Also – I don't agree that Rove was happy to see this happen.  I honestly don't think Rove is used to that kind of reception most places.  I think it bruised his ego a little bit knowing he was that disliked and unwelcome. 

And, of course, we stayed pretty calm compared to the 80 American University students who surrounded Rove's car and pelted it with tomatoes and eggs last year on the East Coast.  LMAO

how much more effective would have been a dignified, perhaps even silent, protest?

Where?

And I heard private funds replaced the UI Lecture Comm money,

what does that mean? All of it?

So private donors came up w/ $40K? Or what?

While I agree with Goodner that protests were necessary, at the same time, Rove did become a villain of the pro-wrestling variety.

He seemed to feed on the screams of the anti-war faction.

Does that mean the peace-lovers should stay home?

No, and I'm not even sure their on-site tactics should change; turn it into a “circus,” okay, mission accomplished.

The person who was short-changed the most was questioner Frank Durham. Durham had a tough task but he asked some tough questions too.

But if he had a little more room to work maybe he could have put Rove on the ropes. Shouting “Liar” over and over didn't seem to help his game.

“Events like this always set off the same polarizing question: Is it right to disrupt the event? Should we let Rove's words speak for themselves, or should we yell and scream at him, releasing over seven years of pent-up fury?

Iowa City chose the latter.

Were we right in doing so? I'd argue yes.”

not really sure who the author is, but check out the link to read his whole argument.  its pretty good.

instead the anti-war movement laid out very credible facts about Rove's ties to the invasion of Iraq, to say nothing of his absolutely wretched and criminal career as a political hit-man for hire, and the media again wastes its ink on the confrontation between protesters and Rove, instead of sticking to the real issues like who this man actually is.

Rove was going to fill that room and take his money no matter what we did.  But we mobilized our base, turned out alot of people who are not organizers to the protest, and our meeting afterwards was full of new recruits who have already begun organizing and helping out with our next projects.  we also handed out 1,000 pamphlets about the war in iraq and our upcoming peace week events.

so…you missed completely what we were trying to accomplish.  We wanted to turn the whole thing into a circus.  we wanted to mobilize our constituency and recruit new members.  we wanted people to discuss issues related to war and peace in more depth than they would have if we had all stayed home. 

and we accomplished all of those things.

next time we'll just kidnap the sob and hold him for ransom until Bush agrees to withdraw from Iraq. 

btw, your attempt at humor didn't work very well.  your “commentary” is just marginalizing the real issues.  You would also do well to read the hundreds of comments and hundreds of blogs on the protest and heckling, people all around the country were fired up by what we did.

your take is actually one-side of a pretty common debate.  Fred Phelps shows up in town, some people think its best to ignore him, some people want to confront him.  When the KKK comes to town, some people want to ignore them, some people want to confront them.  the problem is usually both sides get self-righteous about it and act like they know whats best.  what would be best of all is to let the people who want to do one thing do that and people who want to do the other thing do that.  its called a diversity of tactics. 

instead the anti-war movement laid out very credible facts about Rove’s ties to the invasion of Iraq, to say nothing of his absolutely wretched and criminal career as a political hit-man for hire, and the media again wastes its ink on the confrontation between protesters and Rove, instead of sticking to the real issues like who this man actually is.

Rove was going to fill that room and take his money no matter what we did.  But we mobilized our base, turned out alot of people who are not organizers to the protest, and our meeting afterwards was full of new recruits who have already begun organizing and helping out with our next projects.  we also handed out 1,000 pamphlets about the war in iraq and our upcoming peace week events.

so…you missed completely what we were trying to accomplish.  We wanted to turn the whole thing into a circus.  we wanted to mobilize our constituency and recruit new members.  we wanted people to discuss issues related to war and peace in more depth than they would have if we had all stayed home. 

and we accomplished all of those things.

next time we’ll just kidnap the sob and hold him for ransom until Bush agrees to withdraw from Iraq. 

btw, your attempt at humor didn’t work very well.  your “commentary” is just marginalizing the real issues.  You would also do well to read the hundreds of comments and hundreds of blogs on the protest and heckling, people all around the country were fired up by what we did.

your take is actually one-side of a pretty common debate.  Fred Phelps shows up in town, some people think its best to ignore him, some people want to confront him.  When the KKK comes to town, some people want to ignore them, some people want to confront them.  the problem is usually both sides get self-righteous about it and act like they know whats best.  what would be best of all is to let the people who want to do one thing do that and people who want to do the other thing do that.  its called a diversity of tactics. 

“Events like this always set off the same polarizing question: Is it right to disrupt the event? Should we let Rove’s words speak for themselves, or should we yell and scream at him, releasing over seven years of pent-up fury?

Iowa City chose the latter.

Were we right in doing so? I’d argue yes.”

not really sure who the author is, but check out the link to read his whole argument.  its pretty good.

While I agree with Goodner that protests were necessary, at the same time, Rove did become a villain of the pro-wrestling variety.

He seemed to feed on the screams of the anti-war faction.

Does that mean the peace-lovers should stay home?

No, and I’m not even sure their on-site tactics should change; turn it into a “circus,” okay, mission accomplished.

The person who was short-changed the most was questioner Frank Durham. Durham had a tough task but he asked some tough questions too.

But if he had a little more room to work maybe he could have put Rove on the ropes. Shouting “Liar” over and over didn’t seem to help his game.

And I heard private funds replaced the UI Lecture Comm money,
what does that mean? All of it?

So private donors came up w/ $40K? Or what?