If the protesters at this week's Republican National Convention mimic, even minimally, the actions, behaviors, and violence of the protesters at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, will they end up helping the Democrats or the Republicans in the fall?
Mark my words, the media will be fawning all over coverage of the protestors. The liberal-biased media made very little mention of the fact that protestors at the DNC were literally caged and kept in a designated area. The RNC has enough respect of our nation's political process to allow the protestors to get their message out, and there will be no shortage of footage of it on the news.
I watched a half hour sample on C-Span. Very sad. A bunch of young folks who dress exactly as their parents did when they were that age--save that the rainbow flag has shouldered aside the pink triangle--milled about (one couldn't exactly call it marching) offering varieties of exhortations to "F*ck Fox News." The younguns' respect for free speech thus stood out. Then they set something on fire in the middle of the street (hard to tell what it was). At that point one set of grownups kept the kids from getting owies in the fire while another set sprayed stuff on the fire to put it out. Meanwhile, the kids switched from vulpine sex calls to demanding free passage, apparently right straight through the burning junk. The chaperones demurred until the fire was out, then let them go ahead. At this point, one aging boy began flailing his arms about in a spastic parody of conducting (I bet his parents adored Lenny, who did pretty much the same sort of thing) while trying to get his fellow Burschen to sing the phrase "stop the war" over and over again to the tune of the national anthem. At this point your observer, wounded by age and illness, and thoroughly depressed by his own memories of sixties protests, decided to take a nap. Later on, it was hard to tell the difference.
I think that a lot depends on how it plays out. If the demonstrators are peaceful and if they come across as idealistic and sincere, they will probably get a lot of good press. As Cyrus says, the New York media are kind of predisposed to agree with the protestors and will happily publicize them as counterpoint to all of the Republican speeches, keeping the Democratic agenda up front. If there's mass civil disobedience, it will probably break down by party line. The left are likely to vilify the "brutal" police for forceably removing protestors who are blocking streets and occupying building lobbies. The right will predictably cheer the cops. And if there's real violence, property damage and injuries, if the thing devolves into a battle like the Seattle and Genoa world-trade riots, then I think that it could hurt Kerry and the Democrats, providing graphic illustrations that reinforce Bush's "law and order" message.
My vote "D" was a mis-click caused by a cat jumping on my lap... Moderators: I'd be grateful if you could subtract one D and add one R. (But it's really not that important.) jon
If people are intelligent, they will vote for what they beleive in and not what protestors, the media, (either left or right), or for the matter what thier Uncle Joe thinks. I caught a little of the uncommentaried coverage on CSPAN and thought that everyone looked pretty well behaved. People from all walks of life touting their message. It is the American way. I don't plan to watch any of the convention as I do not think it will add anything to the mix.
Protesters Mark my words, the media will be fawning all over coverage of the protestors. The liberal-biased media made very little mention of the fact that protestors at the DNC were literally caged and kept in a designated area. The RNC has enough respect of our nation's political process to allow the protestors to get their message out, and there will be no shortage of footage of it on the news. [/QUOTE] The protesters at the RNC are being keep just as far away as they were at the DNC. Also, it is up to the host city to designate a protest area, not the political committee.
