karl Rove I believe took place simply because without resorting to tactics like this, grassroots coalitions would not be seen or heard by any members of the Bush administration.

Contrast this with anti-abortion protesters, who often go out of their way to belittle or embarass young women going through a very difficult proces, in an attempt to stop them from getting legal abortions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its all harrassment. To condemn one and excuse another is being hypocritical.

Stu

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well the shooting doctors part should be obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shooting doctors is pretty rare, I suspect politicians get shot at more than doctors.

[ QUOTE ]
The harssment of Karl Rove I believe took place simply because without resorting to tactics like this, grassroots coalitions would not be seen or heard by any members of the Bush administration.

Contrast this with anti-abortion protesters, who often go out of their way to belittle or embarass young women going through a very difficult proces, in an attempt to stop them from getting legal abortions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its all harrassment. To condemn one and excuse another is being hypocritical.

Stu




[/ QUOTE ]

So,

Situation A: A grassroots group wants to let the President of the US, a public official, know how it feels about a current piece of social legislation. It is denied the ability to protest somewhere where the President can see them. They then try to set up a meeting with one of the President's key advisers, and are similarly denied. They then decide to protest in a non-violent, non-destructive manner, by marching on the advisers personal property, banging out his windows and pointing out signs to him.

is equal to:

Situation B: A group of anti-abortion protesters believe that termination of a fetus is tantamount to murder. Though they live in a nation where a majority of the population does not agree with them, they continue to target those who take part in abortion activities, whether they are doctors who perform the abortions, or patients who have them. They threaten doctors over the phone, walking into and out of their clinics, etc. They also harrass women who may go into clinics (even if they are going just for counseling), calling them murderers, despite the fact that they are not guilty of murder, according to the law.

???

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a big difference than being denied the right to free speech and not listening to one's viewpoint.


[/ QUOTE ]

What does this mean? Did you mean "There is a big difference between the right to free speech and not listening to one's viewpoint" ?

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
They then decide to protest in a non-violent, non-destructive manner, by marching on the advisers personal property, banging out his windows and pointing out signs to him.

[/ QUOTE ]

This hurts your credibility...considerably. Under your definition, I can point an unloaded gun at your head and call it non-violent, non destructive because (At least I know!) the gun is unloaded. You fail to consider the target of the "non-violent, non-destructive" protest who is trapped in his home with a mob "banging out his windows." He does not know how far these "non-violent" protesters (grass-roots, no less) plan to take it.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They then decide to protest in a non-violent, non-destructive manner, by marching on the advisers personal property, banging out his windows and pointing out signs to him.

[/ QUOTE ]

This hurts your credibility...considerably. Under your definition, I can point an unloaded gun at your head and call it non-violent, non destructive because (At least I know!) the gun is unloaded. You fail to consider the target of the "non-violent, non-destructive" protest who is trapped in his home with a mob "banging out his windows." He does not know how far these "non-violent" protesters (grass-roots, no less) plan to take it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definition? What definition? I didn't attempt to define anything. I was just asking Stu Pidasso if he thought the two situations I drew up were equal. I happen to think they aren't. Circumstances DO matter. Your example of the unloaded gun is inaccurate IMHO.

[Oski]

Ok, use the word "example" instead.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />

So,

Situation A: A grassroots group wants to let the President of the US, a public official, know how it feels about a current piece of social legislation. It is denied the ability to protest somewhere where the President can see them. They then try to set up a meeting with one of the President's key advisers, and are similarly denied. They then decide to protest in a non-violent, non-destructive manner, by marching on the advisers personal property, banging out his windows and pointing out signs to him.

is equal to:

Situation B: A group of anti-abortion protesters believe that termination of a fetus is tantamount to murder. Though they live in a nation where a majority of the population does not agree with them, they continue to target those who take part in abortion activities, whether they are doctors who perform the abortions, or patients who have them. They threaten doctors over the phone, walking into and out of their clinics, etc. They also harrass women who may go into clinics (even if they are going just for counseling), calling them murderers, despite the fact that they are not guilty of murder, according to the law.

???


[/ QUOTE ]




yes, clearly.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So,

Situation A: A grassroots group wants to let the President of the US, a public official, know how it feels about a current piece of social legislation. It is denied the ability to protest somewhere where the President can see them. They then try to set up a meeting with one of the President's key advisers, and are similarly denied. They then decide to protest in a non-violent, non-destructive manner, by marching on the advisers personal property, banging out his windows and pointing out signs to him.

is equal to:

Situation B: A group of anti-abortion protesters believe that termination of a fetus is tantamount to murder. Though they live in a nation where a majority of the population does not agree with them, they continue to target those who take part in abortion activities, whether they are doctors who perform the abortions, or patients who have them. They threaten doctors over the phone, walking into and out of their clinics, etc. They also harrass women who may go into clinics (even if they are going just for counseling), calling them murderers, despite the fact that they are not guilty of murder, according to the law.

???


[/ QUOTE ]




yes, clearly.








[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't agree, and the reason I don't agree is because there are different circumstances involved in each case. In the case of example A, there is a good chance this situation would have been avoided if they were allowed Freedom of Assembly somewhere close enough to where the President of the US, a PUBLIC official, could see them. In the case of example B, the protesters, having given up on changing public policy, decide to take it upon themselves to influence the exercise of this policy by harassing doctors and their patients, with both parties involved being PRIVATE officials.

Big difference in my eyes. But you are certainly free to disagree.