New York Convention in 2004 (VANITY POST)

Terry McAuliffe has just handed the Republican Party one of the best PR opportunities ever, now it is up to the Republican National Committee to take advantage of it. By deciding to hold the 2004 Democratic Convention in Boston, Mr. McAuliffe has snubbed a city striving to recover from the worst terrorist attack in recent memory and at the same time he has turned his back on fellow New Yorkers. There have even been calls from non-partisan websites like politicsny.com to strip Mr. McAuliffe of his status as a native New Yorker. The point is that Mr. McAuliffe has blown a chance to improve the Democratic Party’s image problem concerning terrorism. Democrats are thought to be soft on national security issues and holding the convention in New York with its 9/11 backdrop would have helped them with this negative perception. A New York convention would remind people of the terrorist attack and the city’s amazing recovery from it.

A New York convention would also show the nation that the Democrats stand with the denizens of New York and against the terrorists. This upbeat feeling would reflect on the party and its candidates. Instead the DNC has decided to hold its convention in Boston of all places. Boston is a city that highlights the worst left wing elements of the party. It is the city of Harvard elitists, Kennedys, and left wing losers like Michael Dukakis. It is also the city of the Red Sox baseball team, the archrival of the New York Yankees. The BoSox have not won a World Series in years and now the Democrats can share in this tradition of losing; they have gotten off to a great start in 2000 and 2002. A Boston convention will do nothing to highlight Democratic efforts on the terrorism issue.

Therefore it is time for the Republicans to take advantage of this blunder. RNC officials are considering New Orleans, Tampa as well as New York. While New Orleans and Tampa are nice cities, they do not provide the imagery to remind voters of the Bush administrations efforts against the terrorists. Furthermore both cities are located in the South—a Republican bastion. A New York convention would help the Party reach out to the Northeast and voters outside its base. One could imagine top Republican officials traveling the neighborhoods of the outer boroughs and shaking hands with ordinary residents from all racial, class, and social backgrounds. If the Republicans cannot win the state, then they can at least make the Democrats spend campaign funds here. Furthermore many of the landmarks in the city recall feelings of patriotism and history—the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, the Empire State building etc. These sights are all symbolic of everything good about our country; more important they represent what we are fighting for in this War on Terrorism. Additionally, the Republican Party in New York is on the rise and holding the convention here will strengthen the state party for future elections. Recently the GOP has elected a governor for three terms as well as two consecutive Republican mayors for New York City—one whom is Rudy Guiliani, the hero of 9/11. Do the Republicans want Hillary Clinton out of the Senate in 2006 or not? I can imagine it now, Republican mayor Michael Bloomberg giving the opening convention speech, Rudy Giuliani giving the keynote on how successful our recovery from the WTC attacks have been, and Colin Powell telling all of America about his life story—from the South Bronx to the State Department. The choice is obvious; bring the National Republican convention to New York City and remind the American voters about the brilliant Republican stewardship of America’s fight against its enemies.

I'm inclined to think you are right. It would play very well, because it would relive one of the great moments in President Bush's presidency when he was at Ground Zero being greeted by the rescue workers. Even if it didn't win New York State it would play very well nationally.

Here's a reminder of that moment from Oriana Fallaci's "Anger and Pride":

It comes from their patriotism. I don’t know whether in Italy you saw and understood what happened in New York when Bush went to thank the rescue men (and women) who are digging in the ruins of the two towers trying to save some survivor but only coming up with the occasional nose or finger. In spite of this, they do it without giving up. Without resigning themselves, so that if you ask them how they do it they say: “I can allow myself to be exhausted, but not to be defeated.” All of them. The young, the very young, the old, the middle aged. White, black, yellow, brown, purple... You saw them, didn’t you? While Bush was thanking them all they did was wave their little American flags, raise their clenched fists, and roar: “USA! USA!” In a totalitarian country I’d have thought: ”Look how nicely organized this was by the Powers That Be!” Not in America. In America you don’t organize these things. You don’t manage them, you don’t command them. Especially in a disenchanted metropolis like New York and with workers like New York workers. New York workers are real pieces of work. Freer than the wind. They don’t even obey their unions. But if you touch their flag, or their Patria… In English the word Patria doesn’t exist. To say Patria you have to put two words together. Father Land. Mother Land. Native Land. Or you can simply say My Country. But they have the noun “patriotism.” They have the adjective “patriotic.” And apart from France, I can’t imagine a country more patriotic than America. God! I was so moved to see those workers clenching their fists and waving their flags and roaring USA-USA-USA, without anyone ordering them to.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.