1984 here we come.

" 1984 here we come."

Considering there isn't anything about it anywhere on the internet that I can find, INCLUDING at MSNBC,perhaps it would be wise to wait until you know it actually happened...

Don Imus isn't a journalist, and is outwardly, openly pro-Kerry and as biased against Bush/Cheney as it gets in my opinion. I would suggest waiting for some actual "news" about this before spreading the myth too much.

Nor does it seem to appear on The Daily Imus on the MSNBC website. Maybe it will be when they update passages freom this mornign's show.

Yep BakerStreet, i couldn't find it either. I usually dont like to watch Imus, but i was channel surfing. I seem to remember hearing about this once before with Bush 2.0, but im not gonna go out on a limb here.

JoeUsers?? I think we need to do a web recon to prove/disprove this. All help is appreciated with this, regardless of political persuasion

Brian

P.S. i just realized something, the "!" on the end of the title, was supposed to be a "?" because i was wondering if it was true or not. Sorry for the confusion (if any). My bad folks!

i watch Imus more often that I would like to admit. I tend to agree with him on many non-political things, and even when I don't he is funny. As with every other "personality", it is getting harder to look over the political stuff as the election nears, though.

I'm keeping an eye out for an article about this. I have a feeling it was either misunderstood or a myth, but you never know.

Found it on the first try! I should have thought to go to the local paper!

Talk amongst yourselves...I already gave you the topic

Brian http://www.abqjournal.com/elex/204620elex07-30-04.htm I couldnt get my link thingie to work right so cut & paste the URL.

Hrm... when I go out I'll look in my local paper. Most of them are owned by the same companies now, lol, maybe they'll have something about it.

I think that this is along the same line as closed-admissions fundraisers. I don't think it's a smart move though.

" State Rep. Dan Foley, R-Roswell, speaking on behalf of the Republican Party, said Thursday that a "known Democrat operative group" was intending to try to crash Saturday's campaign rally at Rio Rancho Mid-High School. He added that some people were providing false names and addresses and added that tickets for the limited-seating event should go to loyal Bush backers. (...) This is is a political event— just like (Thursday night)," Foley said of Cheney's upcoming visit. Shi said the Rio Rancho event is intended to "energize" Bush-Cheney supporters, and organizers don't want it disrupted. "We've received dozens and dozens of calls from Kerry-Edwards (supporters) who have used deceitful tactics to try and get in and disrupt this event," he said. "Our supporters have worked too hard to have an event like this get disrupted.""

In that light I can understand it, though I can't imagine why they wouldn't have expected it to be an "issue". This doesn't seem to be a rally for the general public, but only for the Bush-Cheney election supporters that are working or otherwise supporting the reelection effort in NM.

"I'm outraged at this. I'm being closed off by my own government. It's crazy," said East Mountains resident Pamela Random, who added that she is an unaffiliated voter."

There's the problem, really. People think that this was something sponsered or supported by the government. It wasn't like a city council meeting, it was organizational, there were tickets, and it was a meeting for particular people. To me, they have the right to say who can come.

Probably not a good way to do it, though, it will be exploited.

Still it is not right. People should not be forced to sign a document swearing loyalty even if they support the canditates. Anyone who deliberately goes to the other guys events and pull that kind of crap are idiots and need to be smacked around because it does a diservice to their chosen candidate. Just like the repubs who do it to Kerry, and they have in the past.

Now, wait, it says:

"I, (full name) ... do herby (sic) endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United States." It later adds that, "In signing the above endorsement you are consenting to use and release of your name by Bush-Cheney as an endorser of President Bush."

"Endorse" doesn't carry the spooky connotations that are being implied. You can't really characterize that as "swearing loyalty" like a pledge of allegience to the flag or something.

If you are having a closed-to-the-public rally for people motivated to get Bush re-elected, it would be safe to assume that those who attend should "endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United States." I mean, if you are working for his re-election, and support it, how is that different?

it sounds like to me that antagonistic members of the press decided they would invite themselves and didn't like the fact their names could be published later in a list of Bush supporters.

Very dishonest reporting.  Signing an endorsement form is standard procedure in campaigns.  It's not a loyalty oath or anything like it.  It's a legal release allowing a campaign to use your name if they choose as a supporter.  Both sides do it and have done so for decades.

Typical left wing media spin.

I'll stand by my statement listed above..."I do hereby endorse" is pretty damn close to " I swear loyalty"...lol

And you'r probably right Bakerstreet. The press can be very antagonistic when they want to be.

If you don't know the difference between an endorsement and a loyalty oath then you have my sympathy for having received such a poor education.

OK thats just retarded Drag..... i was making a joke. notice the "lol" on the end of it? if you are too stupid to recognize that, you're the one who needs to question the quality of your education. or maybe develop a sense of humor.

Notice the lack of ?