Protests in NYC

[Guest Cerebus]

This is a question I'm not really sure about but I decided to throw it out there (no poll). One of the best political commentators in the country, Bill Schneider, thinks so and he thinks it could go a bad way for Kerry & the Dems.

 

Opinion - Protesters Could Play Into GOP's Hands

By William Schneider

 

The protesters are prepared for this convention. One of them, Stephanie Mufsen, told WABC-TV, "I know that a lot of people will get arrested. I know that there could be violence, but if people get scared about that, they're just being forced into a position they want us to be in, which is blind and silent."

 

The police are also prepared for this convention. Assistant New York Police Chief Jack McManus put it this way: "How tough will we be? When you have a large group of people who disrupt either pedestrian or vehicular traffic or destroy property, there's not a lot of time for diplomacy. So we're prepared to move in quickly and effect arrests."

 

The politicians are prepared, too. "We welcome protesters, as long as they obey the law," former New York City Mayor Ed Koch said. "They have rights. The rights include being able to have the people that you're protesting against hear you and see you, and that has been arranged down at Madison Square Garden. They don't have the right to engage in illegality."

 

"People are allowed to express themselves in democracies," President Bush said last week, "and, hopefully, they will do so in a peaceful way."

 

But are the voters prepared? How would large-scale protests in New York affect the election? There are two theories.

 

A massive show of opposition could reinforce President Bush's image as a divisive leader, one who failed to deliver on his promise to be a uniter, not a divider. But what if the protests become violent and disruptive? "Maybe as many as 1,000 or 1,500 people will come here bent on causing a problem," New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said last week. Some protesters are proud to call themselves "troublemakers." Eric Larsen, a protest organizer, told WABC-TV, " 'Troublemakers' are the people who extend liberty in this country. They're the people who get things done, the people who lead the way to reforms."

 

The riots at the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago were immensely damaging to the Democratic Party. In an unforgettable moment, the late Sen. Abraham Ribicoff of Connecticut denounced the "Gestapo tactics" of the Chicago police from the convention podium. His comments drew jeers and curses from many delegates, including Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley.

 

Voters around the country in 1968 were furious at the protesters for attempting to disrupt the convention. But that didn't mean they felt compelled to support the target of the protests, Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey. Instead, voters concluded that re-electing the Democrats would be asking for four more years of trouble. They might reach the same conclusion if there's violence in New York: If you vote to re-elect Bush, you're just asking for trouble.

 

There's one big difference between Chicago '68 and New York '04, however. The trouble in Chicago was entirely a division among the Left. Neither Richard Nixon nor the Republican Party had anything to do with it. Viewers witnessed the spectacle of the Democratic Party tearing itself to pieces.

 

In New York, a united Republican Party would be facing a mob of angry, disruptive protesters on the left. As Mickey Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac Poll, observed, "If there's a bunch of people wearing masks and having tattoos and throwing rocks, and it gets pictured west of the Delaware, it will be good for the Republicans. There will be a reaction against the protesters -- no question."

 

There is also no question that Republicans would try to portray disruptive protesters in a partisan light. According to a report in The New York Times, Republican convention plans include "portraying protests by even independent activists as Democratic-sanctioned displays of disrespect for a sitting president."

 

"They're here working for the Democratic cause," Bush-Cheney Communications Director Nicolle Devenish charged. "Hillary Clinton is their spokesman."

 

These are Kerry sympathizers, Republicans can say, trying to bring back the chaos and disorder of the 1960s. After all, didn't Kerry become a leader of the anti-war movement after he returned from Vietnam? Disruptive protests in New York could give Republicans the opening they are looking for to turn attention away from Kerry's war record and toward his anti-war record.

[Guest MikeSC]

If anything like the idiocy on Matthews' show tonight occurs again --- this will absolutely annihilate the DNC. Even if the Dems aren't behind them --- these people ARE their base right now.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

It'll likely have no effect either way. But hey, it's their choice. If they want to waste their week marching and shit, they can go right ahead.

[Vyce 0]

If anything like the idiocy on Matthews' show tonight occurs again --- this will absolutely annihilate the DNC. Even if the Dems aren't behind them --- these people ARE their base right now.

-=Mike

I don't know about the Matthew show incident, as I think too few people will even hear about it....or even if they did, they won't think that much about it.

 

What will destroy the Dems, as you say? If more police get seriously injured by protesters.

 

Cause one did last night.

 

If that happens a couple more times, it's going to be very bad for them.

[teke184 0]

If anything like the idiocy on Matthews' show tonight occurs again --- this will absolutely annihilate the DNC. Even if the Dems aren't behind them --- these people ARE their base right now.

        -=Mike

I don't know about the Matthew show incident, as I think too few people will even hear about it....or even if they did, they won't think that much about it.

 

What will destroy the Dems, as you say? If more police get seriously injured by protesters.

 

Cause one did last night.

 

If that happens a couple more times, it's going to be very bad for them.

Besides that, the other way to get a bunch of bad press would be for the protestors to pick a fight with the cops in front of cameras.

 

 

I'd think the Superfecta of bad luck for the Dems would be if the protestors surrounding Fox News attacked the cops keeping them away from the building.

[NoCalMike 0]

well I dunno how it is for the local news in NYC, but out here the protestors have gotten ZERO coverage, positively or negatively, literally zero coverage, which is kind of ludicrious, considering 120,000 people marching isn't something to ignore, whether you agree with them or not.

 

I just don't think they can effect the election AT ALL either way when they are being covered.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Aside from the MSNBC shit, this has supposedly been a pretty tame protest with some quiet arrests. I doubt it'll affect anything.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Yeah, chalk me up to the "nothing going on" receivers. What's happening inside MSG is getting all the coverage. If it ain't front page, it won't matter after this week.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Aside from the MSNBC shit, this has supposedly been a pretty tame protest with some quiet arrests.

Like that one undercover cop beaten to within one inch of his life.

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah -- one incident. Already beat you to the punch...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Well, I've been watching C-SPAN yesterday, and I only tune to the networks when the day's session is over or it's someone completely irrelevent. However, the heads after the show on one of the stations said it had been rather well controlled, and the evidence I can find online supports that.

 

 

But while looking for information, I found this picture/caption on Everybody's Favorite Unbiased News Channel:

 

 

Aug. 31: Scott LoBaido stands with his painting, part of an exhibit meant to show GOPers some NYC artists support them.

 

Come on, now. That has to parody and the Faux News people are too stupid to see that it isn't. It HAS to be.

[Special K 0]

It's going to win Bush the election, IMO. It'll fuel assertions by people like Mike that lame-ass 'anarchists' who work themselves into a froth are what make up the Democratic base.

 

Frankly, it's turning my vote to Bush.

[Guest Loss]

We're voting for the President, not his supporters. I don't see it making much difference.

[Special K 0]

If Kerry doesn't decry some of this ludicrous behaviour, he's associating himself with it. Even Rodney King asked us to all get along.

[Guest MikeSC]

We're voting for the President, not his supporters. I don't see it making much difference.

Loss, how much did the 1992 GOP Convention hurt Bush? A lot, by all accounts.

 

And none of it was because of anything Bush said.

 

Your supporters can kill your candidacy quite easily.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

We're voting for the President, not his supporters. I don't see it making much difference.

Loss, how much did the 1992 GOP Convention hurt Bush? A lot, by all accounts.

 

And none of it was because of anything Bush said.

 

Your supporters can kill your candidacy quite easily.

-=Mike

I agree to an extent, but a lot of people on the streets right now aren't even Kerry supporters. They are there to protest the RNC, not to support Kerry.

[Skywarp! 0]

If Kerry doesn't decry some of this ludicrous behaviour, he's associating himself with it. Even Rodney King asked us to all get along.

Since when is the U.S.-given right to protest "ludicrous?" Also, Kerry's camp has distanced themselves from it.

[KingPK 0]

Aside from the MSNBC shit, this has supposedly been a pretty tame protest with some quiet arrests. I doubt it'll affect anything.

Yeah, all 700 of them. Exactly how many were arrested in Boston again? Mostly morons sitting in the middle of the street and not moving for anyone (which sends a message of "please run me over" than anything else), and a punk being caught on tape beating a detective. It's the police's fault, of course.

 

EDIT: I got the 700 from the Boston Herald, but as I read the Providence Jornal now, their story says 1,200 since Sunday.

[Guest MikeSC]

If Kerry doesn't decry some of this ludicrous behaviour, he's associating himself with it. Even Rodney King asked us to all get along.

Since when is the U.S.-given right to protest "ludicrous?" Also, Kerry's camp has distanced themselves from it.

Kerry hasn't discussed it --- honestly, it would've been an infinitely bigger problem if, say, Dean won --- that I've heard.

 

And since when is the American right to protest "ludicrous"? Well, when you're advocating communism and anarchy, which would do a bang-up job of removing that right.

-=Mike

[Skywarp! 0]

If Kerry doesn't decry some of this ludicrous behaviour, he's associating himself with it. Even Rodney King asked us to all get along.

Since when is the U.S.-given right to protest "ludicrous?" Also, Kerry's camp has distanced themselves from it.

Kerry hasn't discussed it --- honestly, it would've been an infinitely bigger problem if, say, Dean won --- that I've heard.

 

And since when is the American right to protest "ludicrous"? Well, when you're advocating communism and anarchy, which would do a bang-up job of removing that right.

-=Mike

Funny, since removing the right to protest would be communistic.

[Guest MikeSC]

If Kerry doesn't decry some of this ludicrous behaviour, he's associating himself with it. Even Rodney King asked us to all get along.

Since when is the U.S.-given right to protest "ludicrous?" Also, Kerry's camp has distanced themselves from it.

Kerry hasn't discussed it --- honestly, it would've been an infinitely bigger problem if, say, Dean won --- that I've heard.

 

And since when is the American right to protest "ludicrous"? Well, when you're advocating communism and anarchy, which would do a bang-up job of removing that right.

-=Mike

Funny, since removing the right to protest would be communistic.

And nobody advocates removing their right to protest. HOWEVER, we have the right to call them fucking idiots.

-=Mike

[KingPK 0]

Who is talking about doing that? Just don't beat up police and block traffic for no reason. In Boston, there was nothing like this. Sure, that pen might have helped, but there were some in Boston Common that went off with little problem.

[Guest Miss Indy Queen]

well I dunno how it is for the local news in NYC, but out here the protestors have gotten ZERO coverage, positively or negatively, literally zero coverage, which is kind of ludicrious, considering 120,000 people marching isn't something to ignore, whether you agree with them or not.

 

I just don't think they can effect the election AT ALL either way when they are being covered.

The local news in NYC is pretty extensive with the coverage. The morning shows have their reporters at Madison Square Garden both inside and outside doing coverage as well as having coverage during all the protests. They said yesterday alone there were over 500 arrests and it was to the point, they had to take city buses and transport the people they had arrested to one of the piers for booking.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

It's going to win Bush the election, IMO. It'll fuel assertions by people like Mike that lame-ass 'anarchists' who work themselves into a froth are what make up the Democratic base.

 

Frankly, it's turning my vote to Bush.

It's turning your vote to Bush? I'd hope you'd make your decision on who to vote for based on something more than convention protests associated with neither candidate.

[Styles 0]

It's going to win Bush the election, IMO. It'll fuel assertions by people like Mike that lame-ass 'anarchists' who work themselves into a froth are what make up the Democratic base.

 

Frankly, it's turning my vote to Bush.

It's turning your vote to Bush? I'd hope you'd make your decision on who to vote for based on something more than convention protests associated with neither candidate.

Those are Kerry's people. He doesn't want to be associated with such irrational lunacy. I don't blame him...

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

As I said in Downhome's protest thread, these aren't all of "Kerry's people," nor a significant fraction. 500,000 people in New York, however many making jackasses of themselves, will be about 1% of the people who vote Kerry in this election. 50,000,000 votes for Bush in 2000, another 50,000,000 for Gore. Probably won't be too far off this time around.

 

If you don't want to be associated with such irrational lunacy, don't be. Swallow some pride and vote with the policies you like, not the people who compose the constituency.

[NoCalMike 0]

Considering there have been about 500,000 protestors through NYC since Sunday, I'd say 1,200 arrests is pretty good, and about 99% of the arrests were for something like civil disobedience, which is nothing really shocking or evil. As for that ONE GUY who beat up the police officer, he should get the book thrown at him in the fastest way possible. However that was ONE GUY out of over 100,000.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Aside from the MSNBC shit, this has supposedly been a pretty tame protest with some quiet arrests.

Like that one undercover cop beaten to within one inch of his life.

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah -- one incident. Already beat you to the punch...

From what I heard on the radio, the guy that beat up the cop wasn't a protester, just some local thug -- just updating what I commented on earlier.

 

Of course he'll probably cry, whine and say he was a victim of the mob mentality...

[Guest Cerebus]

Considering there have been about 500,000 protestors through NYC since Sunday, I'd say 1,200 arrests is pretty good, and about 99% of the arrests were for something like civil disobedience, which is nothing really shocking or evil. As for that ONE GUY who beat up the police officer, he should get the book thrown at him in the fastest way possible. However that was ONE GUY out of over 100,000.

"Civil Disobedience." Ha. The complaints outside "Guantanamo-on-the-hudson" include baloney sandwhiches instead of vegan ones, water in dixie cups instead of bottled water, and I bet its an outrage to be swept up in a net instead of beaten bloody by billy clubs. Soon enough these guys will go to court where they will be able to post bail and have a lawyer.

 

Civil disobedience usually involve some sort of discomfort, just ask Gandhi. If Dixie cups and baloney sandwhiches are the best this group has to ask for its pretty pathetic.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Now, now cereb. The NY Times called the Cincinnati riots of a few years ago the same thing, which is what it was.

 

That is if you define civil disobedience the destruction of millions of dollars in property, taking old white people out of their cars and beating them up, and forcing the Mayor to enact curfews...

[Special K 0]

Jesus, I'm not talking about protesting being ludicrous, have you read the news? I haven't read the constitution in a couple of the years, so if I screw this up, correct me: Could someone point me to the paragraph that gives you the right to spit on and beat the shit out of people with whom you disagree?

There are MULTIPLE instances of assaults, not one.

And spitting on people could be legal (probably isn't) But yes, that's ludicrous.

 

I was here for WTO. That's not how you make a point people.