Interesting ...
Posted on 03/27/2004 1:59:19 PM PST by Lando Lincoln
I expect there to be as much (or more) violence at the Republican National Convention in New York City this September as occurred at the Democratic convention in Chicago in 1968. At the very least, the convention will almost certainly bring the worst civil disturbances that the United States has seen since the World Trade Organization met in Seattle. This, of course, is potentially perilous: but it might well also be a magnificent opportunity.
Frankly, I wouldn’t be shocked to see real street battles. The extreme left is angry. Angrier than I’ve ever seen them. And they will be made angrier still by the harsh security measures which will be required to protect the dignitaries in New York. But the right is angry too, and there will be a lot of conservatives converging in New York City for the event. If the left wants to fight, expect the right to fight back.
Tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of “protestors” will flood into New York for the convention. They will be joined by various thrill-seekers, malcontents, and trouble-makers. It would be insane not to expect things to get ugly.
This, however, can all be turned to the benefit of President Bush. After all, while there might be occasional clashes between pro and anti-American demonstrators, the majority of the clashes that occur will be between the treason legion and the NYPD (or the National Guard). A few days of seeing that on television (backed by anti-Bush rhetoric) will sour many people who might have otherwise voted for John Kerry. This will be especially true given that, since the people rioting in the streets are a core component of John Kerry’s “base”, he’ll have a hard time denouncing them convincingly. He might not even denounce them at all, and instead curse out the President for being a “divider and not a uniter” while explaining that, as a result of his post-Vietnam activism, he “knows something about riots for real.”
President Bush can use the demonstrations (especially if they’ve turned violent) as a rallying point for both his base and swing voters. While, naturally, the President would have to tactfully dance around the point in his speech, there’d be plenty of Republican commentators around to transmit the meme: Democrats are violent, anti-American anarchists. Perhaps Rudy Giuliani could be brought before the convention to hammer this particular point home.
All of this could easily work to transform the Republican convention from a staid event, barely covered by the media (as opposed to the coverage which is sure to be lavished upon the Democratic Convention) into mesmerizing television with a message. After all, in any riot, the average American identifies far more strongly with those seeking to put down the riot than they do the rioters. Those who romanticism political “activism” of this sort aren’t going to be voting for George Bush in any case.
The enemy at home is as dangerous as the enemy abroad. The course which they advocate means more than the loss of this war: it means the staining of American honor and the dismemberment of American power. The people who will be on the streets hate America and will be given ample time to demonstrate the point.
A battle in the streets of New York City might well be an excellent prelude to the battle in the voting booths. It will crystallize the difference between the parties. The Republicans are the party busy fighting a global war against savages bent on murder and destruction. The Democrats are the party busy appeasing savages bent on murder and destruction both at home and abroad. A multi-day political riot by leftists would give the American people an extended demonstration of every single pathology which afflicts the diseased brains of liberals.
Some will respond to this by pointing out the detrimental effect that the Chicago riots had on Democratic fortunes in 1968. I don’t believe that the situations are comparable. The 1968 riots hurt the Democrats for two reasons: they were partially set off by events on the convention floor and they involved the sort of people who were, broadly, seen as the base of that party. If the riots had been staged by Southern segregationists wearing “Wallace” buttons, I think they would have been seen as something else altogether. That will be the case here.
The average American simply does not feel the hate towards President Bush that the far left feels. Not only do they not feel it, they don’t even understand it. Some of them (the duller, less moral, and less useful ones) might not support him, but they don’t hate him. A lengthy riot by his opponents will hammer home one major point to the average American: these people are crazy, and they support John Kerry.
Interesting ...
And the NYPD and NYFD are fully engaged trying to deal with leftist instigated unrest.
I have an understanding with our resident nut at work. I have no use for his suggestions as to what to read, nor do I have any interest on how he "feels" about Bush today.
And I am happy to do the same. Of course, I never once thought that suggesting how he should educate himself was my problem.
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.
