RNC in NYC

[toasty]

Anyone else find it a little troubling that the GOP is holding the RNC in New York and making frequent reference to the September 11 attacks? Maybe it's just me, but this strikes me as being in poor taste, an obvious exploitation of the 9/11 attacks for political gain.

I grasp that Bush wants to cast himself as a strong leader, and referring to the leadership he demonstrated post 9/11 is an effective way to do that, but the reports of what is going on up there really leave a sick taste in my mouth and an empty space in my gut. I think there is a way to accomplish what he wants to accomplish without being quite so overt.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? I'd be really interested to see what some of the board members from NYC think...

[Civic_Zen]

I guess I can see your point, but really the RNC is almost always held in NYC. Its just the way of it.

Besides, if Bush was really looking for the most fervent crowd possible, he would have held it in Dallas.

[toasty]

I guess I can see your point, but really the RNC is almost always held in NYC. Its just the way of it.

Actually, this is the first time in the history of the Republican party that the RNC has been held in NYC. NYC is considered a Democrat stronghold -- it probably isn't generally viewed as an appropriate place for the convention.

[neur0t0xin64]

Actually I dont believe it is bad taste at all to reference 9/11. Would you like to act like it never happened...maybe not talk about it for a decade? This is the number 1 issue of the current election...homeland security. Bottom line, I think that sometimes people forget that it is the worst terror act on american soil. Lets not forget what were up against, it is the presidents duty during this convention to clearly spell out his agenda and talk about the policies he has set forth, foreign policy + homeland security=9/11. Lets not run from the real issues here.

[toasty]

Actually I dont believe it is bad taste at all to reference 9/11.

I'm not talking about referencing 9/11 -- I agree with you that it is an issue and should be discussed. What I'm talking about are the 9/11 "tributes" and things of the like that seem more directed at reliving the past than looking toward the future.

[toasty]

This is the number 1 issue of the current election...homeland security.

Is it really? Hear me out before you react...

Homeland security is a major issue, which is rightfully on the mind of every American. Does it matter to Americans? Damn right it does. I happen to think, however, that as an election issue, it is not as significant an issue as you might think, i.e., there is not a real difference between the way the candidates would handle the issue. I don't think that any right-thinking person sincerely believes that if John Kerry is elected, terrorists are going to be ignored or that it will become open season on the US any more than it already is. I would expect any American leader to go after terrorists -- for those of you that consider Iraq to be a part of the war on terror, recall that Kerry indicated that he still would have gone in, even knowing there were no WMDs. Kerry has been pretty careful about not being overly critical of Bush for anything relating to HS. There may be some relatively insubstantial differences in how things would be handled, but nothing dramatic that I'm aware of...

So with no significant difference in the candidates on the homeland security issue, is it really an "election issue?" Bush certainly suggests that there are large differences, but he never really comes out and says what they are, and I imagine HS's status as an "election issue" will depend upon how successfully he can convince people that there really is a big difference between the candidates on this point.

If he ultimately fails, and voters are forced to make their decision on other criteria, is HS really an "election issue" as such? I would argue that it is not...

[Jenks]

Homeland security is related to foreign policy. The candidates differ greatlly when it comes to foreign policy. Iraq is a Homeland Security issue in my opinion, as is our action with the entire middle eastern region. Our stance there reflects our proactive approach towards future problems that would have related to homeland security in the future.

Slightly off topic, but i don't see any similarity between the candidates in relation to homeland security.

And i don't think Kerry would have gone after terrorists in the way that Bush has, he would have sent the little blue helmets. Whoa, now that's frightening to the terrorists.

Almost cliche at this point, but i love this phrase..."Who do you think terrorists want to win the election?"

[HoneyBearKelly]

The RNC is being held in NYC for 1 reason...to dance on the graves of the people who died in the WTC. Bush even wanted to go to a fire house and watch the convention from there. It's despicable. It's disrupting our lives for cheap sentimentality.

[neur0t0xin64]

honeybearkelly your disingenuous comments are making me feel like your more of a liberal jackass (oops i mean donkey, sorry) than a honey bear. go rock paul van dyk or something! toasty, if your sitting here telling me that bush and kerry would attack terrorism the same way then your more out of touch with reality and politics then I had suspected. despite your mostly intelligent comments and debates, your out of the galaxy on this one friend. tell me toasty honestly...after you saw gulliani rip kerry a new asshole, do you want to retract that statement? kerry has said numerous times that he would treat the conflict more delicately, he would combat terrorism more sensitively!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/usatoday/20040813/ts_usatoday/cheneyslamskerryssensitivewarplea

not just that but kerry, never ever in his career able to make up his mind voted for an 87 billion dollar increase in funding for the troops in Iraq before voting against it. check it out for yourself.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040813-123218-4733r.htm

c'mon toasty your boy kerry is a pussy. i could not even in a nightmare imagine kerry as our commander in chief. this guy is in bed with ultra liberal france and bases his policy on foreign opinion! there is nothing even remotely similar at all about the aggresive and resolute actions and long term scope of the bush doctrine, and kerry's visceral inability and lack of chuzpa(balls)! this is undeniable.

[Balanc3]

its simple you dont have to make up your mind when others do it for ya. But again... Kerry is still unprepared even after the DNC proving he doesn't have the competence to lead us forward.

[neur0t0xin64]

[quote="toasty"]

This is the number 1 issue of the current election...homeland security.

Is it really? Hear me out before you react...

Homeland security is a major issue, which is rightfully on the mind of every American. Does it matter to Americans? Damn right it does. I happen to think, however, that as an election issue, it is not as significant an issue as you might think, i.e., there is not a real difference between the way the candidates would handle the issue.

hmmm hmmm hmmmm, shame on you toasty. shame on you. hahahahahah 'this is not as significant an issue as you might think' toasty dont you realize that one major terrorist attack can paralize the nation with fear and drive a sledgehammer in our economy. jeeezus, your far out friend. heres the truth:

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=241

is this REALLY the guy we want to defend us??? a guy who doesnt even show up for intelligence hearings??? im outraged and the american public should be too. i want a president that leads with clarity, and president BUSH fits the bill. say what you want about BUSH but he walks the talk...bottom line.

[HoneyBearKelly]

neur0t0xin64 you just put me in research mode.
Also as a New Yorker I must tell you that Giuliani was more hated here than bad TV reception. I mean everybody hated him. The NYPD held more demonstrations in front of City Hall than all the other city unions. 9/11 saved his political life.

[krelm]

I'm going completely off-topic, but.....

Almost cliche at this point, but i love this phrase..."Who do you think terrorists want to win the election?"

To be honest, I don't think they give a shit. Don't give them more credit than they deserve when it comes to adept political analysis...

What are the 2 major issues that terrorist groups have against the US now?
1. US occupation of Iraq
2. US support of Israel

Kerry is actually talking about putting more troops in Iraq than there currently are. In regards to Israel, no administration is going to waver in their financial, military, and diplomatic support of Israel. If terrorists are keeping up with the specific positions of the candidates (which is a big IF since your average American voter probably doesn't know more than party affiliation and what is said in 30-second TV spots), then both candidates would probably be seen as an equivalent evil.

Unfortunately, I find the biggest terrorist threats to be to US interests abroad. Oil production in Saudi Arabia is a major target which could prove very troublesome for the US - financially. The same threat exists for any major oil-producing country. The panama canal (as Civic_Zen mentioned awhile back) would also be a major target outside of the continental US which could cause serious financial troubles for the US. These aren't exactly issues that the US can solve with unilateral military might. If anything, securing these interests depends on the other countries' willingness to work with the US.

The major "battlegrounds" in the war on terrorism - Afghanistan, Iraq (now a problem) - are already underway and not much about those will change no matter who is elected. There isn't going to be another Afghanistan where terrorists run free to train, aided by the government. I don't see another Iraq where there is the threat of deadly weapons being developed and sold to terrorists (not a threat that I personally believed in that case, but was used as a major justification for invasion). What is left is fighting the small groups in countries like Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Spain, Germany, Philippines, Russia, Indonesia, etc, etc, etc, who are threats to US interests outside of its borders. This requires cooperation between intelligence and law enforcement personel in the US and these countries. There is no way around it.

Kerry wants people to think that he is the guy who will cooperate with the world community and that Bush is going to just be bull-headed about it. The fact is that Kerry is not going to be as apt to cooperate with other nations as he wants people to believe, and Bush isn't going to have the diplomatic ability to be as bull-headed and unilateral as is painted. Both will *have* to cooperate with other countries, but neither is going to do it enough to be as effective as they could.

In that sense, I don't see much difference between the candidates on homeland security. IMO, the US will be equally secure from attacks within its borders under either. Afghanistan will be an equal mess under either. The mess in Iraq will be equally minimized under either. US interests abroad will be equally at risk under either. Bush may have been the clear-cut better man to handle the Afghanistan situation and the first 2 years after 9/11, but it's a whole different game now. Bush or Kerry? It's a toss-up.

Sorry to go waaaay offtopic. To answer the original question....

Bush's strongest point with the American public is how the handled the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Personal feelings on the tastefulness of it aside, I think it is a very smart political move to hold the RNC in NYC and constantly remind people of it. They win points on strategy, even if they lose a few on tact.

[neur0t0xin64]

honeybear im a former new yorker also (brooklyn-bayridge) and i dont disagree with what you said about 9/11 saving Gulliani. But the fact is Gulliani is know as the mayor that cleaned up New York, made it safer and sent alot of people to jail to pay for their crimes. But hes still a moderate republican and dont be surprised to see him on the republican ticket in 4 years. Anyhow I look forward to some good debates with you in the future, happy to see now you will do some research to base your opinions from-I respect that. Krelm-r u kidding me? John Kerry said hes sending MORE troops to Iraq????!! hahahahahahhaah your silly, partner..his main message for his campaign platform has been to bring troops home??? R u smoking crack man?? seriously?? r u??

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-08-08-oppose_x.htm

or maybe I should reference you here:HEADLINE: KERRY VOWS TO BRING TROOPS HOME!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040804/pl_nm/campaign_kerry_dc

Krelm your losing credibility by the milli second. you say Kerry would fight the war on terrorism the same huh?? The most apparent contrast between the president and Kerry, is that Kerry believes that seeking out the terrorists where they lay their head and taking an offensive, proactive position in rooting out terrorists where they train is encouraging more terror acts and essentially makes us less secure as a nation. Now you answer me this? Is that what you believe?

[krelm]

Dood, you really do crack me up. Sometimes I just can't tell if you are serious or not, but I'm afraid you actually are.

Krelm-r u kidding me? John Kerry said hes sending MORE troops to Iraq????!! hahahahahahhaah your silly, partner..his main message for his campaign platform has been to bring troops home??? R u smoking crack man?? seriously?? r u??

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-08-08-oppose_x.htm

Did you actually read the articles that you link to, partner? First, the USA Today article. First, to quote:

...to end their mission successfully and bring them home as soon as possible.

This is more or less the same line that the Bush administration is singing. Successfully complete the job in Iraq and bring the troops home. "As soon as possible" doesn't mean an immediate mass pullout (see Spain). "End their mission successfully" certainly doesn't sound like he is in any sort of a rush to pull troops from Iraq. It means they are going to be there for an indefinite amount of time. Notice there is no timeline given whatsoever. Kerry wants to get American soldiers home. Bush wants to get American soldiers home. Both are going to leave them there until the job is finished. Period. Nowhere in that article does it say, or even hint otherwise.

Digging further....

Lead NATO to make the security of Iraq one of its global missions and to deploy a significant portion of the force needed to secure and win the peace there. NATO participation will open the door to greater international involvement from non-NATO countries.

Here, he is stating that he wants further international involvement. Once again, no mention of pulling out troops. He wants more nations involved in getting the job done, which is exactly what Bush has been asking for from day one. Getting NATO help sure doesn't seem like pulling troops from Iraq.

Again, where does it *anywhere* state that Kerry is going to reduce the number of troops in Iraq in the short term? It's not part of his platform - that's been clear from day one. It was even more clear when at the DNC there were no anti-war references in any speeches and no anti-war posters, shirts, etc were even allowed on the floor.

Now on to the Yahoo! article.

or maybe I should reference you here:HEADLINE: KERRY VOWS TO BRING TROOPS HOME!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040804/pl_nm/campaign_kerry_dc

Did you even bother to read the entire headline? The actual headline is:
"Kerry Vows to Bring U.S. Troops Home 'With Honor'"

You see, you left out the...uh..."With Honor" part and it sort of completely changed the meaning of what was written. Tricky one, you are. :wink:

If you actually read the article instead of taking the first part of the title out of context, you will see that the whole statement is
1. a blatant rip-off of a Nixon campaign pledge regarding Vietnam (Kerry bringing up Vietnam again? Nahhhh).
2. Is in direct reference to building relationships with other countries.
3. Has nothing to do with actually getting the troops out of Iraq. Just rebuilding international relationships so that the troops leave "with honor".

In other words, it's a bunch of horseshit with no real meaning or bearing on policy or reality. It certainly wasn't any sort of an indication that he was going to reduce the troop presence in Iraq, whether you take it at face value or not. It's typical political cheerleading, nothing more.

And actually, to quote a past Kerry speech I managed to dig up,

In the short-term, however, if our commanders believe they need more American troops, they should say so and they should get them.
(taken from a transcript at an April 30 speech at Westminster College - http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=29697 - scroll about 2/3 down in the article)

That certainly doesn't sound like he is going to pull out troops. No, in fact, Kerry is quite obviously no more apt to speed the troops' returns home faster than Bush. Under either of these two tossers, Iraq is going to be an occupied country for years. That should be blatantly obvious.

Krelm your losing credibility by the milli second. you say Kerry would fight the war on terrorism the same huh?? The most apparent contrast between the president and Kerry, is that Kerry believes that seeking out the terrorists where they lay their head and taking an offensive, proactive position in rooting out terrorists where they train is encouraging more terror acts and essentially makes us less secure as a nation. Now you answer me this? Is that what you believe?

What the hell are you blathering on about man? Where the hell does Kerry state that? The only thing I can find which maybe is remotely related is that Kerry favors a "global consensus" over pre-emption. That's a far cry from saying that Kerry doesn't want to seek out terrorists. He still wants to root out the terrorists, but he is saying that he wants to work with other countries rather than bullying them as was the case with Iraq.

At least, that is his official line....

Which, had you bothered to read what I wrote above (you are good at taking things out of context, eh?), it would be clear that I feel is a load of shit. Kerry is going to be as much an international "bully" as Bush would be. Few American presidents in recent years have payed much attention to the will of the international community, and I don't believe Kerry would be much different. Kerry or Bush = status quo.

And quite frankly, the war on terror is beyond the point where pre-emptive strikes on nations are going to even really be an issue anymore. Who is next? North Korea? Bush has made it clear that we aren't going to invade there. Iran or Syria? There is no way even the most hawkish would dare set foot in another middle east country now. Sudan? This one has already been handed off to the UN. The big, easily identifiable battlegrounds are already being fought (and will be for years, under any president). What is left is not something that can be solved by sending in thousands of troops - it's the tricky shit that's going to take cross-border cooperation. And despite all the rhetoric, I don't see either Bush or Kerry having a clear-cut advantage on this issue.

Read the rest of what I wrote - past the ONE sentence you focused on - and it should be pretty clear.

And, on a more personal level, you really should move beyond taking things out of context and ranting about them if you want to maintain your credibility in any sort of debate. The multitude of personal insults that you direct towards anybody that you suspect has a different belief than you also don't exactly lend one to take you too seriously. I was under the impression that this was a good spot for friendly, intelligent debate amongst MS members over political issues - not some inane 3rd grade insult match. You obviously have different opinions than myself or many people on this board, which I do respect. I enjoy informed debate on differences, but the personal attacks which are quite often baseless are pointless and don't really serve any purpose. Cool? Just my $.02 on the matter.