|
Give em Hell NYC
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DaveSZ |
I expect the biggest protest ever.
Hell I might even have to fly up for this one! :P
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/10/n...convention.html
| quote: |
Second-Guessing of Bush Now Extends to Convention Site
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
Published: April 10, 2004
hen the Republican Party chose New York City as the site of its 2004 nominating convention, the symbolism was apparent: the G.O.P. would be rallying around its nominee in the city that had come to embody the nation's resolve in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, a place where President Bush once stood on a pile of debris at ground zero, rallying the nation to unite in the war on terror.
But then came Richard A. Clarke, the 9/11 commission and a rising insurgency in Iraq. Now, as the administration faces increasing scrutiny of its handling of pre-9/11 terror threats and the wisdom of extending the war on terrorism into Iraq, the question has emerged whether New York is the best place for the Republicans to be gathering this summer.
Advertisement
"I would assume that it has turned from a win-win to a maybe not," said a Republican political strategist who spoke only on the condition of anonymity. Like many others, the strategist was reluctant to contradict the party line. "I don't think that it is all negative at this point, but it has the potential to turn. It's eroding slowly, and that's a real problem for them."
For President Bush, choosing New York was a somewhat risky move, even when his connection to Sept. 11 invoked nothing but a strong image of leadership and resolve. Not only is New York an overwhelmingly Democratic state, with no chance that it will give its electoral votes to the Bush-Cheney ticket, but any perception that he was exploiting 9/11 for political gain could threaten to undermine their effort to emphasize the central theme of his re-election campaign.
But while some Republican leaders still express confidence about staging the convention in New York, a few very tough weeks in which the president's former counterterrorism adviser has questioned the administration's handling of the Qaeda threat and dozens of Americans have died in Iraq have made other strategists nervous. They say they fear it could underscore any second-guessing of the president on national security issues.
"The premise for coming to New York is no longer valid," said Roger Stone, a longtime Republican political strategist who supports President Bush but is also known as a maverick who at times has opposed Republican candidates. "Karl Rove's master stroke idea may turn out to be an unmitigated disaster. It has the potential to highlight an issue that may be a negative by the time he gets to the convention."
Democrats, who are holding their convention in Boston, may be grappling with a similar situation, as Massachusetts has become a focus in the debate over gay marriage.
From the moment the Republicans selected New York City to be host to their convention, they insisted that the choice had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and that it was fundamentally a business deal. New York, Republican officials said, offered the best package, one that was enhanced by the city's cultural attractions and its host of national icons, like the Statue of Liberty.
That is a position party officials repeated yesterday, saying that there was no reason to be afraid to come to New York given recent events, because it was chosen for many reasons - none of which included Sept. 11.
"The president has done a tremendous job leading our country since the 9/11 attack on America," said Mark Pfeifle, director of communications for the convention. "But New York was chosen because the community represented the best overall financial, cultural, transportation venue and labor package."
But it is also clear that the president, at least initially, had intended to fashion his campaign around his leadership in the war on terrorism. His campaign commercials have employed images of ground zero, including a flag-draped corpse. Those commercials demonstrated the double-edged reality of employing 9/11 as a campaign theme.
While Mr. Bush's advisers said it was appropriate to highlight his stewardship of the nation after the attacks, the commercials also drew outcries from many people who said the campaign was exploiting a national tragedy for political gain.
But the convention is coming to New York, and while the rawness of 9/11 may have begun to fade, recent events seemed to rip open the wounds anew. And now some supporters of the president say that in very political terms they think he needs to come to New York - and indeed will benefit from coming to the city during the convention.
"This will be good for the president politically," said Representative Peter T. King, a Republican from Long Island. "It reminds us vividly how dangerous the world is."
He said having the convention in New York will drive home a point that seems to have been obscured by recent headlines: why American forces are in Iraq. "This all began on Sept. 11."
Lance Copsey, a Republican political consultant based in Washington, also thinks that having the convention in New York will be a net positive. "I think part of the challenge of the president in the campaign is to remind people that we can fight the war on terror in places like Iraq and Afghanistan or western Pakistan, or we can fight it in New York City," he said. "So I think coming here helps. It goes right into the message that the campaign wants to present."
But delivering that message could once again reveal the double edge of 9/11 as a political tool, opening the president to charges that he chose New York to exploit the tragedy. And some Democrats are already enjoying the president's New York predicament.
"That mantra of Republicans has been, 'So long as we are talking about national security, we are on our strongest footing,' '' said Representative Anthony D. Weiner, a Democrat who represents parts of Brooklyn and Queens. "But with the downturn in Iraq, with the impending 9/11 commission report, and with a lot of angry victims' groups, the mantra has turned into a murmur."
Mr. Stone, who worked to help Mr. Bush win the Florida ballot fight in 2000, had a similar observation. "I think the decision to go to New York was predicated on the fact that this war effort was as successful as the gulf war effort under President George H. W. Bush," he said. But, he added, "While the conduct of the war was probably a plus for the president, it now has the potential to be a negative and therefore the party's presence in New York becomes problematic."
|
|
|
|
| DaveSZ |
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%...0419&s=newfield
| quote: |
Bush To City: Drop Dead
by Jack Newfield
Are you dismayed at how the Bush Administration is treating New York City? Write your elected reps and tell them so. Click here for contact info.
The Bush Administration has treated New York City like a battered wife who still gets displayed for photo-ops and state dinners. George Bush and the Republicans who control both houses of Congress have starved New York for three years with fiscal policies that alternate between abuse and neglect. But now Bush will stage his renomination convention in the city he has used and abused--sticking his finger in our eye and exploiting our bereavement. This August, Karl Rove, the kitschy guru of political theater, will try to convert the crematorium of Ground Zero into a re-election billboard.
One of Bush's first TV ads of the season was another example of his exploitation of New York. It contained footage of New York firefighters carrying the remains of a dead co-worker on a gurney draped with an American flag. The image was an icon of the carnage. Scores of 9/11 widows and firefighters condemned the ad's poor taste and hypocrisy. As Jimmy Breslin wrote in Newsday, "In his first campaign commercial, George Bush reached down and molested the dead."
There are many ways in which the Bush Administration has attempted to strangle New York. The most telling has to do with its treatment of the city after the September 11 attacks. But there are others that show the extent of Bush's contempt not just for New York but, by implication, all of urban America.
In the first round of homeland security funding, in 2003, New York--twice targeted by terrorists, in 1993 and 2001--received 25 percent of the total of $100 million, which was divided among seven cities. In the 2003 supplemental budget, New York's share had shrunk to 18 percent, and the money was split among thirty cities. By last November, when New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said in testimony before Congress that New York was being shortchanged, the city's share had dwindled to less than 7 percent, and the money was divided among fifty localities.
The most at-risk city in America had been cut by two-thirds. Homeland security money has become another run-of-the-mill pork-barrel patronage operation, like highways. Kelly says, "The credible threat of terrorism is considered a secondary factor in Washington in the way homeland security funding is allocated."
In February Bush proposed an increase to $1.4 billion in homeland security funding for so-called "high-risk cities." But fifty cities are still designated as high risk, so New York's share is only $94 million--a fraction of what is needed. On a per capita basis, New York State ranks forty-ninth among the states in antiterrorist funding, far below rural, sparsely populated Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota. According to the New York Daily News, New York is also forty-ninth in per capita funding among cities: $5.87 per person. Compare that with $35.80 for Pittsburgh. But then, Tom Ridge was governor of Pennsylvania. Or look at Florida, where Jeb Bush is governor. Miami gets $52.82 per person. Orlando gets $47.14--as if Disney World is a bigger terrorist target than the New York subway system, the United Nations, the Stock Exchange, Times Square, JFK Airport, Yankee Stadium on opening day, or our reservoirs and water system. What's the biggest recipient of any US city, at $77.92 per person? New Haven, Connecticut. Is Yale a high-priority target because both Bushes are alumni?
Or consider the Bush Administration's treatment of first responders. It has recently eliminated its only program providing funds for upgrading police and fire department radio communications. On 9/11 the FDNY's radios did not function. Warnings over police radios to evacuate the towers immediately were not received by the firefighters trying to rescue trapped office workers. On that one day, 343 New York City firefighters died, and about 120 of these deaths have been attributed to the futile radio transmissions.
Since this catastrophe, New York's firefighters have emerged as international symbols of bravery, suffering and grief. Tourists still visit firehouses to offer condolences and leave flowers. George Bush famously embraced a firefighter on his visit to Ground Zero right after the attack. Bush has displayed members of the FDNY in the gallery at his speeches, wrapping himself in the glory of first responders.
But now, his Homeland Security Department has killed a federal program to integrate police and fire communications systems; New York will lose $6 million. Bush and Ridge have announced a $200 million cut in similar programs for next year, and a cut of 33 percent in the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program.
-continued on page 2-
|
|
|
|
|
|
