The convention, why Boston?

[mrgorth]

Someone brought up the fact that the pugs are having theirs in NYC ending on 9/11. Why the hell can't our leadership do something that smart? It makes no sense. It's right out there for the taking. Instead the use Massa-freaking-chusettes? Hell, I love Boston but this is only playing into the stereotype of New England liberal. Can someone school me or is this just plain stupidity? Thanks

[bif]

1. A southern city would have been smarter

Like Atlanta. It seems like they pick Boston fairly often. Or is it just my imagination?

[SiobhanClancy]

5. I believe this is the first time Boston has EVER hosted ....

a national(political)convention,unbelievable as that is.

[DieboldMustDie]

13. Not so unbelievable.

Until just recently Boston didn't really have a suitable facility.

[UTUSN]

34. A SouthWESTERN, Hispanic City, Would Have Been Even Better

San Antonio. It would poke Shrub in the eye in his "home" state. It would say, "We're not conceding ANY state. There would GREAT response from Blacks and Hispanics there. There would be the p.r. that the Dems boosted the service industries with $$$ that Shrub didn't bring there. Aw, well.

[Yupster]

35. Phoenix

would have been nice.

Key state, key constituency. Nice symbolic name for the city for a Democtaic convention.

I wonder if Kerry had any pull in the Boston decision. I bet he loved it.

[Bridget Burke]

44. I agree.

For the political reasons you state.

Also, San Antonio's a great city to visit. History & fun....

[UTUSN]

48. We're WAY Ahead of Our Times, Sniff n/t

[gWbush is Mabus]

2. NYC would have been great for the Democrats, but

the South would be a good choice now...for Dean

I think that after the 2002 loss, the DNC felt that they needed to "rally the base"...and MASS is very liberal and base-like.

[ShaneGR]

23. I don't think it's going to matter, NYC is going to be an ugly place

I would expect at least 1 MILLION people to show up and protest their convention in NYC. A half million of them will be New Yorkers.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Convention will be well covered, with the nominees speech given maximum airtime. But it will also be trouble-free. Do not underestimate the value of a well-covered, trouble-free convention.

The Republican convention will be marred by unrest. Count on it.

[livinontheedge]

27. And that will only help the republicans.

Just an opinion. Middle America will be turned off for good by a freak show.

[Yupster]

37. I agree

Bush is hoping for maximum protests.

He is looking to win Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico.

I think the vision of the "regular people" Republicans wearing Red White and Blue and their plain speaking honest president being surrounded by the throngs of anti-American hippie protestors is not scaring Bush. And if there aren't enough special interest characters in the protest crowds, they can always be added at little cost. From the looks of the last Washington rally though, I don't think Bush will have to spend is money adding them.

[ludwigb]

45. I know I'll be there

...organization and symbols will be the key. The media won't be able to ignore us.

[JNelson6563]

50. that's right

and if you can get firefighters and police out there, highly visible, well I don't think Joe and Jane Six-pack are gonna like to see our 9/11 heroes carrying signs that announce Bush screwed 'em......

What a wonderful opportunity for New York to make a very public demand for answers about 9/11. Let's get teh LIHOP meme going and get people engaging those brains!!

Julie

[sleepyhead]

52. I'll be there too

With everyone I know. They can't possibly have enough barriers to keep all of us in little bitty pens!

[SeattleRob]

3. Because...

Boston is the birthplace of our democracy. Aren't we struggling to get it back? I think whoever wins (Dean is my pick) the nomination, can give a rousing speech about reclaiming our democracy. Boston is an excellent choice!

[Larkspur]

29. Yes, I'm looking forward to a rousing Dean acceptance speech next year

His speech in Sept in Boston was a warm up to what I'm sure he'll pen in July 2004.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

4. NYC is going to backfire on the Republicans BIG TIME

they are not going to know what hit them. Kerry should lead a protest of the firefighters that endorsed him.

[AP]

9. I think this is one of the most mistaken impressions out there

I'm SURE the Republicans WANT protests.

When was the last time you saw a protest the media wasn't able to spin to make the protesters look bad?

When did America have it's biggest protests ever? 1968-72. Who won those elections? Nixon.

Recently, PBS had a show about the Watergate hearings. One Nixon official was cross-examined on a memo about campaign appearences with Billy Graham. The advance man was promising protests, and the official had handwritten "good" and "excellent" next to references to the protests.

If NYC, uhm, "backfires" for Republicans, it will be exactly to plan and it could result in moderates going with the law and order party rather than the party of the rabble rousers.

[lancdem]

12. In 1968, protests at the Democratic convention in Chicago

hurt Humphrey. I'm not sure the GOP wants protests, although 2004 is not 1968.

[AP]

17. That baffles me. I think "of course they want protests"

that's why they picked NY, and that's why, during the anti-war riots, the police practiced their techniques for provoking peaceful protestors to do things which would look bad on TV.

[SeattleRob]

47. NYC

I don't think it will look good for the Repubs if the police beat down the 9/11 Widows and survivors who will surely be protesting the politicizing of their personal tragedies.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

56. That's right it will be 911 widows and survivors

and they wouldn't dare. If they dared it's all over anyway. Screw the idiotic kids with bandanas, I refuse to believe Americans and especially New Yorkers will allow Bush and Republicans to dance on the graves at the WTC for their convention and personal political gain. I refuse to believe that. We'll hold candles and sing Kumbaya if that's what it takes.

[bbmykel]

6. Boston is a good choice

Lots of revolutionary war tie-ins. This is not the first time we've rebelled against a King named George after all.

[AP]

7. because Boston put together the most money.

However, just like everything else solely determined by money, it's not the best idea, symbolically or strategically.

Money is the reason the party ceded the nomination to Gore. It would have been nice to have a real primary in 2000.

I wish they would have picked someplace like Santa Fe (NM was close in 2000, and it would be a way of saying "welcome to the Democratic fold" thus ensuring a Dem win there) or even Seattle (to say, "hey, remember how great things can be when Democrats are in charge?").

As it is, we have a state which is safely Democratic, and a city which is more of a symbol of yesterday than a progressive, wealthy 21st century, and will create an automatic bummer mood if Kerry doesn't get the nomination.

[arendt]

14. Why do you "liberals" hate Boston?

> a city which is more of a symbol of yesterday than a progressive,
> wealthy 21st century

Yeah, right. That's why Novartis decided it would uproot its
research labs from Switzerland and move them to Cambridge, MA.

Boston/Cambridge is one of the highest-tech places on the planet.
And, it is very "livable", which is vital to attracting tech
talent.

Where do you get this "symbol of yesterday" crap? Are you going
to tell me that the WalMart infested Red States are our "wealthy
21st century" leaders?

arendt

[AP]

16. I love Boston. It's probably my favorite city in America, after NYC.

Some of the best times I've ever had were in Boston.

However, what's the first thing you think of when you think of Boston? That Novartis moved their research labs there? Rt 128 circa 1978? No. It's primarily a symbol of something which happend in the 18th century.

There are lots of swing states or Dem trending states, or former Rep states which have recently switched to Dem states, or state which represent today and tomorrow, rather than yesterday.

[aldian159]

30. the first thing that i think about boston

is Fenway and Larry Bird. That's just me

If we didn't have it here (Chicago) in 96 (I think, correct me if I'm wrong), should've had it again. Solidify the Midwest.

[AP]

39. Chicago was a really good choice in '96. Look what's happened in IL since

'96.

Now what state today is like IL in '96, which, in 2011 you'd want to be like IL 2003?

Arizona? North Carolina? Georgia? Ohio? Indiana?

[Tatiana]

46. Good points.

I like Indiana. But I really think we should have picked some place that would have made the statement that we aren't backing down... maybe Dallas or Houston or Miami or L.A.

[arendt]

8. Why do you buy into the spin and smear?

No matter where the Dems picked, it would be wrong
according to the media.

Boston got the nod as a favor to Teddy Kennedy. He
has been a most loyal Democrat. Rewarding your supporters
is politics as usual. Do you want all Northeastern
Dems to wear a scarlet "L"?, and I don't mean L for
Lieberman.

Boston wants to show off the Big Dig and its new image;
again, that is a normal reason to bid for a convention
or the Olympics.

Finally, I can't remember the last time the convention
was in Boston. Its about time.

There are three normal, non-conspiratorial reasons for
Boston as the site.

The "just shows the Dems are commies" media barrage would
never happen in an honest media.

And, it doesn't matter what city the Dems picked. Here
are some propaganda lines:

Los Angeles - home of Hollywood liberals
Chicago - home of the corrupt Daley political machine
Detroit - urban blight under the Dems
San Francisco - home of gays and liberals
etc.

Just get used to the fact that the media hates anything
the Dems do.

OTOH...

The GOP is going to get hurt bad in NYC. I am going
to be one of the people there to make sure they are
hounded to the limits of the law for their cynical
attempt to claim 911 as their party's property.

NYC is Democratic turf, and Bush is going to pay.

arendt

[Zynx]

10. I personally wanted Atlanta or Nashville

Really, convention locations don't matter, but they didn't need to choose Boston.

[SiobhanClancy]

11. Why do you say that?

They don't matter,and yet they didn't need to choose Boston? Do you think it would be OK if,one time in history,the Democrats have their convention in this city?

[AP]

18. Boston had the convention in 1960, right?

[SiobhanClancy]

24. No,that was Los Angeles...

I really don't think Boston has ever had one,and I think it deserves to:)

[Zynx]

36. I just think it would have looked better if we chose a city outside the

northern liberal base. It's not really a rational response.

[curse10]

15. Because Boston is the best city in the world!

:-) But I'm biased

[robsul82]

19. New Orleans just built a convention center...

...as my poli sci prof likes to rail about, so why not here? Louisiana's in play for 2004, I believe, could've helped.

Later.

RJS

[curse10]

20. man, I've been in New Orleans in July

The heat was unbearable! And I wasn't even wearing a suit, which the speakers and whatnot would definately be doing. :-)

[robsul82]

22. Well, good buddy...

...that is why I like that I leave the first week of May to get back to Jersey. ;)

Later.

RJS

[Duder]

21. My choice would have been in...

Florida

[Amaya]

25. I for one

am happy because I live so close. I'll be there! :)

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

26. cuz terry mcaulliffe is a damn moron

did anyone see his piece in usa today last week defending front-loaded concentrated primaries. what a fuckin' party elitie stooge he is!

[imhotep]

28. it epitomizes the ABB "strategy"

In their desperate, cowardly ignorance, they are afraid to believe in something, afraid of change, afraid of their own shadow, and ultimately will be the cause of Bush being President for 4 more years. McAulife IS ABB.

[Justice]

31. Cuz we are going to have a revolution...

and why not start it in Boston....

[fujiyama]

32. I heard

it is because of McCaullife being the whore he is is. Boston offered the most money...and I think they could have chosen NYC as well.

The tie in for the GOP and 9/11 is great, but I also expected there to be a boost in approval ratings for Bush* during the 9/11 anniversary this year.

It didn't happen, thankfully.

Next year could also backfire for the GOP, if they overplay the 9/11 political card. It could end up looking crass. Personally I find it pretty disgusting the way they have explited 9/11 for political purposes but can you expect anything more from this admin?

Hopefully the protests will not get out of hand. That generally tends to hurt democrats more, as left leaning protestors are somehow all associated with the democratic party.

[Terwilliger]

33. Why Chicago? Why Los Angeles? Why Atlanta? Why Miami?

Why don't you get it?

[jeter]

38. You think exploiting Sept 11 for a political convention...

...is smart? If we were smart, we would blast Bush and the GOP to kingdom come for doing this.

It's kind of disgusting.

[KharmaTrain]

40. Convention? Who Needs It?

This old political chestnut should have been retired with the rise of television and the primary system and good riddence.

Most people don't remember that these conventions were where the big power brokers sat behind closed doors and decided among themselves who the candidate would be and the party platforms. The Repugnicans still do this.

There's no suspense to a Convention...it's just a week-long commercial loaded with symbolism and boring speeches leading up to an anti-climatic ending.

OK, so Dems want a week to party and live it up. Fine. But let's detach this from the main goal of removing Repugnicans.

The '96 Convention was here in Chicago and we were extremely glad to have it. But it was a pain, even in a city well adapted to large conventions. VIP motorcades endlessly tied up the major expressways (almost always at the peak of rush hour) and the security downtown was extremely tight that the entire area was all but off-limits to the locals for the week prior to and during the convention. I know Boston is 100 times worse in this area...even with the I-95 mess sorta done.

I'd save the money from the convention and just buy up TV time and throw more cash into the state and local races. We're gonna know the nominee and we know the issues and where we stand. The only unfinished business is replacement of the DNC executive level...and that should be a priority NOW.

[CMT]

41. Ted Kennedy and Terry McAuliffe wanted it held in Boston

and that is why it is there. I agree a state in the Southwest such as Texas (San Antonio or Austin) or New Mexico or Arizona would have been great.

[DinahMoeHum]

42. I, for one like it. Boston, hotbed of the first American Revolution,

will be the hotbed of the 2nd American Revolution.

The first one broke away from King George (III of the UK)
The second will overthrow King George (Bush II - USA)

:kick::kick::kick:

[Monte Carlo]

43. Hey, Boston was the Revolution before the Revolution was cool.

And it continues to this day to lead the nation in a revolutionary way.

I say, let's have some fun with the New England liberal stereotype. Make it ours instead of theirs.

Besides, NYC won't look as good for the GOP when they have every off-duty firefighter in the city picketing their convention.

[DrFunkenstein]

49. A Homecoming For The Nominee

Believe it or not, DU is not America - and Boston is going to be a sweet, sweet homecoming.

[mmonk]

51. Boston is great

especially if we bring out minutemen or something like that and have a banner with 1776 and the Constitution as a backdrop. Maybe people will remember some of the founding principles and that we were born out of a rejection of empire.

[librechik]

53. Great place for a Tea Party!

hope the revolution starts there!

[ringmastery]

54. Miami bid for the convention but lost

It would have been a much better choice.

It's going to be all about Florida in 2004. AGAIN.

[GalleryGod]

55. It's going to bite them in their collective butts!

They'll wish they were back in Houston!