Which, I suppose, explains the loyalty oath required during the 2004 campaign...
Actually, not only does it NOT explain it, there is no connection whatsoever.
And who can forget the protest zones?
Again, no connection, whatsoever.
No candidate WANTS his campaign disrupted by the other side -- Democrat OR Republican.
But Bush has frequently been grilled by the media about any number of subjects, in which he has clearly stated that he respects the rights of those who express different opinions -- and he has been far more tolerant of it than the previous administration.
Cheney, who has arguably been the most brutally, ruthlessly, relentlessly attacked politician in history, totally destroyed by the Left for no reason, whatsoever -- except for having served his country faithfully -- has simply stood there and taken it, without so much as a harsh word for these creeps who have attacked him.
To suggest, as you have, some stifling of free speech is totally inconsistent with the facts. |
