Meehan, Neal raise doubts on leadership of president

September 14, 2001 8:07 AM

Meehan, Neal raise doubts on leadership of president - ``I don't buy the notion Air Force One was a target,'' said Meehan. ``That's just PR. That's just spin.''

Meehan office number... [phone]
posted by revbrian (74 comments total)

Is posting his office number really necessary? Can't a few people have dissenting opinions? While furthering a political agenda during this time is questionable, when I think of why america is a nice place to be, it's due to the diversity of opinions that are allowed here.
posted by mathowie at 8:12 AM on September 14, 2001

[Can't a few people have dissenting opinions? ]

Yes, and they can voice those very opinions at aforementioned number.
posted by revbrian at 8:13 AM on September 14, 2001

I think it was probably spin as well. Call away.
posted by tranquileye at 8:15 AM on September 14, 2001

Come on, Bush is fucking pathetic.


You know you've got a sorry president when Giuliani upstages him.

And he wants $40 billion to do whatever the fuck he wants with it? No thanks.
posted by preguicoso at 8:19 AM on September 14, 2001

[Come on, Bush is fucking pathetic. ] I take it we can count you out of the next singing of "God bless America" then?

[And he wants $40 billion to do whatever the fuck he wants with it? ] Actually, my understanding was that he wanted $20 and Hillary asked for $20 for New York State. I believe congress has already appropriated that money so it might be a little late...
posted by revbrian at 8:26 AM on September 14, 2001

I agree with what they both said. It is definitely spin, and I think the speech was delivered with a blandness that I found fairly upsetting. I still support the president, I just want to be leveled with.
posted by ry at 8:26 AM on September 14, 2001

come on, what exactly does everyone expect the president to do. Don some camos and strap an AR15 over his shoulder like f'n Rambo?! He is the highest ranking official in the US government, do you really expect him to fly in to a possible shitstorm?
posted by jbelshaw at 8:28 AM on September 14, 2001

This is something we can all read about in the "Now the truth can be told" books in 2006. For now, Who Cares? If the prez flew out of legit security concerns, or if he flew out of fear has little to do with the next 3 months of our lives.
posted by daver at 8:29 AM on September 14, 2001

Kudos to Neal and Meehan for having the guts to speak the truth that many must be feeling (I know I am).

Right now I am afraid to speak my mind. Sitting in a bar last night, watching people watch TV, their bloodlust so viscerally evident, I became so aware of what is happening here in America - the righteous anger is so palpable, I would be afraid to have a discussion with a stranger, for fear that they might beat the shit out of me for daring to suggest we not go on a rampage of carnage.

I am sadder now that on Tuesday - I am afraid to be an American, afraid that we are about to unleash a horrendous beast that will spread horror to millions of people in a wake of vengeful destruction.
posted by mapalm at 8:29 AM on September 14, 2001

if i was they guy in charge of security for bush,

1-the press would not have known where he was
2-he would have made a statement from behind his desk, that was actually a prop-set in a basement somewhere.
3-there would have been a decoy airforce 1 flying to washington.
4-he wouldn't have had a choice in the matter

there are so many more important things than this to worry about. and, BTW, i'm a lefty who voted for Nader, this isn't knee-jerk defense...i just don't think it matters.
posted by th3ph17 at 8:32 AM on September 14, 2001

I'm sorry about posting the phone number. I should have realized that I'm on mefi. Here's his email address - [e-mail]
posted by revbrian at 8:34 AM on September 14, 2001

Both sides are capitalizing on this for political gain. It makes me sick: (D) or (R). People wonder why the middle ignores the partisans. This is why.
posted by owillis at 8:36 AM on September 14, 2001

Yes, and they can voice those very opinions at aforementioned number.

What's your office number, Brian?
posted by rcade at 8:38 AM on September 14, 2001

i just don't think it matters.

I respectfully disagree. It is NOW more than ever that we must be vigilant against the deceits of power. It is NOW when our liberties are most vulnerable. It is NOW that we must demand the truth from the government so that we know full well what is being done in our name.

Let us all be on guard not to swallow everything we are being spoon fed (and spoon fed it is, in order to rile up the public in anticipation of the coming war).
posted by mapalm at 8:38 AM on September 14, 2001

Just PR? Just spin?

Enough criticism and playing "armchair quarterback" from those obviously only qualified to follow...

There is a difference between having "the guts to speak the truth" and having the guts to get off your ass and do something.

Try being proactive and productive in this troubling time, instead of just a whining or complaining lemming.
posted by bk at 8:38 AM on September 14, 2001

I'm sorry about posting the phone number.

I just saw this -- ignore my previous response.
posted by rcade at 8:39 AM on September 14, 2001

Thanks for giving me Meehan's phone number and e-mail , revbrian, so I can be sure to contact him and tell him I think he's right.
posted by briank at 8:40 AM on September 14, 2001

ok, i have seen some stupid posts on metafilter the past few days (as well as some excellent ones) but this is the first that really made me mad enough to post.

revbrian, do you really think in a time like this that people should be bitching to a congressman instead of, oh say contacting loved ones, friends or the red cross?

perhaps it is comforting to you to be pushing a political agenda at a time like this but others have more important things to care about then a congressman shooting his mouth off. which, because we live in america he is allowed to do . and we are also allowed to disagree with him as well and voice those opinions, but considering what happened and what still needs to be done this sort of thing is quite petty.

PS if we are able to access metafilter, we also can access the drudge report. its not necessary for you to cut and paste the drudge report here.
posted by saralovering at 8:41 AM on September 14, 2001

Care to take some calls Brian?

570 784 39XX

Remember, punishing those with unpopular opinions is just what makes America great!
posted by NortonDC at 8:42 AM on September 14, 2001

I'm just sick and tired of people saying that a president's job is to make people feel better... that's your mother's job, or your priest's, or your spouse's.

I want my president to keep the situation in control, to find out exactly what happened, and to, above all else, MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN. You can keep your warm-and-fuzzies from former-president Clinton, and I'll take a man in control right now. (Whether or not he's actually in control is also the subject of debate, but at least it's worthwhile debate.)

My .02 is that there's no looting, no follow up attacks, government and business is rolling, and people are coming outta the woodwork to find ways to help. Considering the circumstances, could we hope for anything better?
posted by terceiro at 8:43 AM on September 14, 2001

It was interesting to see Mr. President nearly break down yesterday morning. Was it to counter the SPIN charge ?

Politicians will be Politicians and find a way to devide. haha
posted by adnanbwp at 8:47 AM on September 14, 2001

[What's your office number, Brian?]

570-387-6997 ext 525

[Care to take some calls Brian? 570 784 39XX]

No longer my number but feel free to ask, I'll gladly give it to you. There is a difference between a private number and a representatives office. If I have to explain that to you then I'll have to start a rant about public education...

[Thanks for giving me Meehan's phone number and e-mail , revbrian, so I can be sure to contact him and tell him I think he's right.]

Feel free. You have every right to agree or disagree with him. That's what representative democracy is about.
posted by revbrian at 8:47 AM on September 14, 2001

I should have known this was inspired by the Drudge Report. Matt Drudge once published the phone number of a small-town Georgia librarian because she told a reporter she wasn't going to stock the Drudge Manifesto, resulting in hundreds of harrassing calls.

When I was working at the Star-Telegram, Rush Limbaugh responded to a negative column in our paper by telling his readers the writer's office number. She got death threats.
posted by rcade at 8:51 AM on September 14, 2001

I am now officially pissed.

I personally DO NOT CARE where Bush is physically as long as a) he is safe b) he is in control and able to do his job c) he does a and b without worrying what every tom , dick and harry is going to find to bitch about.

If he were in Washington y'all would be complaining he was posing for photo ops while the Pentagon burned.

Do me a favor and grow up.

There will be plenty of time to be a monday morning quarter back when we have buried our dead.


bunnyfire
posted by bunnyfire at 8:52 AM on September 14, 2001

[I should have known this was inspired by the Drudge Report. ]

It's a BOSTON HERALD article. He's a UNITED STATES CONGRESSMAN. There's a difference between a citizen and a representative. You have every right to agree or disagree with him. I didn't take a stand in it either way, I just quoted the article. The phone numbers are listed at http://www.house.gov/meehan/contact.htm
posted by revbrian at 8:54 AM on September 14, 2001

Both sides are capitalizing on this for political gain. It makes me sick: (D) or (R). People wonder why the middle ignores the partisans. This is why.

Preach on, owills. It's amazing how the "objective" opinions of how Bush is handling this run down party lines. I've seen some brave exceptions here on MeFi, but they are definitely the exception. Sturgeon's Law.
posted by marknau at 8:55 AM on September 14, 2001

There will be plenty of time to be a monday morning quarter back when we have buried our dead.

...and killed a few hundred thousand (maybe million) foreigners to boot, by which time it will be a little too late, dontcha think? (or, dontcha care?)
posted by mapalm at 8:56 AM on September 14, 2001

It's a BOSTON HERALD article.

... that is linked, along with Meehan's phone number, on the front page of the Drudge Report.

Small minds think alike, I guess.
posted by rcade at 8:58 AM on September 14, 2001

Sturgeon's Law.

And 90% of those who cite Sturgeon's Law are crap, I assume?
posted by holgate at 9:04 AM on September 14, 2001

I am trying to be as supportive of the president as I can, and I think I am succeeding, but I too was skeptical about the White House or AF1 as targets. However, I kept those opinions to myself because it is not a time to bicker about such things.

Sure, last night as I was listening to Ari Fletcher giving a briefing, and a reporter asked how they could possibly have determined that the plane that hit the Pentagon was supposed to hit the White House. His response was (and I am paraphrasing to the best of my memory) "We've exhausted that that story and I am not going to comment on it any further."

To the question before this one where the reporter asked what the US would be prepared to do to Pakistan if they did not agree to help us, was met with "You know that I don't deal in hypotheticals, and I am not going to start now."

Well, to the best of my knowledge there is no evidence whatsoever that the White House or AF1 were targets so he was dealing in hypotheticals.

After the crap he spread about the supposed vandalism of the White House by the Clintonites, I find it hard to believe Ari anymore; and do genuinely think he and the rest of the staff spun the story to somehow many the President look less like he was hiding as his plane was moved around the country.

Now, personally I don't agree that he was hiding. I am sure that this was all part of a plan that was probably orchestrated by the Secret Service. So it wasn't necessary to spin it.

Anyway, while I think Ari Fletcher is a "major-league" asshole, I still am going to avoid criticizing the President, whom I think is actually doing a pretty good job in a very difficult situation. I am not ashamed to say I was/am a big Clinton fan, but so far I am much happier with the patience the Bush team has shown. I hope that they continue to do so, and that doing so will lessen the calls throughout the country for blood.

Just my $.02
posted by terrapin at 9:04 AM on September 14, 2001

Once again, the bipartisan spirit of Metafilter comes shining through in a crisis.
posted by aaron at 9:09 AM on September 14, 2001

After the crap he spread about the supposed vandalism of the White House by the Clintonites, I find it hard to believe Ari anymore.

I know how you feel. President Bush needs to find an excuse to kick the guy to the curb.
posted by rcade at 9:10 AM on September 14, 2001

Once again, the bipartisan spirit of Metafilter comes shining through in a crisis.

What the hell would you know about bipartisanship, Aaron?
posted by rcade at 9:10 AM on September 14, 2001

Sturgeon's Law.
And 90% of those who cite Sturgeon's Law are crap, I assume?

I assumed it was on a per-cite basis, so I cite it as often as I can in the trust that I'll be right 10% of the time.
posted by marknau at 9:11 AM on September 14, 2001

Once again, the bipartisan spirit of Metafilter comes shining through in a crisis.

Oh, just fuck off until you have something of substance to add. Did we post Ann Coulter's office number? Are we pouring petrol through Jerry Fallwell's letterbox?
posted by holgate at 9:12 AM on September 14, 2001

revbrian--That's what representative democracy is about.

Is he your representative, Brian? Did you indicate that those he represents may wish to contact him? No, you put his phone number out there to facilitate the harassment of someone you disagree with.

Any more civics lessons for us, Brian?
posted by NortonDC at 9:14 AM on September 14, 2001

[Did we post Ann Coulter's office number? ]

I wish somebody would. I'd like to tell her she's an intolerant bigot.

[Are we pouring petrol through Jerry Fallwell's letterbox?]

No one is asking anyone to commit crimes holgate. Why don't you take a deep breath and reread this whole thread. It's rather interesting don't you think?
posted by revbrian at 9:16 AM on September 14, 2001

[Any more civics lessons for us, Brian?]

It wasn't a civics lesson. I was pointing out the error in the previous comment.
posted by revbrian at 9:19 AM on September 14, 2001

No, you were pointing out the error in your own defense.
posted by NortonDC at 9:21 AM on September 14, 2001

While I don't approve of how the President has performed up to this attack, I feel a few distinctions need to be made:

1) The Secret Service WILL NOT listen to the President when there is a threat or even possible threat against his life. They will take him where ever they feel he will be safest whether he wants to go or not. It isn't up to him.

2) President Bush is in no way even close to being the charismatic speaker that President Clinton was. Clinton was Dynamic, he connected with people when he spoke. Clinton wore his heart on his sleeve.

Bush is a very reserved individual, and so he has trouble showing his emotions publically.

To compare the 2 is like comparing apples and oranges. But I agree, he could show more emotion and caring in his speeches related to this attack.

3) Guilliani has 8 million (population of New York???) people to worry about. He only needs to focus in on one area of New York to make things happen. In no way am I saying this is easy, but...

Bush has an entire nation to worry about incoporating 250+ million people. He has 50 states to protect, as well as 100's of countries that he has to deal with. His job includes myriads of tangents including the economy, the military response, agreements with countries if we perform that response, the safety of Americans overseas, etc...

In no way am I defending Bush. I feel his performance is lacking, but I must take these considerations into perspective when I get critical of our President.

Guilliani has been awesome. No doubt about it.
posted by da5id at 9:21 AM on September 14, 2001

[His job includes myriads of tangents including the economy, the military response, agreements with countries if we perform that response, the safety of Americans overseas, etc... ]

An interesting point I hadn't really thought of. The task before Bush is one that has to inspire a mixture of awe and dread. Whatever he decides will alter the future of the US and indeed the World.

There doesn't seem to be any "correct" action, any easy answer. I wish someone would start a thread on what we should do rather than bitch about what we are/aren't doing.
posted by revbrian at 9:27 AM on September 14, 2001

It's absolutely necessary that the president is protected in a crisis, and I believe that Bush's movements on Tuesday were part of a standard plan to protect him. All they have to do is say that instead of making up a story about Air Force One being a target.

If Air Force One was a target, why didn't any of the planes head for Florida? Air Force One was in Florida on Tuesday morning. And the terrorists' MO was to hijack plans and crash them into buildings, not fly around looking to--what, ram Air Force One in the air? It doesn't fit.

As far as the president's performance goes, it's a reality of American politics that, increasingly since the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate, the president has to be a dynamic public presence. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but that's the way it is. The president is also called the leader of the free world...I don't think it's unreasonable to expect him to show some leadership. Or for the commander-in-chief to demonstrate a command of the situation.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:37 AM on September 14, 2001

BTW, you can contact Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and tell them they're idiots if you like...
posted by revbrian at 9:57 AM on September 14, 2001

In an attempt to be a little more on-topic:

Personally, I am glad the President was kept safe while all this was going on. Anyone who thinks he's a coward for doing so has no concept of how to run a country.

But to outright lie to the American people, by suggesting that the White House was the target, not the Pentagon, in a purely political effort to protect Bush's ass, is unacceptable. Fleisher's concern was protecting the President's approval rating, not protecting the needs of the country.
posted by jpoulos at 10:14 AM on September 14, 2001

Ooh, testy testy! And soooooo substantive!

Well, after half a dozen snarky comments about a lack of "bipartisanship", it gets tiresome. And since you don't care to define what that means, nor have you contributed beyond scouring the headlines for nose-tweaking poll data, I really don't care what you think. But if bipartisanship involves embracing the lumpen opinions of those who want to rain down fire on whoever their gut tells them is Bad and Evil, count me among the partisans. There are a handful of pieces to which I could link, making pretty cogent criticisms of the way Bush has handed of the past few days, but as daver said, that can be left to historians, not journalists.
posted by holgate at 10:16 AM on September 14, 2001

There are some things the President's office should be doing better, it's clear.

First off, they should take the lead in breaking more information and news. They simply MUST rein in officials in far-flung parts of this affair and lay down the law - information is to flow through the President first. No random interviews with the media, no half-information and speculation should go out via some regional middle manager.

Biden referred to this problem last night in his interview with Jennings, even going so far as to say that some military officials had let classified material out far too casually (which is a criminal matter, as Biden added).

The other side of that is that they should set up a regular press conference, every hour on the hour (or so) until some undefined time in the future to channel this stuff out in a coordinated fashion.

I'm not suggesting they should spin or cleanse the information at all. But if the President is to be seen to not only be caring but leading, he has to be in the lead, both in decisionmaking and in information dissemination.

And every time the President speaks, he should be able to say something no one else has heard before, if possible. It might just be something small and relatively inconsequential, but to date he has not done so. And so he has come across often as a guy who spouts platitudes and tells us things we already know. Hardly the profile of a leader.

These aren't criticisms of Bush, per se. It's his staff's job to set this stuff up.
posted by mikel at 10:25 AM on September 14, 2001

"Within that same hour on Tuesday, the Secret Service received an anonymous call: ``Air Force One is next.'' According to a senior government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, the caller knew the agency's code words relating to Air Force One procedures and whereabouts. " (Yahoo news)

I certainly hope they made this up. The alternative would be much worse
posted by euphorb at 10:26 AM on September 14, 2001

I agree with kirkaracha. I don't care where dubya went or why. I don't interpret that as cowardice. It's clear that those first hours were full of chaos.

I have a problem with the insincerity of citing a threat to AF1 instead of just saying "America was under attack. We had to make some sense of the situation. The Secret Service took over and kept me safe. Intelligence kept me up to date on the current situation. My team and I started to plan America's response to this unthinkable tragedy. I'm back. We're working on it. We'll come through this."

dubya doesn't have to be a charismatic leader like Clinton. He could never do that. What he needs is to show something, anything, that indicates he's not just reading a teleprompter. Some genuine - not staged like yesterday - off-the-cuff comments might be nice. Something that shows vulnerability and leadership worthy of the office. Any leader who had a command of the situation (example: Tony Blair yesterday) could do that. Instead, dubya is flat and uninspiring and it makes it seem like he is just riding on the coattails of America's anger, shock and mourning.
posted by neuroshred at 10:31 AM on September 14, 2001

The history of this admonistration is full of lies to the American people, it started on election day. What makes anyone think that the terrorism and tradegy of Tuesday would stop them?
posted by DragonBoy at 10:59 AM on September 14, 2001

The reality is, nobody outside of a hand full of people really know whether there was a threat to AF1 or the White house or not. I saw on one of the networks, might have been CNN but I can't find it on the web, a graphic of the path of AF1 which starts towards Washington and turns west sharply soon after the Pentagon was hit. Admittedly, the story seems thin but then again if you told me last week that jets were going to hit the WTC Towers I would have thought you were full of it.

Furthermore, Dubya has never been what you would call a master orator. If you're not a great speaker and you are presented with an unprecedented situation that you must speak about, chances are you get worse. Personally I'd prefer a president who does HIS ACTUAL JOB to one who helps us feel better.
posted by srw12 at 12:11 PM on September 14, 2001

revbrian says: DO NOT DOUBT BIG BROTHER. BIG BROTHER LOVES YOU. BIG BROTHER ABHORS DISSENT AND INDIVIDUAL THOUGHT. BIG BROTHER ++ GOOD.
posted by raaka at 1:06 PM on September 14, 2001

[revbrian says: DO NOT DOUBT BIG BROTHER. BIG BROTHER LOVES YOU. BIG BROTHER ABHORS DISSENT AND INDIVIDUAL THOUGHT. BIG BROTHER ++ GOOD.]

I never said anything like that. You really are quite the moron aren't you?
posted by revbrian at 3:28 PM on September 14, 2001

When I grow up, can I be cool enough to construct a thread to facilitate harassment and call participants in that thread morons?
posted by NortonDC at 3:54 PM on September 14, 2001

If you can't call someone who intentionally misquotes you a "moron," who can you call a moron?
posted by kindall at 3:56 PM on September 14, 2001

In a public forum, no one.
posted by NortonDC at 4:30 PM on September 14, 2001

How about morons? Can you call people morons if the word is used clinically?
posted by kindall at 4:43 PM on September 14, 2001

You can't use it clinically. It's been stricken from clinical discourse since the 1950's.
posted by NortonDC at 4:49 PM on September 14, 2001

Oh. Damn. It's such a useful word for people who are being willfully obtuse. Oops -- is "obtuse" okay?
posted by kindall at 5:01 PM on September 14, 2001

How about sticking to criticizing what's written instead of the writer?

At least as a goal.
posted by NortonDC at 5:09 PM on September 14, 2001

I think revbrian is totally in the right on this. Meehan, a representative of the people, must know what the people he is representing are thinking. That's his job, to take flak/compliments/'dissenting opinions.'

If he had said 'call these people and give them hell,' he would have been in the wrong. But he didn't try to push his opinion, and he was unjustly censured for making public information (much) more accessible.
posted by catatonic at 6:03 PM on September 14, 2001

Meehan represents the people of one city in Massachusetts. Did revbrian post this so the people Meehan represented could contact him? Did revbrian even reveal what people he represented? Or did he just throw it out there to an emotionally raw and restive global audience?
posted by NortonDC at 6:21 PM on September 14, 2001

How about sticking to criticizing what's written instead of the writer?

I second the motion. All in favor?
posted by rushmc at 7:13 PM on September 14, 2001

Did revbrian post this so the people Meehan represented could contact him? Did revbrian even reveal what people he represented? Or did he just throw it out there to an emotionally raw and restive global audience?


revbrian posted a link and the phone number belonging to the subject of the article. His intentions were NOT clearly stated and are irrelevant because he clearly wasn't being dogmatic.
posted by catatonic at 7:58 PM on September 14, 2001

Between the link description and his first comment in the discussion, there is a clear intention present in his writing.

``I don't buy the notion Air Force One was a target,'' said Meehan. ``That's just PR. That's just spin.''

then

[Can't a few people have dissenting opinions? ]

Yes, and they can voice those very opinions at aforementioned number.

Present a set of opinions, then invite those opposed to use the number he provided, with no stated concern as to whether or not those he is inciting to call are the people Meehan represents. This is an attempt to bring down the wrath of the world at large upon a man who is accountable to a very limited and specific set of people, by a man who has cited and then ignored the principles of representative democracy. This is an incitement to harassment.
posted by NortonDC at 9:34 PM on September 14, 2001

His intentions were NOT clearly stated and are irrelevant because he clearly wasn't being dogmatic.

If taken in the abstract this is true. On the other hand, the US was just attacked on Tuesday. There has been quite a bit of discussion about it.

I weighed my words before typing them in. revbrian said in the topic post and third post at the top of this thread that people are “raising doubts” on the leadership of the president and they “can voice those very [dissenting] opinions” by contacting the people who made them.

That, to me, is advocating strict regimentation of opinion; a.ka. fascism. Those who fall out of certain conception of the world should be “reminded” of it by phone and email.

Perhaps revbrian doesn’t like where his ideas will take him, hence the name-calling. Truth hurts, I suppose.
posted by raaka at 11:23 PM on September 14, 2001

If he had said 'call these people and give them hell,' he would have been in the wrong.

Every time Matt Drudge puts a phone number on the front page of his site, he knows it will prompt dozens of his more unhinged visitors to call the number and harrass somebody.

As I said earlier, I've seen this firsthand after Rush Limbaugh did it to a writer on a paper I worked for. You should have heard some of the death threats she got.

When you reveal a number in this context, the implication is clear -- call the fucker. In this case, perhaps it isn't as big of a deal because Congress members are used to getting calls from whackjobs. However, I think the impulse to post a phone number to encourage harrassment is loathsome.
posted by rcade at 3:16 AM on September 15, 2001

I respect your opinions rcade and raaka. Let's agree to disagree on this.
posted by catatonic at 7:50 AM on September 15, 2001

people are “raising doubts” on the leadership of the president and they “can voice those very [dissenting] opinions” by contacting the people who made them.

That, to me, is advocating strict regimentation of opinion; a.ka. fascism. Those who fall out of certain conception of the world should be “reminded” of it by phone and email.

A representative is elected to promote the will of his constituency, so how else can he know what his constituency wants if there is no discourse? Many times it is more important for someone in Meehan's position to know when to not say anything rather than to say the right thing.

IMHO, Meehan's statements were blatent opportunism. What exactly was he trying to accomplish? He's certainly allowed to have his opinion, as we all are, but also IMHO he abused his postion in order to advance that opinion.

Perhaps revbrian doesn’t like where his ideas will take him, hence the name-calling. Truth hurts, I suppose.

A democracy where the officials are accountable for their words and beholden to the people for their actions? Yeah, I think he feels that would suck a lot...
posted by RevGreg at 3:49 PM on September 15, 2001

Accountable to the people in his district. That district is Lowell, Mass. Did RevBrian suggest Meehan's constituents should contact him? No, he facilitated harassment by a global audience.

Ugly, shockingly ugly.
posted by NortonDC at 4:00 PM on September 15, 2001

Congressman Meehan required armed guards today to protect him from his own consitutents. The kind "get him" mentality encouraged at the top of this thread is the reason why.
posted by jpoulos at 5:31 PM on September 15, 2001

not to mention posting a link to a herald article is just plain silly. anyone that lives in the boston area knows the herald is at best slightly more reputable then a supermarket tabloid, and at worst a big ol' advertisement for the RNC.
posted by saralovering at 7:05 PM on September 15, 2001

greg, telling a politician, let alone anyone, what to think and what to say in public is entirely different than asking them to vote in a certain way. If that’s your understanding of democracy, you’d love fascism.
posted by raaka at 1:10 AM on September 16, 2001

So I wonder how the good Rev feels now that it looks like Meehan was right?
posted by terrapin at 11:58 AM on September 27, 2001