As Team USA strolled up to the stage to pause for a group photo; championship medals hanging proudly around their necks; many say the team crossed the line. You see, one of the members of the team had scribbled “We Didn’t Vote For Bush” on the back of a menu and they held it up in front of them, smiling from ear to ear, as the cameras snapped the group photo, sending shockwaves through the bridge community of the world. That’s right, I said “BRIDGE”. As in bridge — the card game. I had no idea BRIDGE was an olympic sport, did you?
From The New York Times:
Anti-Bush Sign Has Bridge World in an Uproar
By STEPHANIE STROM
In the genteel world of bridge, disputes are usually handled quietly and rarely involve issues of national policy. But in a fight reminiscent of the brouhaha over an anti-Bush statement by Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks in 2003, a team of women who represented the United States at the world bridge championships in Shanghai last month is facing sanctions, including a yearlong ban from competition, for a spur-of-the-moment protest.
At issue is a crudely lettered sign, scribbled on the back of a menu, that was held up at an awards dinner and read, “We did not vote for Bush.”
By e-mail, angry bridge players have accused the women of “treason” and “sedition.”
“This isn’t a free-speech issue,” said Jan Martel, president of the United States Bridge Federation, the nonprofit group that selects teams for international tournaments. “There isn’t any question that private organizations can control the speech of people who represent them.”
Not so, said Danny Kleinman, a professional bridge player, teacher and columnist. “If the U.S.B.F. wants to impose conditions of membership that involve curtailment of free speech, then it cannot claim to represent our country in international competition,” he said by e-mail.
Ms. Martel said the action by the team, which had won the Venice Cup, the women’s title, at the Shanghai event, could cost the federation corporate sponsors.
The players have been stunned by the reaction to what they saw as a spontaneous gesture, “a moment of levity,” said Gail Greenberg, the team’s nonplaying captain and winner of 11 world championships.
“What we were trying to say, not to Americans but to our friends from other countries, was that we understand that they are questioning and critical of what our country is doing these days, and we want you to know that we, too, are critical,” …
(Snip!)
“… Ms. Greenberg said she decided to put up the sign in response to questions from players from other countries about American interrogation techniques, the war in Iraq and other foreign policy issues.
“There was a lot of anti-Bush feeling, questioning of our Iraq policy and about torture,” Ms. Greenberg said. “I can’t tell you it was an overwhelming amount, but there were several specific comments, and there wasn’t the same warmth you usually feel at these events.” …
(Snip!)
“… “Freedom to express dissent against our leaders has traditionally been a core American value,” she wrote by e-mail. “Unfortunately, the Bush brand of patriotism, where criticizing Bush means you are a traitor, seems to have penetrated a significant minority of U.S. bridge players.” …
(Snip!)
“… David L. Anderson, a bridge player who supports the team, said it was common to see players at international tournaments sporting buttons bearing the date “1-20-09,” when George W. Bush will hand off to a new president, as well as buttons reading “Support Our Troops.” …
Well, I think I know the solution: toss these “traitorous” women into Guantanamo Bay, or any other gulag will do; then waterboard them until they give in and explain themselves…
See the problem here? Now, not only does the world realize there is a “National Bridge Team”, the world is watching to see what will happen to these ladies now that they have demonstrated their belief in the Freedom of Speech to the globe, in lights. Throw the book TOO hard at any single one of them and the country that allowed Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to blab his mouth against gays at Columbia University during the United Nations conference will demonstrate its hypocrisy once again on the world stage. Perhaps, not such a “good idea” at a time when the United States could most CERTAINLY use some “positive press” for the first time in a very long time. In fact, President Bush’s little “House of Cards” could even come a-tumb-tumb-tumbling down…
***
Thanks to our good friend from the “Far Right”, Jon Swift, for linking in with Bridge Too Far…
Our thanks also go to TailRank for linking in…
Other bloggers weigh in on the controversy, courtesy of MemeOrandum: Jon Swift; The American Street; Outside The Beltway; The Newshoggers; Michelle Malkin (OUTRAGED!); Hot Air (Not exactly OUTRAGED but definitely not impressed with Team USA’s Bridge Team — agree with him on FNC’s Megan Kelly though)
Loading ...
1:10 pm on November 14th, 2007 1
Obviously you remember in ‘68 when the track guys gave their salute? Who knew bridge would be as important? Freedom of speech. As long as you say what I want to hear. That’s conservative thinking. Unfortunately.
1:55 pm on November 14th, 2007 2
and anything else is traitorous or whining.
2:21 pm on November 14th, 2007 3
[...] The Beltway, Jon Swift, Taylor Marsh, AMERICAblog, The Sundries Shack, Hot Air, TPMCafe blogs, The Gun Toting Liberal™, Truthdig, Weasel Zippers, Macsmind, The Garlic, Political Machine, Gateway Pundit, Neptunus Lex, [...]
3:02 pm on November 14th, 2007 4
A “crudely lettered sign…’We did not vote for Bush’.” is fine, they are exercising their right to free speech.
“By e-mail, angry bridge players have accused the women of “treason” and “sedition.” also is fine, they also have a right of freedom of speech.
“There isn’t any question that private organizations can control the speech of people who represent them.” – This is absolutely true.
“the action by the team…
“Not so, said Danny Kleinman…If the U.S.B.F. wants to impose conditions of membership that involve curtailment of free speech, then it cannot claim to represent our country in international competition” – Also, absolutely a true statement.
“The action by the team…could cost the federation corporate sponsors.” – Maybe, but the corporate sponsors are just exercising their right of free specch.
“Unfortunately, the Bush brand of patriotism, where criticizing Bush means you are a traitor, seems to have penetrated a significant minority of U.S. bridge players.” – Unfortunately for Ms. Greenberg, people who express those sentiments are also exercising their right to freedom of speech.
This is a non-issue, both sides said their peace.
Freedom of speech is a two way street. The bridge players are free to say whatever they want, and the rest of America is free to say whatever they want about their comments.
The problem with too many liberals is that they think they should be able to say whatever they want, but no one has the right to disagree with them.
I really don’t think anyone has to worry about whether they will be water-boarded for their comments. In fact, if they are water-boarded, I’ll register as a democrat and vote for the anti-christ Obama.
4:14 pm on November 14th, 2007 5
i disagree F&B, even i have’nt ever maintained you didn’t have the right to disagree with me; but i’m not so sure i’m a liberal these days; the new world odor’s starting to win me over, in fact.
5:05 pm on November 14th, 2007 6
Ah yes, freedom of speech. While most people are free to exercise it, most “conservatives” want to restrict it to something that fits within limited parameters. It isn’t that no one has the right to disagree with me, no one has the right to tell me that because they disagree with me that I’m a traitor (prove it or you should be liable for libel) and that my freedom of speech should be restricted.
It’s interesting that conservatism is no longer about protecting the Constitution, it’s about limiting it for those who disagree with the party line.
6:13 pm on November 14th, 2007 7
“While most people are free to exercise it, most “conservatives” want to restrict it to something that fits within limited parameters.” — This is absolutely NOT TRUE. I’m sure there are a few on both sides of the aisle that would try to limit free speech, but to say that ‘most’ of either party would do so is totally wrong.
“no one has the right to tell me that because they disagree with me that I’m a traitor (prove it or you should be liable for libel)” Actually, they do have that right. If you say you’re against the war in Iraq and because of that, someone calls you a traitor, there is no libel (or slander). You have both simply expressed your opinions. If, on the other hand, you say you’re against the war in Iraq, and that other person claims (publicly and knowingly incorrectly) that you sold Nuclear secrets to Iran, then you might have a case for libel (or slander, depending if it is written or spoken).
The ‘bridge players’ moved themselves into the ‘celebrity’ category where they are more open to such comments. It is similar to the situation where liberals call President Bush a traitor. There is nothing he can do about it, he is a public figure, a ‘celebrity’. People in this category have to accept that people will have varying opinions about them and what they say and do.
“It’s interesting that conservatism is no longer about protecting the Constitution, it’s about limiting it for those who disagree with the party line.” — Again, simply and absolutely NOT TRUE. Conservatives don’t discourage disagreement with the “party line” any more than liberals do.
If I had my choice; disagree with Bush and get water-boarded, disagree with Clinton and your plane disappears in the mountains on your way back from Serbia; hmmmm… I think I’ll take waterboarding.
11:40 pm on November 14th, 2007 8
If calling me a traitor causes me to lose employment (it has happened, but not to me) and it isn’t true, that is libel and I have suffered damages because someone expressed an opinion Calling me a traitor without proof is libel. If you write it, it’s slander. Especially if you repeat it.
Ann Coulter can get away with calling for Supreme Court Justices to be hung, but only because everyone sits on their ass and pretends that it’s free speech. It isn’t. If more people had stood up after 9/11 instead of rolling over, we wouldn’t be debating this.