- Got tips? Send them to tips (at) r8ny (dot) com
- Blog on Room Eight
- sign-up to receive a daily digest by email
- Advertise on Room Eight
- Login / Sign-up
Why don't NYC's leaders want the 2008 Democratic Convention?Howard Dean and the DNC folks are at their wits end right now, because they need to choose a site for the 2008 Democratic Party Convention, and neither of the finalists are exactly kissing their asses to get it. Dean wanted Minneapolis, but the republicans beat them to it, and it is just not considered proper etiquette for these things to have both parties going to the same city weeks apart. Invites too many comparisons, good and bad. This leaves the choice between Denver and New York City. They favor Denver, its in a key city in a key region of the country. It makes sense to have it there. But there is a huge, deal breaking stumbling block. Denver is a union town and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees local there, the stage hands union who would run the event, are adamantly refusing to sign a no-strike pledge. They have issues with the Denver city government and they want the leverage of being able to strike the convention. The last thing the Democratic party wants, with all its union members, is a convention where they have to use scab stagehands and have its delegates cross union picket lines. That just cannot happen. Which leaves well only one other alternative....here. Home sweet New York City home. Now the convention seems to be NYC's to lose. The problem is that the top powers that be never seriously thought we'd get the democratic convention here, being that we just had the gop convention. So they haven't bothered to raise much money or kiss many DNC asses. Spitzer is busy taking over the state government. Hillary is busy running for president and Bloomberg could really care less about raising money for a convention thats going to nominate a candidate he's not likely to support. So what the DNC has now is a convention taking place in a year and a half and the only city left on the list (assuming Denver's unions aren't budging) to hold it, for practical purposes, doesn't seem to want it. What is Dean supposed to do, hold a press conference and announce, "we're holding this convention in new york city whether your elected leaders want it there or not?" I think our elected officials need to get in line with the convention committee. It would be really nice for NYC to host the Democratic Convention in 2008, it would help a lot of us get the bad taste out of our mouths from the 2004 GOP convention. It could be one large love-in party instead of constant arrests and protests. Lets give the DNC the money they want and host the thing. I don't have anything against Denver, but hey, our unions won't go on strike and surround madison square garden with picket signs. The DNC will get a good show here and they know it, and they also know that, in the old broadway tradition, the show will go on! Now wouldn't it give New York a lot of pride if the convention was here in NYC, Eliot Spitzer was the keynote speaker, and Hillary was the nominee? But I guess that might drive the people in the other forty nine states crazy now wouldn't it? :) Why don't NYC's leaders want
Hopefully, the reason that Bloomberg and others are not going all out for the Convention is because they finally realize that events like this are more trouble than they are worth. 2nd & 3rd tier cities like Denver benefit from political conventions but NYC doesn't need it. As far as your comments about having the DNC hear being some kind of protest free feel good event, get real! There will be demonstrations by the lefties who will be blaming Pelosi, Hillary, Spitzer, Obama & the others for the lack of universal health care, Palestian refugees, and the failure of the Congress to repeal DOMA.
reply | email this comment
The only thing we have to offer the Dems is our consistent role as ATM machine. Holding the convention here will work against the Dems politically, thats one reason why the Reps held theirs here. Nationally, the endorsement of NYC is a drag on whoever gets it. We are not the Capitol of the World in Missouri, we are chaos on the Hudson. IATSE should back off in the interest of a Democratic majority in the Federal Government.
Unfortunately, the purpose of unions is to look out for their members and no one else. This can be illustrated locally by the disastrous TWU strike last year--they didn't care that low-wage non-unionized workers couldn't get to their jobs and that small businesses losts millions in sales as people turned to online retailers because they couldn't go shopping. They wanted free health insurance (whoops, they didn't get that, did they?). I don't mean to sound anti-Union here. I think that overall they are a force of good in the world, but it is their specific purpose to only care about their own members. The question should be, how will having the convention in Denver benefit the union, and does that outweigh it's other potential reasons for striking? I don't know enough about the overall labor situation there to judge that. But the union certainly doesn't care about a Democratic majority or anything else that doesn't directly effect its members. (I know that ultimately that will make a difference, but it's hard to see the tangible benefit. Just like the TWU didn't seem to realize that the public's good will should make a difference in their tactics) They need it. We don't. And they don't have a horse in the race. Time for Plan C. But look what happened the last time the Democrats had their convention in NYC. 1992. The year the Democrats won the white house. It didn't seem to hurt then. The previous time the democratic convention came here was in 1976 to nominate Jimmy Carter. They won that year too. This idea that being too closely associated with New York City hurts the national democratic party is bull, the facts clearly tell otherwise.
You can see why Hillary might want it here, even if she's reluctant to cheer too hard for nyc to get it. Remember that night in 1992 when Bill Clinton went to the Garden to make his big appearance, and he, Hillary and young Chelsea walked hand in hand through the closed lower level of Macy's to get to the Garden. It was a great visual. You think they wouldn't like to relive that scene fourteen years later? Bill, Hillary and the now grown Chelsea walking hand in hand through Macy's to the Garden, as Fleetwood Mac plays "don't stop thinking about tomorrow" Then they arrive across the street from the Garden, Bill and Chelsea kiss Hillary and she leaves them and walks alone into the Garden and onto the stage to accept the nomination. Deja vu all over again.
Sorry to mess up your theory a bit, but the Democrats were also in New York in 1980, and Carter lost. So they're 2 for 3 in recent years.
I'm from Colorado and have been following this pretty close, and can fill you in a little info about Denver. First, Denver is not traditional Union territory, a fact that unions here hate and it's why they've been so hard to convince that the Democratic Convention should come to Denver. Next, they all seem to be behind it now, and the non-signer is one guy, who has singlehandedly hijacked Denver's entire bid. He told the Denver Post and others that he'd be willing to strike a deal with Denver's host comittee, which could come out any time. I'm sure you've seen several articles on this since the press is all over it, but the New York vs. Denver issue is not so much about how smoothly the Democratic Convention would go in New York. in a city with as many corporate resources as NYC, there's little doubt that the city would be able pull together more than enough funding and hotel space, and there's no doubt that New Yorkers wouldn't give the Democrats any trouble. But the effect on the Democratic image itself is much different: New York is a known liberal city and Democrats gain nothing by holding their convention in their home territory. It was an awful idea to nominate John Kerry in his home town of Boston, opening him up to attacks as an "East Coast liberal" when needed Democratic pickup states are in the South and West. Colorado usually goes GOP in presidential elections but currently has a Democratic governor, a Democratic majority in its U.S. congressmen, a Democratic majority in both houses of the state legislature, and a 50/50 split on U.S. senators from Colorado. The state is definitely in play during the next election cycle, and so is New Mexico, Nevada and Arizona if Democrats can make themselves more appealing to the West. Those four states together have more electoral weight than Florida. Plus, a Western convention would probably look good to southern swing states with unsavory attitudes toward the liberal coasts. I personally love New York and have no problems seeing NYC get the Democratic Convention - except that I know how it looks to voters here (in Colorado) to see the Democratic party become further wrapped up in East Coast territory. Plus, New Yorkers aren't following this very close, because NYC is a huge city and they've had conventions before - they're giving this a lukewarm welcome at best. In Denver the papers print an article about it several times a week and it's on the news just as often - for a metro. area of just 3 million, the possibility of getting such national attention is a big deal. Denver really, really wants it, and the convention would have a great deal of grassroots, public support if it came. Matt you are totally right. NYC doesnt gain anything by hosting the convention other than a headache. The conventions only help smaller cities like Denver or Cleveland or Phoenix.
And holding the convention in NYC plays in to the worst steriotypes of who the Dems are. They need to hold it out west or in the midwest or southwest. Holding it in NYC is as dumb as having it in Boston. What are those people smoking? semipolar hyponitrous unseafaring yamaskite banshee bladderseed mosasaurus untattooed semipolar hyponitrous unseafaring yamaskite banshee bladderseed mosasaurus untattooed semipolar hyponitrous unseafaring yamaskite banshee bladderseed mosasaurus untattooed My name is Greg caulfield . I am from New York .please lat me now. Greg homalosternii rivell preoccupation kabaya phascolomys nonlosable capsid driveway homalosternii rivell preoccupation kabaya phascolomys nonlosable capsid driveway It was only last year when the 30-year 1% Municipal Assistance Corp. tax (from the 1970s fiscal criisis) was due to sunset. Bloomberg got the state legislature to keep the tac permanent. Citizens weren't even allowed to vote on it.Tokyo San Bowl
Post new comment |
Hot Topics
Gov Wire
Political Update
Google AdsSearchRoom Eight Extras |
delicious
digg