It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Republicans opting out of RNC

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 09:54 AM
It is not unusual for high ranking politicos to only attend the convention on the day that they are speaking or not at all. In fact, it has become somewhat of a tradition for the nominee to attend only on the evening of their nomination. Kerry was campaigning in other states until the afternoon of his nomination and then flew into Boston in time to make his acceptance speech. I think he hung around the next morning to meet with a few important delegates and do some campaigning, but then he was off again. Bill Clinton was at the DNC only on the night of his speech & then he returned to his book tour. Typically, the only politicians who are on hand for the whole convention are those who are very active in the party and serve as spokepeople to the media. Dole & McCain should be at the RNC throughout, as well as NY-based republicans, like Guiliani & Bloomberg.

Having the RNC in New York presents and odd problem for the Republicans as it is clear that they will receive a lukewarm reception. Most politicians like to use the convention for the potential photo-ops, but it wouldn't surprise me that there might be a few that will opt out of this one. Anti-Bush billboards have been going up all around town and there are numerous demonstrations that are planned. There is even a super-loud megaphone installed on the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn bridge that will allow anyone to voice their concerns about the country to the whole city. I saw a huge billboard on The Plaza Hotel yesterday that said "Bush", with an arrow pointing downtown towards the convention site, and then "Truth", with and arrow pointing in the opposite direction. Many businesses are closing, including those that you would think would benefit from a convention, such as restaurants, hair salons, clothing stores, etc. Many hotels remain underbooked, shows have sold few tickets, and restaurants' reservation books are empty because tourists have been scared away, most New Yorkers are leaving in droves, and conventioneers are not known to be big spenders. The mayor has been crowing about how this is going to be a financial boon for the city, and maybe that will be the case for the delis and hotels in the immediate vicinity of Madison Square Garden, but the rest of the city will be a ghost town.

In addition, Dennis Hastert added some fuel to the fire by putting out his book last week which included comments about New York using 9/11 as an excuse for being greedy with federal funds and taking swipes at both NY Senators in their attempts to get NY the proper rebuilding and homeland security funding after the attacks. This made the front page of both New York rags, The NY Post & The Daily News. The feeling in New York is that we aren't getting enough federal support for homeland security, especially as both the NYPD & FDNY have been downsized (and guess what?!, the FDNY is planning to go on strike in the middle of the convention because they have been operating without a contract for 2 years... more fun), so this just added more fuel to the fire.

The hope is that the demonstrations will be peaceful, but in light of the incendiary comments made by Hastert and because Mayor Bloomberg went against the wishes of the organizers of the largest demonstration and denied their request for a permit to hold the rally in Central Park (using the excuse that it would damage the grass and that it wouldn't hold 250,000 people, although concerts of this size have been held in the park before), the tone is already a little tense. Bloomberg instead granted the permit on the West Side Highway, which is not conducive to a rally, has no facilities, and will increase the costs to both the demonstrators and the NYPD substantially.

A peaceful demonstration would get the message across in the best light, but a violent riot would portray the demonstrators as raving lunatics, which is what some are saying is what many Republicans are hoping for. This might explain the reasoning behind Bloomberg telling 250,000 people to stand on a sweltering highway for hours with no bathrooms or stores nearby to buy water in the middle of August to protect some grass--that's going to piss quite a few people off. It has also been suspected that there will be agitators paid to infiltrate the crowd with the mission to provoke violence and arrests. The crazier these people seem, the less potent the message will come off. The NYPD are expecting about 1000 arrests per day.

I also have a friend on the RNC planning commitee and have learned that security at and around MSG isn't as tight as it should be. Although there will be many bodies in private security uniforms, the Republicans have subcontracted out security to the lowest bidder and these firms don't do any background checks. They are basically hiring people off the street--the same goes for the drivers of the buses and cars that they are using. Convention committees are notoriously cheap and although security should be paramount, they are approaching it with a beer and pretzels budget.

Although I love my city and hope that all of this is just hype, like many New Yorkers, I am leaving the city tonight and won't return until after Labor Day. Hopefully there will be a city to return to.

posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 10:12 AM
What? you don't think Bush&Co will stage another attack to win votes? Think about it, they kill off the people that support them they can say they had no part in the attacks and actually look credible. Not that they are, but they would look credible.

Awww, poor Reps, you guys going to the RNC convention? I wouldn't, unless I wanted to get caught up in the riot started by the FBI infiltrators or killed by the so called "terrorists".

posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 10:26 AM
I love the way Democrats are already getting thier talking points out there. let me get this right, if there is trouble with the protestors, its because of republican agatators in the crowd. WOW, I like that already have an excuse for the anarchist. Rant, I do read a lot, and like I said, I have nothing against Democrats as a whole, but I do know that the party that I use to claimed as my on went to the left. I don't think the Democratic party is as far left as the Greens are, but they are left. Liberal use to be such a nice word, I don't like the fact that Micheal Moore and his ilk have adulterated it. I don't like the fact that just becuse I am more right leaning than some, that I am accused of being a racist, homophobe, gun-toting right wing nut. okay, I do have guns, but I am not a racist or homophobe. not all republicans are, just like not all Democrats are left wing liberal tree huggin nuts. Kerry might not be as liberal as some republicans make him out, but I don't think you would ever accuse him of being moderate. I wish we could talk about Kerry's lack of involvement in congress but we can't because he (Kerry) choose to make Vietnam a center of his campaign. By the way, 4 1/2 months of service in Vietnam vs. 20 years in congress, why did he refuse to focus on his congressional record? just wondering.

[edit on 27/8/04 by jrsdls]

posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 10:48 AM

I wish we could talk about Kerry's lack of involvement in congress but we can't because he (Kerry) choose to make Vietnam a center of his campaign.By the way, 4 1/2 months of service in Vietnam vs. 20 years in congress, why did he refuse to focus on his congressional record? just wondering. [/quote[

Just wondering, how much time did Dubya spend in Congress?

Either before or after his 8+ years of binge-drinking and running companies into the ground financially, you pick.

So let's talk lack of involvement in Congress OR about something that happened in the late 60's, you can even choose which is more relevant in a future President.

posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 10:52 AM
Lest you forget, Bush just happened to be Governor of Texas.

Many of our modern-day presidents have been former governors, not senators.

posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 11:08 AM
I can name one, Ronald Reagan. I would rather be more aligned with Reagan than with the senate.

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in