COULD YOU BE ANY *LESS* SENSITIVE?
Linus of Pepper of the Earth doesn't blog politics often. When he does, I disagree with him. But I don't take it personally, since it's his site, and when he's NOT doing politics, there are few funner places on Earth.
This time, although I disagree with Linus's evaluation of the war effort, I DO agree with his main point.
Namely that the Republicans hosting their National Convention in New York City is stupid.
ItÂ’s inappropriate on many levels for the Republican convention to happen here. Apart from security concerns - hello, like we really need more potential risks - thereÂ’s a simple reality that should have smelled like coffee to someone, somewhere along the way: they donÂ’t belong here, and we donÂ’t want them.
New York is not voting for their man and New York is not buying their agenda. They will not win in this city or in this state, even if they squick Giuliani in as the Vice President nominee at the last minute “by acclaim.” Setting the convention here is an insult, a backhand, a selfish and cynical act
First, on a "smart politics" level, shouldn't the Republican National Convention be held in a Republican-friendly city? If there is one, that is. As far as I know, most big cities lean leftward. But maybe something down in Texas would be good, since that's Bush's home state. Houston, Dallas, something like that.
But aside from that, the 9/11 wounds are still fresh and bleeding in my mind. I haven't moved on. It still hurts. Despite the fact that I want to see George Bush get re-elected, it flat out disgusts me to see ANYONE using the ghost of the Twin Towers to make political hay so crassly and directly. It's too early. I don't know if will ever stop being too early. I don't mind if you talk about it and discuss the implications of what happened, but using that scarred and sacred space as though it were a cheap painted backdrop for your personal passion play...
It's small. And sickening. And unworthy of the man I trust to make sure that there is no 9/11 2.0.
If I'm looking at this all wrong, please tell me so. Maybe the convention site was chosen before 9/11, or maybe it's really just a plan to pump some cash into the still-staggering local economy. I don't know.
But the way it looks to me now is NOT something I want to see.
Posted by: Harvey at
10:10 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 424 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Earlier today, my main thought about the Republican Convention was that based on the fact thatwe were holding it after the Dumbocrap convention, the votes were in the bag. Seems the electoral votes are already lining up. But after this point was made, I am not too concerned, but rather curious about what , if any, harm it might do to their chances. In retrospect (on something that hasn't happened yet) It was a rather thoughtless thing to do though.
Posted by: kermit at July 26, 2004 10:35 PM (DBo90)
2
Well, gratitude certainly isn't this Linus feller's long suit.
I know some of the people involved in the decision process on holding the RNC in NYC this year.
That decision was made some time back, when NYC's convention business had almost completely dried up, no one had the confidence to risk a convention there.
New Yorkers were losing their effing jobs, businesses were closing.
The decision to take the RNC to New york was one of the first things that started turning the conventions back.
It's not like this wasn't publicised. It's not like this was decided in prehistoric times. It's not like Bloomberg and every other mover and shaker in New York wasn't begging for this convention.
Nor is it that there are a LOT of other places we'd rather have our convention, either. Damned few of us much like New York.
We decided to hold our convention in a place we aren't particularly fond of because it was, at the time of the decision, an American city in desperate trouble.
Maybe the guy is funny, I'd never heard of him. Now, all I can think is, what an asshole.
Posted by: Peter at July 27, 2004 12:46 AM (My8fB)
3
Um - sorry Harvey, but Peter is right. The only reason you don't remember why the convention is going to be held there is because the media don't want you to remember.
Then, like Linus, they can turn around and bite at the Republicans in just this way. (hey no one will remember... right. we haven't been talking about it so they'll forget. we tried really hard NOT to be too vocal when NYC was chosen...)
The GOP didn't really want to have the convention there - it's not only unfriendly, it's a logistical nightmare on an even higher order than Boston. But the NYC economy was hurting so badly at the time, that Bush was the one pushing for this, in order to help them.
Since the recovery has been so much faster than anyone ever expected - we tend to forget how VERY BAD things were for the entire city, post 9/11.
Posted by: Teresa at July 27, 2004 08:18 AM (nAfYo)
4
Peter - thanks for your input on this. I was hoping there was an answer that didn't involve waving a bloody shirt around.
But that begs the question... why didn't the Dems go there? I mean, is there some law against the D's & R's having their conventions in the same city?
Posted by: Harvey at July 27, 2004 01:58 PM (tJfh1)
5
LOL - Harvey, if the Dems has said back then that they were going to go to NYC for their convention - 99% of their celeb audience wouldn't show. Back then, the California celebs were so freaked by 9/11 they were building "safe rooms" in their houses in case of attack... the wimps. (I mean, who is really gonna care if someone flies a plane into Whoopi 's mansion???)
But, in truth, I don't remember if the GOP announced theirs first or not. And I don't believe they've ever held them in the same city... but I could be wrong about that.
Posted by: Teresa at July 27, 2004 03:17 PM (nAfYo)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
21kb generated in CPU 0.0746, elapsed 0.5004 seconds.
71 queries taking 0.4326 seconds, 196 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
