When a group is looking to strike fear in the hearts of its opponents and gain instant national legitimacy, it often looks to its name to bring it credibility. But when a group plans not to come up with a single dignified thought, it might as well have a ridiculous name. So goes the story of “Code Pink”, one of the activist groups involved with the impending kitchen-sink appointment protests planned on and around Inauguration Day. The USA Today article about the Week of Sin (our title, not theirs) is replete with comical statements, including:
“Our intention is to show President Bush and the world our movement is energized, mobilized and determined to fight back,” said Gael Murphy, of the activist group Code Pink.
To “fight back” against what? The problem with these protesters is that they won’t be protesting anything specific. A protest is supposed to organized to combat a specific decision or policy. This protest, apparently, will just be against Bush in general. In other words, these people simply wish to insult the majority of the American electorate. This is not a surprising move: all Red State citizens are bigoted morons if you’ve been reading the DNC fax.
Groups targeting President Bush’s economic agenda, the legitimacy of his election and the war in Iraq plan a week of events to counter his inauguration Jan. 20.
The groups have received permits for parks around the city, Buttar said, but they are still waiting for clearance to march along the Inaugural Parade route. More details will be released once all permits have been secured, said David Lytel, founder of Redefeat Bush.
Bush, who will be in a security area known as the “Red Zone,” will be surrounded by blue, the color assigned to Democratic-voting states, Lytel said.
“What I expect is more people will be here to protest Bush’s inauguration than to inaugurate him,” Lytel said.
Lytel said his group will film events on Inauguration Day and release a documentary online that evening. They also plan a protest near the Capitol on Jan. 6, the day Congress will certify the electoral votes and officially declare Bush the winner.
A president’s inauguration should only be protested if the election was wholly illegitimate. For instance, had the Russian-rigged election in the Ukraine led to the inauguration of the pro-Russian candidate, the opposition would be justified in protesting the inauguration. But to protest the fact that you didn’t like the result of the election is just sour grapes — and perhaps political suicide.
Don’t worry, though, this won’t get out of hand and turn into a violent, out of control sex, drugs, and debauchery party like all the other protests. Expect this one to be dignified:
Inauguration week will feature rallies, marches and demonstrations with the focus on peaceful, family-friendly gatherings, said organizer Shahid Buttar.
I left my Dem decoder ring in Washington… is that code for abortions in the streets?
Note: We have submitted this article to OTB’s Beltway Traffic Jam.
More:
Cal Yankee
Nathan Novak at 2:19 pm
“the majority of the American electorate”
that (slim) majority of the electorate is a definite minority of the overall american population of voting age. even more definite if you include minors. and certainly a minority among all the people in the world who are affected by bush’s policies. if you really believe in this man, you don’t need to use misleading language.
Comment by inkheart — December 25, 2004 @ 11:41 pm
Agreed, no one should ever use “misleading language” such as attacking a statement about the American electorate for not considering “all of the people in the world.” Your comment is filled with venom and irrelevance. Enjoy the appointment protest.
Comment by Nathan J. Novak — December 26, 2004 @ 9:16 pm
so, the world population outside of america is “irrelevant?” i’m not sure i understand you. good job on not actually responding to what i said, though. the main point is irrefutable: bush has no mandate, since a minority of the american population of voting age actually voted for bush (and this assumes a completely legal election). i would say that the secondary point is difficult to refute: those people are an even greater minority if you add to the total all the people in the world who are affected by bush’s policies: most notably the hundreds of thousands of dead iraqi civilians. Though we could conceivably add to that people in fear of death squads hired by american corporations, etc., etc., but then we get in to things that both republicans AND democrats have supported over the years, and that tends to give some people headaches.
Comment by inkheart — December 29, 2004 @ 5:43 am
sorry, that should read “tens of thousands” not “hundreds of thousands.”
Comment by inkheart — December 29, 2004 @ 5:50 am