By the time the 1968 DNC had ended, 668 people had been arrested, and an “undetermined number” (over 1,000 treated at the various scenes) of protesters had been injured. During that same week, 308 soldiers were killed in Vietnam and over a thousand were wounded.

I started out looking for sources to refute the fallacy of the so-called “liberal media” in another thread, and meandered into this strange and interesting path. There are some disturbing parallels between world events in 1968 and 2004. Each convention was held in a major metropolitan area, the public’s emotions were running high, the country was involved in an unpopular war, the incumbent president whose convention it was was being held responsible for that war, and protesters were being prevented from demonstrating at the scene. 6,000 National Guardsmen were on hand for the 1968 DNC. This year there will twice as much security as 2000 (I can’t find exact number, but a meeting was held last year at which representatives from the Secret Service, FBI, FEMA, Coast Guard, the New York State Emergency Management Office, the New York City Emergency Management Office, NYPD, NYFD and officials from Madison Square Garden attended), sharpshooters on the roofs of neighborhood buildings, midtown trains rerouted and Penn Station exits limited, and who knows what else.

The stage is set, the pot is bubbling…

Sources:
RNC Watch
NJ Ledger

We know the results of the 1968 DNC. Given that tensions and emotions are running high in 2004, what might happen at this convention? Could something like 1968 happen in this jaded day and age?

Given that the current administration has issued vague warnings about terror attacks possibly postponing the election, and Ridge now states that intelligence from “multiple locations and multiple reporting streams” report that an attack is “imminent” (lacking, of course, any sort of time frame), in the exact area of the RNC, can the American people trust that this information is accurate, and not just a ploy?

A sort of bonus question, because it has been bugging me:
How appropriate is it to hold the RNC in New York City so close to the anniversary of 9/11/2001?

We know the results of the 1968 DNC. Given that tensions and emotions are running high in 2004, what might happen at this convention? Could something like 1968 happen in this jaded day and age?

Nothing will happen with the protesters. If they get out a line and start doing the ridiculous things they want to, the NYPD and other law enforcement will not put up with it. The protest will go along fine otherwise.

Given that the current administration has issued vague warnings about terror attacks possibly postponing the election, and Ridge now states that intelligence from “multiple locations and multiple reporting streams” report that an attack is “imminent” (lacking, of course, any sort of time frame), in the exact area of the RNC, can the American people trust that this information is accurate, and not just a ploy?

The real question is who are you going to trust if not the people paid and trained to protect you? Millions upon millions are going to the increased security of NYC, Newark and DC. To think that they are wasting all that money for some little political gain is baseless. I mean, it makes sense for terrorists to want to disrupt the democratic process in this country. The warnings are meant to protect the people, not harm them. We want the people to be prepared and on the lookout for suspicious activity and know where to find safety an attack does occur.

How appropriate is it to hold the RNC in New York City so close to the anniversary of 9/11/2001?

Does the convention take place on September 11th? I just cannot comprehend the problem most people are having. If they had the convention sooner, Democrats would be raging saying how the Republicans try to take spotlight off their convention. They are a month a part and the RNC has nothing to do with 9/11. It is just some dumb ploy by bush-bashers to somehow demonize the republican party. It is not taking place on the anniversary so there should be no discussion about it.

How appropriate is it to hold the RNC in New York City so close to the anniversary of 9/11/2001?
I guess I'll have to admit my ignorance here. I really don't see how having the convention in NYC is exploiting 9/11. Ever the location was announced, liberals in the media have denounced it, but without saying exactly how it's in poor taste. Is NYC forever off limits to anything political? When is 'so close' to 9/11? When is it not too close? The 9/11 planes took off from Logan Airport in Boston, didn't the DNC exploit the tragedy also??
Now if the republicans, throughout the convention, make tacky references to the event or the location, or some other such nonsense, I'll join the bandwagon.
But until then, I'll just watch the debate. NYC is never NOT on a short list for a major event like a convention. It's not likely to be held in Peoria.

Given that the current administration has issued vague warnings about terror attacks possibly postponing the election, and Ridge now states that intelligence from “multiple locations and multiple reporting streams” report that an attack is “imminent” (lacking, of course, any sort of time frame), in the exact area of the RNC, can the American people trust that this information is accurate, and not just a ploy?

I love it when Dean opens his mouth! It probably also makes Dems breathe a sigh of relief that he didn't win the nomination.
The targeted areas also include the Trans-America building in San Francisco, Prudential Plaza in Newark, the World Bank and IMF in D.C.
I don't believe this is a ploy. There has been more information released for this alert than any other. GWB is certainly going to be crucified whether he does anything or nothing. Dean is yelling conspiracy at the alert, yet if an attack happens, he will be screaming 'what did he know and when did he know it'.
So while the ABBers are claiming it's being played for political gain, what in the world do they think they're doing?

I am certain that any attempts to circumvent the protest prohibitions will be put down by the forces involved in securing the area and keeping the President and convention goers safe.


The American people aren't given much of a choice but to observe the Orange alert. As cynical as I am, I do not think that this threat is contrived.


George W. Bush's presidency has been defined by what took place on September 11, 2001 and his response, so it is appropriate that the RNC hold its convention in New York City near that date. In addition, holding the convention as late as then is going to help them regarding campaign funding laws. It's actually quite clever.

Maybe I am not as reverent or solemn as some regarding September 11. I still think of September 11th in any given year as a calendar date, then I think of it as the day in 2001 that America was under attack by the terrorists and around 3,000 people lost their lives. When people say "We don't want another September 11th," I can't help but think, somewhat facetiously, that we would therefore have to skip from September 10th to September 12th.

Our country is defined by much more than the September 11, 2001 attacks, and I think it's time to remember this. We aren't forever victims, and although we honor those who died in the attacks, we move on, creating more history every day. If the Republicans want to dwell on the time when America was caught unvigilant and unguarded, it is their prerogative, and possibly their mistake.

I really don't see how having the convention in NYC is exploiting 9/11.

Seriously? not even a teensy bit huh?
9/11 and George Bush?
the Republicans constant preaching about their Chosen One and how he shall save America and the World and you do not see even a little bit of exploitation?

Ok I'll take your word for it.

I doubt anything dramatic will happen at the RNC except for the "conservative" rant to balance out the Democrats week. They'll bring out their stars and try and give a good impression and convince the swing vote. Probably convincing the rest of us that between the Dems and the Repubs we're just srewed.

How appropriate is it to hold the RNC in New York City so close to the anniversary of 9/11/2001?

Its just not. They know it. Republican supporters know it. But they really couldn't care less.

According to the New York Times, the intelligence on which these latest threat assessments are based is about three years old.

That's not to say it isn't wise to be cautious - it doesn't take a genius to work out that a presidential election campaign in your number one adversarial country is a good time to launch an attack or two, if you are al-Quaeda. Especially if you think it might affect the outcome in some way.

(On this point, I'd be surprised if OBL wanted anyone other than Bush to win in November, as so far he's been pretty predictable, whipping up the A-Q ambitions of a troop withdrawal from Saudi, a West-vs-Islam hysteria, and, in Iraq, a rallying point for disaffected Muslims everywhere to help them recruit more cannon fodder. But anyway...)

But it does make my cynicism gland secrete more vitriol than usual - it's easy imagine that the timing of these alerts has as much to do with an anticipated electoral gain for the Bush administration as it does with any real threat.

Very well put, PE.

I'm not going to speculate as to motivations, although it's a pretty safe bet that everything about a political convention is poltical at some level.

A primary emotional choice will be made in November: Move ahead in fear or move ahead in hope. By trying to position closely to the third anniversary of the 9/11 attack, the message of fear will be reinforced for those who prefer to move ahead that way for whatever reasons.

It'll be interesting to see what kind of bump the Bush campaign gets from the convention.

Thinking of the US as a child, what base emotion will win? Will it be security or freedom? Fear of the pain or hope for the light?

Could the nearly subliminal appeal to fear backlash as being fundamentally [Shall I use the word? Yep.] un-American? Not who we are and not who we want to be. The country could react like an overprotected child, rebellious and wanting to break free of restraints.

But then I think this isn't what will come of the convention. The RNC knows what it is doing and won't mess this up.

And then I think of other Repub conventions and how the speeches had to be spun out of their initial negatives. There are some real doozies waiting in the wings to speak. Reagan isn't available. Dang! And RR Jr. is Demo! Holy Moley!

But I digress. What was the question? Oh, could riots break out at the Repub convention like they did in 1968. Nope, that won't happen. It took about seven years of war and the draft to energize college-aged kids to radicalize. Vietnam also worked as a lightening rod for other causes, including civil rights and the women's movement. The radicals were nearly all young and influenced by the Cold War threat of total annihlation. A President and other leaders had been assasinated. In 1968, the Tet offensive took place.

People aren't under nearly as much stress these days. It's stressful, that's for sure. But relatively speaking, 1968 was intolerable.

The 2008 Republican convention could be a different story. I'd hate to see history repeat in this manner.

The terror attack warnings seem to lack their initial edge. I mean, how many of us actually keep duct tape and plastic around? So maybe it's a ploy. Maybe not. I doubt it'll do much as far as promoting fear as a motivation to vote Republican.

And judging by the amount of security done for other political gatherings, there won't be any terrorist attack on the Repub convention. I certainly hope not in any case -- that will really mess up people's minds. I'm hoping for a nice, safe, clean convention of Demo bashing and Bush worship, lots of flags and lots of baloons, and maybe even a few rich moments of irony.

Let's see, maybe a gay couple could get married post-op on stage? Adam and Stephanie? Heh, that'd be good. Or how about an appeal for stem-cell research from Nancy Reagan? Oh man, let that happen! The Bush daughters come out as les . . . oh no . . .

We know the results of the 1968 DNC. Given that tensions and emotions are running high in 2004, what might happen at this convention? Could something like 1968 happen in this jaded day and age?

As I watched the Democratic Convention, the commentators returned repeatedly to a couple of themes:
1) The Republicans have unified the Democratic Party.
2) This is the Democratic Convention. Sooner or later we can throw away the time schedule.

At no point was anyone in the Democratic Party given credit for adapting to changes, keeping the convention on schedule, or settling any issues such as the Party Platform outside the view of the press.

In like fashion, if protests arise in NYC, and police in riot gear do great physical damage to the protesters; it is completely reasonable that someone will spin this as a staged effort by Suicidal Democratic Terrorists to disrupt the convention.

There is still time for George W. Bush to take a vacation on his ranch in Crawford, and issue an invitation for the Israelis, the Palestinians, and al Qaeda to drop in for an impromptu pig roast. "We can tap a few kegs of beer, share some satellite photos, and map out a new road map to peace on the Middle East that we can present to the convention." Yes, there still is time for George to exhibit how badly his hoof in mouth disease can be, and force the Republican Party to have something other than their planned rubber stamp convention. George is still only their presumed nominee, and not the official nominee. Thursday night might find them with Presidential nominee Dick Cheney, and a floor fight over who will be their Vice Presidential nominee. Again, this could be spun to be the fault of Democratic Party Terrorists who had infiltrated the Press Corps and knowingly released actual Presidential remarks to the general public.

Given that the current administration has issued vague warnings about terror attacks possibly postponing the election, and Ridge now states that intelligence from “multiple locations and multiple reporting streams” report that an attack is “imminent” (lacking, of course, any sort of time frame), in the exact area of the RNC, can the American people trust that this information is accurate, and not just a ploy?


That would take it back to August of 2001, so it is possible that this White House is finally reacting to intelligence reports that Al Qaeda has plans to attack the financial center of New York City, housed as much now in such buildings as The World Trade Center as it is on Wall Street itself...

If a terrorist attack does manage to disrupt the Republican National Convention, a crack team of White House investigators will try to place the blame on Bill Clinton, or the even greater threat to national security, Hillary Clinton. (If she is not discredited soon, after all, radical Islamic Democrats may attempt to nominate her to run against Jeb Bush in the 2008 election season.)

How appropriate is it to hold the RNC in New York City so close to the anniversary of 9/11/2001?
Very appropriate. After all, without the attacks that allowed George to lead us into war, his trifecta ticket might have been worthless.

With those three strong legs of war, recession, and emergency to stand on, George can point at a vacancy in the New York skyline and say, "On Sept. 11, 2001, this world changed forever." There are few better places for him to point out the changes his administration has brought to America. The Pentagon has been rebuilt, and the RNC likely couldn't have booked it for a convention anyway. A convention in Afghanistan or Iraq just wouldn't draw the eager delegates, and might be a real security problem. Perhaps with a gay marriage amendment still on his personal platform, George would have welcomed the chance to have this convention held in San Francisco. He might have been welcomed in Detroit to showcase how effectively auto jobs are being shipped overseas, or in Grand Rapids where he could point out that prison labor and overseas outsourcing have all but eliminated a once thriving furniture industry.

The Kerry rally opened yesterday in Grand Rapids with a moment of silence for the death of a soldier named Blodgett. (He might not have been related to the family of the same name who donated a hospital to the city once.) Perhaps there is a major city in the United States that George has protected so well that no one there is mourning the death of someone on 9/11, in Afghanistan, or in Iraq. Perhaps there is a major city where no one has lost a good job to another country during this administration. Perhaps there is a city where his nomination would draw only applause, and no protests. Somewhere around a defense plant, perhaps? No, not a good security risk; and bullets for the military are being outsourced to Canada and Israel.

I cannot in all seriousness think of a convention city where George W. Bush could be nominated for re-election without some reference to the events of 9/11/2001. He was the President that morning, and he had to decide which photo op was more important; posing with a children's book and pretending that he could read, or leaving immediately to comfort a mourning nation. That day, and his reactions to it, have defined his Presidency, and the United States image in the world.

Perhaps the convention should be delayed until after 9/11 so that the country would have even less time to view the Republican candidate for President and get to know him.

Perhaps these are just the ramblings of a jaded, ABB Democrat. They have not been cleared by Tom Ridge, nor approved by George W. Bush.

We have a primary election today, and an important decision to make; "Shall we pass a millage issue to fund the County libraries, or close them and sell the books." At what other time in American history would voters be asked to decide if books still have value? The road to the polls is closed, I'd better start walking...

My God, the ABB-ers on the internet had a field day with this one. I looked on the internet for that quote and found dozens of anti-Bush sites citing it as if Bush was actually saying that he was lucky to have these things. That clearly is not the meaning of the phrase. Bush was clearly being ironic and saying that conditions were bad and that he would have to run a defacit. Bush via Daniels was NOT saying - Great, national emergency, now I can finally consolidate power like Hitler did. Geez.

Here is a version of the quote from Daniels


As for exploiting 9/11, check out what the protesters are up to. Nice.
This summer the real terrorists are coming to town

Not that they would try to exploit the situation by interfering with security measures. I wonder how many Republicans will be created when New Yorkers see these idiots at work.



Just checking - During the 9/11 commission, there was much talk about the August memo on Al Qaida threats, most of that info was from the late 90's. This is the impetus for "Bush Knew" as Bush was supposed to immediately react and shut down the airports in August, 2001. Today, when he gets fresh, albeit 3-year-old intel, he immediately issues it via Tom Ridge. I say - smart guy, learning from mistakes, many here say - timing is suspect, it's only released to interfere with John Kerry's healthy glow?

I heard about the following on the news a couple of days ago, and thought it was interesting. Fear of death tends to make subjects in a psychological study more likely to vote for the current president. So, while we may not be “forever victims”, there is always someone in power there to manipulate that latent fear in those who have moved on, and to fan the flames of those whose fear never died down.


I believe the Bush team uses every pyschological lever they have to its best advantage. And that is why this latest "alert" makes me suspicious. It is interesting to discover that this threat might be several years old and is just now being bandied about. That horrible "liberal media" is at it again!

Possible, yes, but unlikely. NYPD will be well deployed to deal with any disorderly conduct. Since most people who do become disorderly are few in number initially, they will be quicly taken into custody, thereby quelling the spread. NYPD has learned many lesson recently, not least umong them is why they shouldn't NOT react to mob mentality when it starts to brew, this was the lesson from the Peurto Rican day parade a few years back, for which the city had to fork out some pretty big settlement money to accosted women who's complaints and please for help were not acted upon. I also think that press coverage as well as just the number of video cameras present in the general public will keep the police themselves from becoming overly zealous.



Personally I dopubt it's a ploy, I think it's CYA mentality. We are in a state now (and probably for a long time to come) where officials will have to act on all known threats to the fullest extent possible. Just think about the scandal that will erupt if even the vaguest threat isn't acted upon, and it happens.



I don't find anything INappropriate about it, although I wonder why they're having the RNC in a democratic stronghold like NYC. I've heard that this was a way to inject some cash into the NY economy, but I don't know if that will pan out what with having to pay for all the extra security. Maybe it's an "in your face" to have it the opposition home feild?

I keep hearing about this terrorist attack being imminent, and in the event of one possibly cancelling elections. no one seems to mention that an "attack" may be just what bush and company want. what happened to bush right after 9/11? he went from being perhaps the most unpopular president, to having a 90%+ approval rating. besides, IF they REALLY wanted to catch these "terrorists" they wouldn't be announcing what info they have. that's kind of like the police planning to raid someones house and a week before calling saying "we're going to raid your home next week".

We know the results of the 1968 DNC. Given that tensions and emotions are running high in 2004, what might happen at this convention? Could something like 1968 happen in this jaded day and age?


I think it could get worse. there many many people simply POed with this president and his policies. add into this group militant and semi-militant anti-capitalist groups (IOW people willing to engage police) throw in some "trigger happy" repressive police (which the NYPD has proven to be) willing to crack some skulls, toss in a lot of tension, and some "terrorist" warnings, a dash of perceived lost freedoms (not allowing protests at or near MSG) and you have a recipe for full blown riots. only about half of these conditions were met at the FTAA protests in quebec city in 2001 and that city was literaly covered for days in tear gas.

Given that the current administration has issued vague warnings about terror attacks possibly postponing the election, and Ridge now states that intelligence from “multiple locations and multiple reporting streams” report that an attack is “imminent” (lacking, of course, any sort of time frame), in the exact area of the RNC, can the American people trust that this information is accurate, and not just a ploy?

I am sure this is a ploy to some degree. whether it's the talk of delaying/postponing elections or that the threat itself is, as has often happened in the past, a way to scare people. as Hermann Goering said "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
and all this talk about an attack postponing elections seems like a ploy in that IF there IS an attack some people would insist on postponing elections but the bush people could make themselves out to be the heros and say "NO! we MUST hold elections or they win!" bush support would likely skyrocket in the event of an attack for the same reasons it did after 9/11. I could also see an attack ALMOST get carried out and DHS manages to save the day and make it look like without bush we would all be getting constantly bombed.

How appropriate is it to hold the RNC in New York City so close to the anniversary of 9/11/2001?

it is in my opinion, inappropriate. this is the first time in the history of the conventions that one has been held in nyc. the GOP is delaying the normal time frame of the RNC (around the same time as the DNC usually) holding it close to the date is tasteful while actually holding it on the day of 9/11 isn't. this would not be the first time bush used 9/11 to make himself seem like a success of a president. I feel the republicans try to keep 9/11 as fresh as possible in the minds of voters to keep them scared and cowed. no one wants another 9/11. bush and co are going to point to 9/11 every chance they get. what better place to bring it up than near ground zero? I would fell the same were it the democrats doing it as well.

Incorrect.
Convention history link
So somebody please explain, other than 'it's just inappropriate', as to why it shouldn't be held in NYC?

There sure is a lot of hypothetical in this thread that would get shot down in a heartbeat if it was offered up by conservatives.........

I don't see anything inappropriate about holding a convention in NYC at all. If anything, it's symbolic that NYC is back and doing fine and we're not afraid to go there. I think in these times you need to hold large, high security gatherings like political conventions in major cities. I brought this point up in the G-8 thread where that was being held in Savannah, Ga and as Mike and Jaime described, that caused quite a strain on that city. Larger cities like New York, Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago and the like can better handle the enormous amount of security required for something like the DNC or the RNC. They simply have more resources on which to draw. I remember back in 2000 when the DNC was in Los Angeles. Lots of streets blocked, police everywhere, but in the grand scheme of normal life in LA, whatever that might be, it was just a blimp on the radar.

There sure is a lot of hypothetical in this thread that would get shot down in a heartbeat if it was offered up by conservatives.

Oh really DTOM get over the whole persecuted "conservatives"bit.
Yes when will people learn the purity of so called "conservatives " is unquestionable. After all I think they will probably hold off on the stage with flag draped coffins. probably no large pictures of the Trade Center buildings as they burn and fall. I doubt Bush will even try and use the whole event what so ever in his Why I should Get Re Elected speech..

Thank you for making my point for me.
No non-conservative on this board would let the following statement stand without question:


So again....It's just not...why?

No non-conservative on this board would let the following statement stand without question:

Oh of course I forgot. Since I disagree with someone who claims to be a conservative I therefore am not one. After all that would be a sign of independent thought and that is definitely NOT a hallmark of conservative values.
I consider myself very conservative, but then again I honor the Constitution, not the same type of "conservatism" that is passed around these days. But since I disagree with things Bush has done and do not toe the party line without question or variation from the script I obviously cannot be.


So again....It's just not...why?

I think that the reason for why not is so very clear as to not really need to be put forth. I think its very clear. Bush has only one thing he can run on--or there wouldn't even be any question about this election. He needs to resurrect the fear and pain of 9/11. except for the part when he sat like a fool when the buildings burned--just before he went into hiding instead of standing up to reassure a very shocked and hurt American people. He hid out and let the American people wonder just how bad it might get.

I doubt even the So called conservatives will try for the pictures of the Trade Center burning or flag draped coffins on the stage. but I think they will try like hell to evoke that feeling .


oh yeah

Gimme a break! You can't honestly believe that the RNC has nothing to do with the third anniversary of 9/11. And to sit there and say this is some ploy by Bush-bashers is really an ignorant statement. The modern day Republican Party (the politicians) is a national disgrace to this country. They care for nothing except themselves. (Same with the Dems too).

Well, if I’m reading your link right, DTOM, the Republicans have NEVER held their convention in NYC…until this year, of course. And while the Democrats have held their convention in NYC several times (5 to be exact), Unabomber has it mostly right. And ChargedDust has an excellent point; why in the world would the Republicans hold their convention in a city with such a long Democratic tradition? Hmmm, could it be because…oh, yeah, there was a big terrorist attack that occurred from which the current administration would like to may hay! If you haven’t a leg to stand on, appeal to people’s fears and emotions! It's worked for nearly 4 years; why change now? It’s actually a very shrewd strategy, and many people will fall for it hook, line and sinker as they wave their flag and wipe a tear from their eye.

And there may be an even more base reason: to make the opposition look bad. This site created by New Yorkers analyzes the RNC’s choice of NYC (it being largely Democrat) and the protests that are bound to result from their presence:


How perfect would it be for the Republicans if riots broke out on the street of New York? How outraged will Mr. and Mrs. Middle America be when they see those horrid, anti-American scumbags disgracing the site of a national tragedy? The protesters’ message will get lost in the negative symbolism of violent action in what has become “holy ground”, regardless of whether the violence is instigated by the authorities or the protesters.

This is ridiculous. The RNC taking place in NYC has nothing to do with politics. It has nothing to do with 9/11. You know what it has to do with? The damn Republicans making speeches. Who says that either party must stay exclusive to a state that primarily shares their beliefs? That rhetoric is baseless and just plain absurd. New York is a city, just like Boston, where a political party have chosen to hold their convention. What is the outrage? Honestly, do people here realize they are arguing something that is pointless to debate?

The convention does not take place on September 11th so that bomb is defused. Also, the assertion that the Republicans want protesters to create havoc is equally as stupid. This is because you must be under the assumption that the anarchists will in fact do all of the things they want to. The NYPD will handle these people with ease. There will be no great showing of violence...maybe just a select few of criminals. Nobody would be dumb enough to do something when NYPD, FBI, and Homeland Security Agents are standing around with automatic weapons. Furthermore, these anarchists are not all from NY. They are coming from all over the country...i mean come on, who believes that NY is a city of anarchists?

Bottom Line: This debate is tiresome and unnecessary. If the convention took place to closer to the DNC, the democrats would be mad for the repubs trying to take their spotlight. Now that its a month away, Dems believe the Repubs are exploiting 9/11. (even though it does not take place on the anniversary) There is the argument that the Repubs want to take advantage of anarchists who want to disrupt the convention. Listen to yourselves please. These conspiracy theories are groundless and have no place in fromal debate.

Since NYC hasn't seen a Democratic Mayor since Dinkins, and the last best and beloved Democratic Mayor Ed Koch openly endorses Bush, I agree DTOM there is nothing wrong with the RNC being held in NYC. Actually it is pretty smart of them, Could ya imagine if NYC swung Bush as we already know the rest of the state will tend his way. As for the projected protests and chaos that so many seem to think is a possibility, well it won't look to good for the Dems if NY'ers see the new terrorist threat to be their own party.

We know the results of the 1968 DNC. Given that tensions and emotions are running high in 2004, what might happen at this convention? Could something like 1968 happen in this jaded day and age?

I think that if you combine enough soldiers and police with automatic weapons and body armor, throw in large numbers of protestors in a very liberal city - some of them overzealous, mix in a healthy does of fear, and a dash of hatred and you have a bonafide recipe for disaster.

It is very possible that we'll have many incidents during the RNC this year. I would wager that none of them will be due to terrorists - they will all be clashes between the police and protestors or protestors and Bush supporters.

Let's not forget so easily what happened at Kent State with protestors and police on May 4th, 1970 (source)

Now I'm not saying that is going to happen but I think you can draw a lot of parallels and we all know that history has repeated itself many many times in this country, no one ever seems to learn. One could make an arguement that with the myriad of things going on, the additive effect makes the atmosphere much more charged than it was during Vietnam (of course I wasn't there to experience it first hand so I couldn't say for sure). The sheer size of the protests in 2003 of the Iraq war should be a good indicator.

Given that the current administration has issued vague warnings about terror attacks possibly postponing the election, and Ridge now states that intelligence from “multiple locations and multiple reporting streams” report that an attack is “imminent” (lacking, of course, any sort of time frame), in the exact area of the RNC, can the American people trust that this information is accurate, and not just a ploy?
I don't think they can, and that is the problem. The absolute biggest problem this administration has is credibility. They have proven themselves unworthy of trust numerous times over the past few years and there are plenty of people that no longer trust them (myself included). This is a hotly debated issue across the country and even here on AD as evidenced by the numerous threads dealing directly and indirectly with this subject.

I want to believe the Department of Homeland Security when they say there is a threat we should be aware of, but the simple fact is that just isn't possible because you have to think - is there some deeper political motivation for this? We need someone in office we can trust again, that all of us can trust even if we disagree with their policies. I'd like to think that security takes priority over partisan politics, but you can only have your trust violated so many times before it cannot be won over again.

How appropriate is it to hold the RNC in New York City so close to the anniversary of 9/11/2001?
I don't really feel it is inappropriate per se, but I do feel that it is a very shrewdly crafted (and possibly unethical depending on the reasons behind the selection) polictal strategy. I think that DaffyGrl summed things up fairly well in this post.

One thing I don't see being brought up here is Bloomberg. My bet is on him having given very specific orders down the chain of command to the rank and file of the NYPD. He doesn't want a riot in "his" city, particularly when he is coming up for re-election. Nor does he want the city involved in any litigation from any mishaps that might happen no matter who is at fault. My neighbor is an NYPD officer, I'm going to see if I can weasel some info out of him as far as what the word coming down the pipe is.

On a side note, I don't approve of all the restriction and even the denial of permits to protest, no matter who it is. Freedom has it's price, if it is inconvenient for the NYPD to have to deal with a protest across the street from MSG, or down the block in a park - then so be it. The price to pay for freedom is the price OF FREEDOM.

I'd like to extend a welcome to ChargedDust, nice to see another tri-state participant. I Have to agree with the above statement. The last thing Bloomberg wants is chaos. I tend to doubt any riotous behavior will be initiated by the NYC Police. Since NY never really dropped below a threat level of Orange since 911, NY'ers are quite accustomed to a police presence and likewise the police are quite accustomed to crowd surveillance. This has become the way of life here, and I don't ever hear any resentment from citizens about it either. It would be my guess if NYer's choose to protest, they will do it in the same calm and dignified manner that they handled 911 as well as the following major black out we experienced. The wild card that concerns me is if we have protesters coming in from outside our region with their own agenda to disrupt the event. I know I wouldn't look too favorably on such activities. Protesting is fine, and appropriate, riotous and destructive behavior would not play out well for the Dems.

How appropriate is it to hold the RNC in New York City so close to the anniversary of 9/11/2001?

If holding the convention in NYC is inappropriate both parties share the tacky stigma.

CNN - DNC to vote on 2004 convention city



Did the DNC back off NYC because it was worried about accusations of exploiting the memory? Not likely.



I agree it's bad form to have a convention at the site but can we put down the pom-poms?

I'm sure that most protestors will have enough sense to either stay away or at least abide by the law. If not, more than a few will probably get hurt. Some might even end up dying. But I'm sure they're willing to risk that, so have at it.

You know folks, you're running around chanting, marching, protesting because your ideas are unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans. The vast majority my friends, so get over it!

Protest if you must, but do it lawfully or expect to pay the consequences. And there will be consequences. Even 'useful idiots' are smart enough to know that. Right?

That's exactly what KGB officers used to say to Dr. Andrei Sakharov and other dissidents in the former Soviet Union when they staged their numerous protests. The opinion of a crowd can be very easily manipulated. As recently as 50 years ago segregation was supported by vast majority of Americans. So who cares what majority thinks? One must follow its own conscience.

Follow your beliefs, no argument. Just do so lawfully. That way you'll get to express them tomorrow too.