« Lemme Sum up the Arnold Speech | Main | More Franken Pics »

Enough of the Bullshit!

I'm watching "The Daily Show," and they're doing a bit on the Republicans exploiting 9/11 at their convention. I've heard this theme repeated over and over. Am I the only one who remembers just how the RNC happened to end up in NYC?

After 9/11, I recall Guiliani (or possibly Bloomberg) asking both parties to hold their conventions in New York. The idea was to show the world that New York was NOT crippled by the attack, that all Americans stood with those who were hit the hardest by 9/11, and a colossal "FU" to the terrorists. I thought it was a fantastic idea. A lot of people thought it was a fantastic idea. The Republicans immediately agreed -- and that was HUGE. New York CIty has always been a fortress of Democrats, despite the last two mayors, and the GOP had never gone to the Big Apple. But they heard the city's call and answered.

The Democratic National Committee, however, had it's own agenda. They told New York that they'd be glad to come to New York, but only if they disinvited the Republicans. They didn't want to share any possible gains with being so close to 9/11's Ground Zero with the Republicans.

New York, to it's credit, told the Democrats to shove it, and they did -- right up Boston's wazoo. The poor Hub City is still trying to recover from the blows to it's economy from hosting the convention.

So, Democrats, the next time you feel like slamming the Republicans for "exploiting 9/11 at their convention," I strongly request you first write down your feelings on a piece of paper, fold it into very sharp corners, and shove it up your collective asses. You not only had the opportunity to make a great patriotic gesture and eliminate 9/11 as a partisan issue, but you chose instead to play politics and attempted to sieze it for yourselves. Don't you DARE try to dodge your own culpability this time.

There's an old Jewish joke that defines "chutzpah" as "a man who kills his parents, then asks the judge for mercy because he's an orphan." Now we have a new example of rank, unmitigated political gall -- and it's called the Democratic National Committee.

J.

Update: A few people have questioned the facts behind the above (yeah, that's you, Barbar), pointing out just when the Conventions were announced. I direct those people's attention here for the story behind the choosing of the host cities. And here's a hint, Barbar: A LOT of work went on before those announcements.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Enough of the Bullshit!:

» Sebastian Holsclaw linked with Convention Location

» The Universal Church of Cosmic Uncertainty linked with Why Here?

» Bad Example linked with APOLOGIES TO THE REPUBLICANS

Comments (18)

Spot on.Recently i... (Below threshold)
Rtfm:

Spot on.

Recently it's been apparent that finally the embargo on the truth about donks is broken.

They've grown far too used to being able to pitching their slings and arrows without fear of consequences.

Bring on the consequences.

AMEN!!!!~Cindy... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

AMEN!!!!
~Cindy

Thank you. I thought I rec... (Below threshold)
Marci:

Thank you. I thought I recalled that GWB had suggested it because NYC was grappling with unemployment after 9/ll. It was a way to proclaim NYC to be safe to visit. But I think your recollection is probably correct and mine is a figment of my imagination.

Certainly it wasn't to take advantage of the situation.

Listening to the liberal media talk about this president has been like listening to the PLO talk about Sharon.

I think this convention is fantastic. It may not convince a single voter to vote for GWB, but it may keep a few Republicans from going nuts.

I wonder if the so-called a... (Below threshold)
Anna:

I wonder if the so-called attention-seeking protesters have mirrors. Something tells me they do not realize how they appear, at least on TV, absolutely demented and like perhaps they would smell bad,even. WoW! Sort of the way normal people live in fear of appearing. And I delight in always referring to them as 'Democrats' protesting despite their alleged claim of great diversity. That one is sure to irk ones liberal buds, haha, but is tremendous fun. Just pretend you do not understand and watch them try to explain to you how it works.

Kicking a NYC cop unconscious in a city where the firemen and policemen preformed so wonderfully on 9/11 is just stupid not to mention revealing a level of moral reasoning that is substandard. The more they act out what looks for all the world like inner conflict and emotional problems, the worse they look. They should be good for a couple hundred thousand votes alone.
~Anna

In the eyes of the leftist ... (Below threshold)

In the eyes of the leftist media, it is perfectly acceptable for Kerry to brag about his supposed exploits in a war 30+ years ago, but anathema for Bush to talk about 9/11 - an event recently etched into our hearts. Your right, it's typical liberal B.S.

The Daily Show is nothing b... (Below threshold)
Leroy:

The Daily Show is nothing but a whiny liberal show hellbent on bashing Republicans. Dennis Miller would make the show a smashing success if he replaced Stewart who is five times the smirker that Bush is

It's more like, "Enough of ... (Below threshold)
Chris:

It's more like, "Enough of the Republicratshit!"

does not matter, same BULLSHIT different head!

The Daily Show is perhaps o... (Below threshold)

The Daily Show is perhaps one of the only unbiased "news" sources in America today. They rip on everyone and they rip on them equally. Because it's all a joke to them, they can actually ask tough questions. If all you see from TDS is liberal propaganda then you have a huge set of blinders on and no sense of humor.

Yippee for you Jay!! Extre... (Below threshold)
Debra:

Yippee for you Jay!! Extremely well put.
ENOUGH OF THE BULLSHIT!!!
JK/JE are a pox on America. A giant boil on this great country which stands for more than electing a trial lawyer who bilked insurance companies for millions and a veteran who sold out his bothers in arms.

The Democrats selected thei... (Below threshold)
Barbar:

The Democrats selected their convention site on November 13 2002.

The Republicans selected their convention site on January 6 2003.

Enough of the bullshit indeed.

Thanks for the link.<... (Below threshold)
Barbar:

Thanks for the link.

I don't see anything about the Republicans "accepting immediately" because they just loved New York and its citizens and wanted us to heal. I see something about Bloomberg keeping up the sales pitch for 13 months.

Having both conventions in NYC might have been 9/11 a less partisan issue, or it might have made it an even bigger pissing match. You really think the Republicans wanted to take 9/11 off the table? Then why has it been mentioned 5 billion times so far at the convention? Come on now. Why not have the convention in New Orleans? Because you didn't want to disappoint all those latte-drinking war-protesting gay New Yorkers?

It's also somewhat disingenious to think that the DNC crushed Boston's economy while the RNC is doing wonders for New York. Please. Think.

Finally, I know you guys think that the Republicans are great for answering New York's call. How many New Yorkers are actually happy that the Republicans are in town? This post is just another example of Republicans using NYC and 9/11 for partisan gain. New York is great as a symbol, the place where America was attacked. In reality New York is a very liberal city most of whose inhabitants you can't stand.

Barbar, first let me apolog... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Barbar, first let me apologize for the tone of the Update. I was still angry about the topic and running out the door for work, and I should have been politer.

Now that I've had a little more time to research it, I'm finding a couple more links to the story behind the story.

And I dunno about the economic impact on New York, but I do know it's a LOT bigger than Boston and a LOT better prepared to deal with the mess. Just poking through my "Buyer's Remorse" postings on the DNC shows just how ugly things got up here in New England. I have absolutely no such perspective on New York.

J.

Well I live in NH but I'm o... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

Well I live in NH but I'm orginally from Woburn, MA and I can tell you for a fact, that Boston actually lost money because of the DNC. People within blocks had to take the week off and others took the week off because there was no way they could get to work. Lots of highways here and they were closed all within 50 miles give or take. Don't forge tthe power plant so yes, it cost those who owned businesses and those who worked there as far as Woburn, Stoneham etc on this side could not go to work. It cost way to much for the MA people and was extremely inconvenient for all of them to have used Boston. New York on the other hand, has not blocked off entire highways and roads making it impossible for people to go to work or how else could you get $00,000 protestors walking right up to Madison Square Garden???

You think that bringing up 9/11 is bullshit? (Not you Jay) Well, that's bullshit. Rudy made sure it was held in Madison Square Garden in Manhattan to show the world that we are not afraid of these damn barbarian terrorists. We are going on with our lives despite or in spite of them. Using NYC was an incredibly brave idea and a smart move. As to using 9/11, that is vital because that is the moment that President Bush rose to the occasion of a spectacular President leading this country in one of the worst tragedies on our land by terrorists. It was his defining moment and I for one am extremely thankful that President Bush and Dick Cheney was in office when this happened. If anyone else was there, I do not think the results for all of us would have been the same. 9/11 SHOULD NEVER BE FORGOTTEN and I have the website if you want to put it on your website so that NO ONE EVER FUCKING FORGETS what happened to this country. People came from all over this country to help and the people themselves are strong, liquid, compassionate and they all came together to help one another during those horrid times. This defined President Bush's presidency and it is what he has done since that day that has defined his presidency so it is only right and fair that it be used to show his decisions, et al, since that date. To do anything else would be preposterous. After almost 8 months as President, he had this that defined his every move since then and that record has to be set to show how he lead this country through those horrible times and the rebuilding of not only NYC but the rest of the country, including our economic status. If it were not for his leadership, we would not be in the place we are today and we should be damn thankful we had someone like him and Dick Cheney in office. I am. Plus the convention is being done in NYC, showing the world that no one is afraid of terrorists at the most major capital in this country. Plus the attacks on this country happened there; to ignore that would be stupid. In three years, NYC got it so together that they were able to hold this convention there and that is quite an amazing feat. You can't ignore what defined his presidency, you can't ignore that the attack was there in NYC, you can't ignore the deaths and the immeasurable good that happened there in Manhatten which is where the convention is taking place. So 9/11 has to be the subject because that is what made President Bush the leader we needed at the worst possible time of our lives and our country. No question about it. To do otherwise, would not be advantageous. So stop complaining about what the convention is all about. A convention for the INCUMBENT has to show what he did in the last 3-4 years of his presidency and that is exactly what they are doing and that is exactly why they are doing it. If you don't like hearing about 9/11, then go visit the democrats!
~C

It is equally disingenuous ... (Below threshold)
M:

It is equally disingenuous to chastise Republicans for not "accepting immediately" given that the first approach came a scant 60 days after 9/11. I suggest that other more important things took precedent around that stretch of time. However, what IS fascinating is the Democrats' out-and-out dissing the idea - "from day one", as that master of political strategy, Terry McAuliffe, put it - because they (boo hoo) couldn't have the whole cake to themselves. How perfectly childish.

And what if the GOP convention had gone to Naw'lins? It appears, strangely, that you suggest that the historical enormity of 9/11 would play a minor roll in any convention held in any place other than NYC. Funny that, having seen Kerryans put on a 9/11 tribute in Boston.

Your last concern - "How many New Yorkers are actually happy that the Republicans are in town?" - is a non-argument. Yes, one realizes a majority of NYC elites - the Teh-RAY-za types - would more warmly receive a World Workers Party convention than this the GOP one. But is unlikely that most every-day folks give a rip one way or another so long as they personally are not inconvenienced. And if there is any inconvenience, at who's hand? The delegates, or the protesters?


-M


Jon Stewart is so hip that ... (Below threshold)
Rex:

Jon Stewart is so hip that how could anyone disagree with him. Here's how, know the facts. Yeah the show is pseudo news but it always slants toward taking a dump on Bush and Republicans. In 10 years people will look back at Kerry like they do Dukakis. Some idiot that got nominated during a pot party by a bunch of whiners. Can you imagine the guy taking 8mm video in Vietnam like he was some type of John Wayne strutting around. That shit is embarrasing. Bwah ha ha!

A few things (it seems that... (Below threshold)
Barbar:

A few things (it seems that some people have missed my point):

I did not chastise the Republicans for not accepting immediately. The post here made it sound as if the Republicans jumped at the chance at helping out New York, while the Democrats were selfish and played games; I simply pointed out that the RNC site was worked out over some time (not that there's anything wrong with that, all in due course). And I would argue that the Republicans wanted to have the convention in NYC because it was in THEIR interests, not necessarily the interests of the city, although since this is largely a matter of interpretation I'm sure many here would disagree. I would not deny that the Democrats were selfish in choosing not to come to NYC; I just don't agree at all that the Republicans were selfless and heroic by choosing to come to NYC.

Regarding the NYC economic benefit -- that is unclear. Here's a quick summary of the issues:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5831190/

I live in NYC. The convention has been a hassle because it is located right near Penn Station, and there have been massive security operations due to the convention. Many people are staying away from the city this week; many people are taking vacation time, or working from home, or perhaps getting out of work early. There are a lot of traffic issues due to streets being closed off. Businesses, especially those near the convention, are worried about taking a hit. So yes, people in NYC are being inconvenienced, and this would be the case even if there were no protests at all.

Add the fact that Bush is simply not that popular in New York. He has his supporters, but the city is definitely liberal.

I can't respond to all the silliness in some of the above posts ("In three years, NYC got it so together that they were able to hold this convention there and that is quite an amazing feat" was especially chuckleworthy) but if you want to talk about rebuilding New York, what exactly has Bush done? What has he done for the city? Read this:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/homesec.tm/

New Yorkers are getting screwed out of homeland security funding. Bush did launch an invasion of Iraq, which oddly enough most New Yorkers did not support. I guess they've forgotten about 9/11, it must have slipped our collective minds, thanks to the Republicans for reminding us.

keep up the good work, Jay.... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

keep up the good work, Jay.
~C

>>not that there's anything... (Below threshold)
M:

>>not that there's anything wrong with that,

Sienfeld notwithstanding.

The point of Jay's comment regarding acceptance I understood as the RNC not telling Bloomberg to kiss off as did McAuliffe and the DNC. That is, the RNC engaged in the process positively, from the start.

As to your point of who's interests were served, I stand confused. On one hand you label the DNC as being "selfish" for NOT coming to NYC, yet believe the RNC (or some there of) as being the same for doing the opposite.

Of course the RNC thought of it's interests. To do otherwise would be neglegent (and is certainly is no different than DNC believing - wrongly, I suggest - Boston, the haunt of it's candidate, was in it's best interest). However, interests are not always exclusive. Might it be that both the GOP and NYC gains something?

>>So yes, people in NYC are being inconvenienced,

Then you concur that this is the true basis for your allegation of NYCityzens' unhappiness. And as such, you must agree that it would be of little matter.\, liberal city or not, whether an RN or DN convention was in town; NYCers would be pissed. (Which really doesn't speak well, does it?)

>>and this would be the case even if there were no protests at all.

However, not at all to the extent needed to keep the "Bush Kills" crowd in line. Consider there are roughly 50,000 delegates, suites, newsheads, etc.; people involved in some way with the actual convention. Depending on the source, there 150,000 to upwards of 500,000 protesters and other assorted imported moonbats hanging about and moving around NYC. It is, therefore, absurd to expect us to believe that the cause of all the inconvenience is the RNC. I don't remember seeing throngs of marching GOP delegates closing down the Brooklyn Bridge last weekend. Do you?

>>many people are taking vacation time, or working from home, or perhaps getting out of work early.

Just a note: I don't know of many, if any, who would consider these a reason for unhappiness.

-M




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy