Thinking as a Hobby

Get Email Updates
Email Me

Admin Password

Remember Me

3477771 Curiosities served
Share on Facebook

New York and the RNC
Previous Entry :: Next Entry

Read/Post Comments (10)

Via Sebastian Holsclaw, here's a post from Wizbang on the process of selecting the locations for both the DNC and RNC.

He points to this article that details the whole process by which Mayor Bloomberg began courting both parties soon after 9/11 in order to reinvigorate the NY economy and demonstrate that NY could safely host a major event.

It was the Democrats who conditionally demanded that if the DNC were held in NY, the RNC could not host there as well. They wanted an exclusive contract. Bloomberg wasn't going to give them one, so they took it to Boston.

Also of note is this column in The New Republic:

Democrats should fire DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, then hire him back tomorrow so they can fire him again. Not only did his delusional predictions and poor political instincts fail to prevent a Democratic rout in last week's midterm elections, he has now idiotically snubbed New York City as the site for the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Thanks to his tireless efforts, the party will have to slouch its way to Boston, which waved $50 million in front of McAuliffe's panting face.

How did this happen? It seems that New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg refused McAuliffe's demand over dinner on Monday to stop courting the Republican National Convention if he wanted to host the Dems. As a result, the chairman played the only card he had and turned to Boston, which was all-too-happy to meet the chairman's condition.

Now all this isn't to say that it would be beyond the Republicans to exploit New York upon arriving there, though I think it was inevitable that the convention would center around 9/11 as the seminal event of Bush's Presidency, no matter where the convention was held. I have mixed feeling about this, since 9/11 was inarguably the most significant event during the past four years, and in fact, my lifetime. So it only makes sense that it would be the primary subject of a reelection campaign...e.g., how the President reacted and performed. The danger is the perception of pandering or exploiting the event for political gain, but I think it's a fine line to tread, and most critics of Bush wouldn't be happy no matter how he handled this campaign.

But as for the selection of New York as the site for the RNC, that clearly seems to be a matter of New York seeking out the RNC, rather than the other way around.

Read/Post Comments (10)

Previous Entry :: Next Entry

Back to Top

Powered by JournalScape © 2001-2010 All rights reserved.
All content rights reserved by the author.