Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Not the Secret Service, as the guard who removed the woman from a Denver city building before a McCain meeting. The Denver Post reports:
It was Sen. John McCain's staff who asked security at the Denver Center for the Performing Arts to remove people holding protest signs at the venue -- not U.S. Secret Service agents, who were not involved in Carol Kreck's ouster from the galleria.A video of the incident circulating widely on the Internet shows a DCPA security guard saying that he was told by the Secret Service to remove Kreck, who was holding a paper sign that said "McCain = Bush."
Turns out that wasn't true at all:
But Thursday, after two days of being vilified by bloggers, letter writers and others, the Secret Service emphatically denied involvement."Contrary to some recent reporting, the Secret Service had no involvement in Ms. Kreck being removed from the area," said Malcolm D. Wiley Sr., spokesman for the Secret Service. "It was not done at our request or suggestion. Any assertion to the contrary is inaccurate and inconsistent with our established policies and procedures."
That prompted the DCPA to re-examine the reasons its guard sought to have Kreck removed.
"A representative of Senator John McCain's staff respectfully asked that the venue for its July 7 Town Hall Meeting, The Denver Center for the Performing Arts, not allow persons to display signage within the Arts Complex," DCPA officials said in a statement.
DCPA spokeswoman Suzanne Blandon said the guard who told Kreck to leave was "simply mistaken" in identifying the Secret Service as the agency that wanted her to leave. Blandon said the guard did not intend to use the Secret Service as leverage and did not mean to mislead anyone.
And the sign she held up becomes more true by the moment.
Politics
Comments
But...but...
I thought the republicans who voted for Bush would LOVE McCain...After all, he's willing to keep fighting in Iraq - 100 years if need be (of course he won't be around for most of it, but that's irrelevant).
I would think that republicans would be thrilled to have such a ready successor ready and able to take the reins from their Blessed St. George...
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | July 14, 2008 10:06 AM
See who the first wife of John McCain is working for now and who she contributed to
http://webofdeception.com/#carolsheppmccain
Posted by: Robert Lewis | July 14, 2008 10:38 AM
The McCain campaign had rented the facility and had every right to ask anyone they didn't want to be there to leave. The guard didn't have to give the woman any reason. The fact that he claimed it was at the request of the secret service is really meaningless.
What is the story here, that the secret service had been maligned? ... that protesters should be tolerated at private events? ...that McCain is a meanie?
Posted by: Lance | July 14, 2008 10:58 AM
Lance: IIRC, the videos I saw showed her being confronted, and ejected, from an outside place IN FRONT OF the venue -- which may technically be private property, but it's still a PUBLIC place where people pass through on their way to other destinations.
Besides, don't you think it's just a little sleazy when "war hero" McCain has CITIZENS booted from an event that calls itself a "town hall meeting?"
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 14, 2008 11:29 AM
can we hope for impersonating a Treasury agent or something? no? any yahoo can claim to be acting on behalf of the sekrit service?
Posted by: DrugMonkey | July 14, 2008 12:26 PM
I disagree with Lance. The fact that they rented the facilities does not negate the traditional public forum that certainly exists on public property during an overtly political event. If protesting at a campaign stop on public property is not considered a traditional open forum, I can't imagine what would be. They certainly can prevent her from disrupting the event, but she was standing outside the event with a sign. On top of that, the event was billed as open to the public. Could they have banned someone for wearing an Obama shirt as well? By Lance's reasoning, they would; the constitution clearly forbids it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 14, 2008 12:32 PM
The information in the article Ed has linked to says,
A previous federal appeals court decision determined that the galleria area where Kreck was standing is not necessarily a public spot and that protests can be curtailed there.
If she was in a public place I obviously agree that she has a right to carry any sign she likes, but the article makes reference to a federal appeals court decision so I assume the area wasn't public.
Now I didn't say I thought it was a good idea, from a public relations standpoint or otherwise, to escort her out of a "town hall meeting" to which the public was invited, just that they had the right to ask her to leave.
I was once sitting in my seat after an NBA game when the announcer brought the crowd's attention to the "Athletes in Action" prayer meeting being conducted on the game floor. I happened to be wearing a t-shirt that said No God No Problem.
As they started preaching from a microphone on the floor a few Christians shouted back Halleluiah. I just shouted out "God doesn't exist".
After a few minutes a security guard asked me to leave. I told him I had paid for my ticket the same as the shouting Christians and they weren't being asked to leave.
He wasn't moved by the logic of my remarks and escorted me out. I left and realized they had the right to ask me to leave. I also had the right to send a letter to the Indiana Pacers business office telling them I didn't appreciate being subjected to a prayer meeting and that I wasn't going to another Pacer's game if the practice continued.
They didn't respond to my letter. I wrote a letter to the editors of the Indianapolis Star which of course was not published.
Posted by: Lance | July 14, 2008 1:22 PM
Let's not forget that the McCain McCampaign were willing to let the secret service take the fall. The secret service had to issue a clarification (and didn't out the McCampaign), and the Denver Center for Performing Arts had to do an internal investigation. At no time did McCampaign take the blame for their decision. THIS is McSame.
Posted by: B8ovin | July 14, 2008 3:20 PM
That doesn't come anywhere near the "fire in a crowded theater" test. I'd say what happened at that Pacers' game was actionable.
Posted by: Julian | July 14, 2008 4:06 PM
"The McCain campaign had rented the facility and had every right to ask anyone they didn't want to be there to leave."
Well sure, then let's not call it a 'town hall meeting' or whatever it was. Just call it a 'sycophants for McSame' event.
Soon, we can expect that the McSame campaign will be keeping non-republicans back 1000 yards or more from events at which McSame is appearing ... You know, for safety....
Posted by: slpage | July 14, 2008 4:08 PM
I wonder what argument a federal appeals court could have recourse to in declaring the a section of the Denver Center for the Performing Arts (which I assume was paid for by the taxpayers of Denver, though I could be wrong on that count) "is not necessarily" a public area.
Posted by: Julian | July 14, 2008 4:11 PM
Lance wrote:
Not a compelling argument. We have no idea what ruling the article refers to, so we have no way of knowing if the facts fit this situation or not. Was the event in that case an explicitly political event, where the scrutiny would be far higher than if it was, say, a rock concert? What was the nature of the protest and what forms of curtailment did the court allow? My argument is that holding a sign on public property outside a political campaign event that was explicitly billed as open to the public is clearly a traditional open forum; I don't view it as even remotely controversial. Reference to an unspecified court ruling with an unspecified set of circumstances hardly defeats my argument.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 14, 2008 4:26 PM
I wasn't trying to "defeat your argument". I was just tailoring my posts to the information at hand.
As I said I would defend her right to protest in public. The question was did the sponsors of the event have the right to remove someone with a protest sign.
If she was in an area that was not public she did not have that right, just as I didn't have the right to protest the "Athletes in Action" prayer meeting held after the basketball game even though it was being held in a publicly owned building and I was there for a legitimate purpose. The building was being leased during that time by the sports franchise that had invited the Christian group.
Had I wanted to hold up a sign and shout "There is no God" outside of Market Square Arena I would have had the right to do so., that being a truly public space.
If she was in a truly public space then we are in agreement. Do you have reason to believe this was the case?
Posted by: Lance | July 14, 2008 4:54 PM
Can she sue????
Posted by: RAM | July 14, 2008 6:30 PM
Denver resident here, hoping to clarify a couple things. The DCPA (which is funded in part by taxpayer dollars) consists of several different theaters. In the center is an enclosed courtyard/galleria area, which is open-air but covered by a glass/plastic ceiling. It looks like that's where the lady was standing. So it's not exactly like standing on the sidewalk outside, and I can see where in some circumstances that might constitute non-public space.
I think a crucial question is whether McCampaign rented the entire DCPA, or just the one theater he spoke in. If they *did* rent the whole complex, that would presumably include the galleria area, which might mean it was not open to the general public.
That said, I don't know if that's the case and frankly I kinda doubt it. Why pay for the whole complex if you're only going to use the one theater? And I assume she hadn't gone through any security screening, as she was able to get the sign in. So based on what we know now, I'm gonna agree it sounds like public space. I expect we'll be hearing more...
Posted by: WScott | July 14, 2008 9:03 PM
Forgot to add: having worked with the Secret Service, it's a fairly big deal that they would so publicly distance themselves from this. Generally they avoid making statements about such matters. Which makes me even more likely to believe the lady was not inside any kind of security perimeter, and that she was ejected on the whim of an overzealous staffer with a poor understanding of the law.
Posted by: WScott | July 14, 2008 9:07 PM
Though even if they had rented the entire complex, wasn't this being promoted as an town hall meeting open to the public? There might be some technical details that make that not quite accurate, but it seems that lends more support to the idea that this would be a public forum that should be minimally restricted. I guess someone could argue that the McCain campaign could kick people out if they wanted to, just they weren't choosing to restrict most people's access to the event. Still doesn't look good for McCain that way.
Posted by: mcmillan | July 14, 2008 9:13 PM
I still don't see what the beef was about her sign.
Her sign clearly did NOT say that McCain is evil, that McCain will destroy the country, that McCain will ruin the national economy, or bring about the destruction of Western Civilization(TM).
All she said is that McCain is equal to GWB, which could have been seen as an endorsement by the McCain supporters, since his policies ARE essentially the same as GWB's.
Maybe somebody can enlighten me as to why equating McCain with Bush is grounds for evicting someone from and event to which the public had been invited?
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | July 14, 2008 10:17 PM
Court case in question re Denver Center for Performing Arts - one reason for the court's decision was because the DCPA usually books only theatrical events, not political events. Once a political event is booked, this decision may or may not apply. This is still a black eye for McCain campaign - how much like Bush is he if he has to screen people who come to his townhalls? Especially after the much ballyhooed townhall on Fox, where he had to admit he restricted tickets to supporters?
Posted by: BC | July 15, 2008 1:11 PM
If the 'rules' posted by the McCain venure were "No signs", and that rule was being enforced no matter what the sign said, then I would suppose that it was OK for them to ask her to leave. I seem to recall when I saw the video that the officer told her she must either throw away the sign or leave.
So, does anyone know if other signs were being let in?
Posted by: Giles | July 15, 2008 4:59 PM