Democrats try to muzzle free speech at boston convention

Damn, thadeus, have you ever considered being a songwriter?

I do believe that this line needs to be somebody's sig around here!

 

Apparently, Sizzle Chest and thadeus have never read a thread title by rimrocker or glynch, the two most heinous offenders on this BBS.

 

Republicans are contemplating having part of the Republican convention at ground zero. Maybe even re enacting the aircraft carrier stunt.


http://thehill.com/under_dome/022604.aspx
.
.
.

The source, a veteran official of past GOP conventions, said the 50,000 delegates, dignitaries and guests would watch off-site events on giant TV screens. “Now, we’ll go to the deck of the USS Intrepid as the U.S. Marine Corps Band plays the national anthem,” he said, pretending that he was playing the part of the convention chairman.

“Or, and this is a real possibility, we could see President Bush giving his acceptance speech at Ground Zero,” he added. “It’s clearly a venue they’re considering.”

William Harris, the former Alabama GOP chairman who is chief executive of the convention, did not return a phone call yesterday.

But with President Bush’s nomination assured, the GOP may be looking for ways to hold the attention of a worldwide TV audience and get the Bush-Cheney campaign off to a running start.

 

Puke.

 

I couldn't sleep, so I thought I'd find the BBS slumbering, which might aid my attempt to dream of electric sheep. I should have known better. This story made me physically ill... really. It is the most disgusting, sick and twisted use of an American tragedy for political gain I have ever heard of. It's far beyond that. It demeans the families of the deceased and debases a plot of land that will remain forever burned into our national psychic, so a man and his campaign handlers can profit from that tragedy.

If they do such a thing, and I pray they do not, I hope New Yorkers in their millions will rise in peaceful protest against such an abomination.

Is "The Hill" a credible journal? Someone please tell me it's not.



© 2004 The Hill
733 Fifteenth Street, NW Suite 1140
Washington, DC 20005
202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 fax


February 26, 2004

UNDER THE DOME
By Albert Eisele and Jeff Dufour

President planning NYC extravaganza
White House goal is unprecedented convention theater

Republicans are contemplating having part of the Republican convention at ground zero. Maybe even re enacting the aircraft carrier stunt.

The source, a veteran official of past GOP conventions, said the 50,000 delegates, dignitaries and guests would watch off-site events on giant TV screens. “Now, we’ll go to the deck of the USS Intrepid as the U.S. Marine Corps Band plays the national anthem,” he said, pretending that he was playing the part of the convention chairman.

“Or, and this is a real possibility, we could see President Bush giving his acceptance speech at Ground Zero,” he added. “It’s clearly a venue they’re considering.”

William Harris, the former Alabama GOP chairman who is chief executive of the convention, did not return a phone call yesterday.

But with President Bush’s nomination assured, the GOP may be looking for ways to hold the attention of a worldwide TV audience .
and get the Bush-Cheney campaign off to a running start.

http://thehill.com/under_dome/022604.aspx




edit: Thanks, Woofer. I just can't imagine...

 

New York will be ready!

 

Hopefully the demonstrations will be massive and orderly.

I wouldn't put it pass the GOP to try to incite riots so that they can play to their strong point --"fear". Hopefully the corporate media does not mislead us as it did on the run up to the Iraq War and give the Bu****es a free ride on their cynical manipulation.

Fear of Arabs.

Fear of Muslims,

Fear of foreigners.

Fear of gays.

Fear of crime

Fear of riots.

Anything to keep people fearful and their minds off the near
complete lack of accomplishments by Bush. I'm sorry; merely happening to be president during 9/11 is not an accomplishment.

On the bright side, like the aircraft carrier stunt, they just might go too far and then we might have a landslide against Bush and the GOP.

 

There you go again TJ. It's been since at least 11th grade that there's been someone who's obsessed with me like you are.

 

I thought the Republicans were good at diverting attention away from a subject they didn't like...

The Dems are basically blocking free speech (or attempting to do so) and all anyone can do is complain about the thread title? C'mon. At least acknowledge the issue. The Boston Globe did the story, so their interest is with what is going to happen in Boston, not in NYC with the GOP. If you want to make a point that the GOP will do it as well, fine, post the articles.

But that still doesn't eliminate the fact that the Dems are making a stupid move on this one and they'll likely lose anyway.

Both parties need to get over themselves. Yet another reason this country needs a VIABLE third party.

 

A vote for Nader will help to address this need. Vote your conscience.

VOTE NADER

 

now for an impression...

Pathetic Conservatives!!!! They have nothing to criticize the liberals so they grab on to this one as long as they can!! this shows nothing except that they are desperate and are grabbing on to straws until they lose their precious election!! PATHETIC!!! Is that the best you can do?

-Alternate reality version TJ

 

Actually, I concede the Trader's point as to bad thread titles not belonging to any one political group. I disagree with Jeff, however: I think the titles are important. The more neutral and factual you make them, the better the thread will be. It sets a tone, and we're far too ready to start flinging poo anyway.

I really don't care about this policy of the democrats. What's a convention for, anyway? Bring your thoughts into the convention hall and talk. What's to protest exactly?

Protestors at a convention just want to create negative publicity for the party holding the convention. Mainly, it's a huge publicity event, and if you're going to fight the other party in this TV world we live in, you're going to have to be at least 1/2 as slick as the Republican machine, and that's going to be very difficult anyway. (I fail to see how a third party can fundmentally change our culture in regard to short attention spans, television, and sound bites, but I do vote green locally, Jeff). Imagine if both parties allowed full protesting access. The opposite parties would mount huge noisy rallies just to make one another look bad. What a waste of time.

 

Completely agreed. We need a third party that is run by and responsive to the people.

 

And we need gold lamme jumpsuits and trips to Mars.

I'm sorry -- I agree with the spirit. I really do. But what happens when you try to bring together large groups of people?

Let's make a political party for Jeff and Andy. Even then, you two would have to compromise some of your ideals to create a common platform. Now imagine forming a party that can draw tens or hundreds of millions of votes. Whoa. What I think would be better than a third party is a fracturing of existing parties into about 12 total parties. Parties so finely granulated that you could find, say, me and rimrocker in different parties (maybe), and T_J and basso could be in separate parties. I don't know if this could ever happen, given the stakes.

I do think we could do much more in limiting the voice of corporate money, but it will only be a question of extent. Thousands of years of human history have woven money, business, and government.

 

I like GV's free speech zone post.

The Hill is indeed reputable. It is widely read on Capitol Hill and they have cultivated many sources in the congressional offices.

 

Also, here's my favorite line in The Hill's piece...
______________

Harris told The New York Times Tuesday that he would like to hold some events in the city’s neighborhoods, “where his candidate could benefit by seeming to embrace the ethnic diversity that is New York.”

 

I would have you look at the statistics of people who vote along with the numbers who don't.

As far as people who vote, 30% identify as Dems and 30% identify as Reps. Even if you assume that there are 5% that are even further left (Green) or right (Libertarian) than the majors, that leaves 30% of the country that are probably smack dab in the middle on most political issues. IOW, a group the size of self-identified Dems and Reps exists already and simply has yet to be organized.

For people who don't vote (over half the country), I believe that most don't vote because they don't feel like the political figures represent them (good guess, huh?). If we had a political party that was responsive to the needs of regular people as opposed to special interests and big money, maybe more of those people would feel represented.

IMO, such a party would not have to field its own candidates to start with. It should be enough to provide endorsements until there is enough support in a particular area to field a candidate. If just the 30% of independants who are in the middle of the political spectrum were to band together, that would be a lot of clout.