ted rall: if you build it, they will riot
"Next year in New York" is already the rallying cry of more than 150 groups planning to protest Bush's coronation. United for Peace and Justice, which organized some of the biggest demonstrations against the invasion of Iraq, has applied for a 250,000-person permit to march past Madison Square Garden, where the convention is being held, on the event's first full day.
What's this? Rall is actually proving one of my points; that next year will be the boiling point for this whole left v. right war.
Everyone from radical anarchists to moderate environmentalists expects the NYC/GOP ideological collision to spark the biggest American protest march since the end of the Vietnam War.....Activists are talking, some with barely hidden glee, about the possibility of violence. "It'll be Chicago 1968," a well-connected progressive leader predicts, referring to the "Days of Rage" riots during that year's Democratic National Convention. "Things are gonna burn, people are gonna die."
Well, yes Ted. That's exactly what I was saying and now I have proof of people actually admitting that. But Ted goes on:
As much as I relish the idea of a million angry Americans turning the tawdry Necropublican National Convention into a Seattle WTO-style fiasco, the potential for mayhem is terrifying. As a Manhattanite, I hope that the Republicans will seriously consider moving their convention somewhere else.
Just like Rall to cower in fear. He's afraid of his own people. Even though he "relishes" the mayhem they cause wherever they go, he's basically admitting that they are terrifying.
The risk of convention-related terrorist attacks should be reason enough to not hold it in a city that paid the highest price on 9/11.....A revival of 1968, with cops fouling their batons with the blood of young people, wouldn't do anyone--left or right--any good.
Stop right there, Ted. Fouling their batons with the blood of young people. Let's go back in time a bit, shall we?
"It'll be Chicago 1968," a well-connected progressive leader predicts, referring to the "Days of Rage" riots during that year's Democratic National Convention. "Things are gonna burn, people are gonna die."
So, they're planning on causing havoc and destruction and possibly death, but if the police beat them back, they will be in the wrong.
Riots would make everyone look bad--New York, the GOP and the demonstrators. The resulting property damage could exceed the cost that would be involved in moving the convention to another city--a price that the well-funded Bush campaign can easily afford. The Bushies would be better off today if they had taken my advice on Afghanistan, Iraq, and the economy. They've haven't listened yet--but that's no reason not to start now.
So, New York is supposed to back out of hosting this convention because a bunch of activists can't keep their emotions in check? This sounds like a threat to me when read all together: Move the convention or your city will burn and people will die. In the passive-aggressive world of leftist activism, if New York City becomes a victim of crazed rioters, it will be the fault of the Republicans for holding the convention there. He beat her because she deserved it, eh Ted?
Yes, I'm afraid of the mayhem as well. But that's coming no matter where or when the convention is. It's coming not just to New York, but to California and all the states in between. The anti-everything crowd is not a happy one and they are just absolutely trigger-happy at the prospect of clashing with authorities. They want it to be 1968 because right now they just look like a loose band of hippie wannabes. A 1968 type riot, with a few smashed heads and maybe a death or two would make them feel relevant again.
New York City does not cower. Maybe Ted is a pussy, maybe Ted is scared of what his very own fanbase is capable of. But New York is not afraid. And New York certainly does not need to take his advice, nor do the Republicans. We'd all end up hiding under our beds if we did.