After my yesterday’s post on the Denver Three, a handful of you wrote to ask why I find this particular controversy so fascinating. At last count, I’ve written 16 posts about the incident, most other blogs don’t seem nearly as interested, my comments section doesn’t exactly light up at the mention of the story, and the media doesn’t seem particularly engrossed. Perhaps, a few of you suggested, I’m making more out of this than the circumstances warrant.
I obviously disagree. In this case, three law-abiding, ticket-holding citizens were thrown out of a public event on public property because someone working for the president didn’t like their bumper sticker. Simply as a matter of principle, it’s as blatant an assault on the ideals of free speech and free expression as you’ll find in this country. In the United States, people shouldn’t be forcibly removed from taxpayer-financed presidential events based exclusively on their unstated beliefs.
But let’s say you’re not concerned with the principles of democracy and you’re focused exclusively on scoring political points. If so, keep in mind that the Denver Three’s controversy could very easily become a broader political scandal. The fact that Scott McClellan has already lied about the details of this story suggests the White House is not altogether comfortable with this situation.
In fact, a White House spokesperson recently said all the questions surrounding this scandal have already been “asked and answered.” That’s utter nonsense. Here are some of questions about the controversy, some of which have been asked, but none of which have been answered:
* Who is the mystery man who removed the Denver Three?
* Who told the man in question to look out for liberal bumper stickers?
* Who provided him with an official-looking earpiece and lapel pin? Why?
* Was this man paid with tax dollars? If not, who did pay him?
* Does the White House have a formal policy for evicting law-abiding ticket-holders from public events? If so, who wrote it? Will the policy be open to public review?
* People working event staff for the president don’t run around events making up their instructions as they go along. Who gave this guy directions about his responsibilities that day? What are the marching orders given to the people who work at the door of Bush events? (Scott McClellan has been asked this directly, but wouldn’t answer the question.)
* How are people working at these events recruited and trained? Are they specifically taught to engage in viewpoint discrimination? Does the White House encourage this approach?
* Scott McClellan has said the Denver Three were ejected “out of concern they might try to disrupt the event.” (In other words, the Bush White House has lowered the bar so far that you don’t even need to disrupt an event to get thrown out; Republican staffers merely have to believe you might cause trouble.) How, exactly, are event staff supposed to ascertain who might be disruptive and who might not?
* Why has McClellan repeatedly claimed that the person involved was a “volunteer,” when a top Bush aide has already admitted that an official working for the White House was responsible?
* When did the White House learn the identity of the fake Secret Service agent? How did the White House come to learn this? And when does it plan to release that information to the public?
* The Secret Service knows who was responsible for the Denver Three’s ejection but won’t respond to any inquiries. Has the White House pressured the Secret Service to help cover up the relevant information?
* The White House has refused to respond to inquiries reporters, private attorneys, and members of the House and Senate. It also refuses to grant Freedom of Information Act requests regarding the event. Has the White House claimed some kind of executive privilege in this case?
Keep in mind, similar controversies have popped up in Arizona, New Hampshire, and North Dakota. It’s part of a trend, not only to shield the president from any form of dissent, but to exclude law-abiding Americans from a public policy dialog with their elected leaders, in this case the president.
The Denver Three story is key to bursting the entire Bubble Boy phenomenon. Why? Because it has the potential to expose a formal White House policy that mandates viewpoint discrimination at public events and instructs public officials to enforce such a policy.
Yes, I realize the mainstream media hasn’t shown significant interest in the story. The New York Times ran a story yesterday, but it was its first mention of the controversy since the story broke over three months ago. But like Sen. Wayne Allard’s (R-Colo.) chief staff said, the Denver Three are “entitled to some answers.”