I smell a backlash here. I think this is a terrible decision for the GOP. If the convention was next week it would be great but its a year and a half away! I also think Boston was a bad idea on the Dems part though. The Democrats should have gone to Miami or New Orleans

I'm trying to see this from an unbiased perspective, and it still seems like using 9/11 for political gain to me.

It's going to seem even more like that in 18 months, I think. But, honestly, this means virtually nothing to non-junkie voters. The 2004 conventions will be the least watched of any since they first started televising them.

Damn and 'Nawlins seems a lot better now.

Well, there's one good thing for me (and any other Metropolitan) about this decision. Perhaps some of us could go the Convention as a visitor (does anyone know if visitors are allowed to watch the convention live?). Imagine me, waving a Bush-Cheney 2004 sign! |:0
Ugh, perish the thought....

I know I'd take the bus right into the city. 25 minutes tops. Then I'd walk up to the baracades and join the other protesters.

Where will the "First Amendment Zone" for the protests be? Staten Island?

I think this is just a ploy to remind the nation of 9-11 closer to election time.

I think it could backfire if Bush's foreign policy continues and there are a lot of protesters... but then again, since when has the suddenly hawkish media given anti-war protests any real coverage?

Since when does locating a convention help a party--sometimes it can hurt.

1996 GOP convention didn't help the GOP in California.

2000 GOP convention didn't carry Pennsylvania for Bush.

1988 Democratic convention in Atlanta
didn't help Dukakis in the South.

1984 Democratic convention got us the "San Francisco" Democrats.

I do think this is exploiting 9/11 for political purposes. The Dems need to make an issue of this--now.

"Since when does locating a convention help a party--sometimes it can hurt.

1996 GOP convention didn't help the GOP in California.

2000 GOP convention didn't carry Pennsylvania for Bush."

As others have pointed out, this isn't about carrying New York, it's about using the backdrop of 9/11 to sway voters in swing states.

And I agree it's an attempt to exploit 9/11 for political gain, but what can we do? The mere fact that they're having the convention in NYC isn't proof of that.

"The 2004 conventions will be the least watched of any since they first started televising them."

For the Bush coronation, that'd be true; but I think a brokered Democratic convention could create sky high ratings.

I suppose it's possible that the Dems will end up with a brokered convention, MyDD, but I think it's also very possible that Sharpton will put enough of a scare into them that they'll unite behind one candidate.

I really don't think there is much chance of a brokered Democratic convention. It may seem possible now with so many candidates and no clear front runner. But with the way big money swings mightily towards winners of early primaries in modern elections, I'm almost certain we will have a clear winner by the end of March next year. Remember how fast Clinton consolidate his power in 1992? It should happen even faster for the lucky winner in 2004.

When was the last truly "brokered" convention, at least in the sense that it took more than one ballot to select a nominee? Truman in '48? And how likely is it that a number of candidates will split up the delegates, what with the telescoped primary? A brokered convention would be fun but very unlikely.

Important question:
Has Bush come through in providing New York with the money he promised for rebuilding? If not, can't we make that a major issue. The whole problem with Bush is that he promises EVERYTHING: low taxes, good schools, health care, etc. My understanding is that Bush has failed to provide New york with the money to rebuild, and if that is the case, I think we should use this to our advantage. The whole goal of the location is to make this about 9/11. I think we should not shy away from that, but point out that Bush has failed to address any of the economic impacts of terrorism without actually differing from Democrats on many of his foreign policy initiatives.

Just a question.
There was a lot of feeling that the Democrats made a big mistake in choosing Boston over NY for their convention. For all of you who are mad that the Dems are in Beantown, why, then is the GOP Convention in NY such a horrible thing? Aren't they just doing what you wanted the Dems to do?

Where the convention is, I think, isn't that big a deal. You ask the average American where the GOP held their 2000 convention or where the Dem's held their's-I bet most people couldn't even tell you.

Having the 2004 Democratic Convention in New York would be a very unwise choice. Unless the tide turns dramatically, New York equals 9/11 equals warm fuzzies all around for Bush. The Dems need to be present and active on security, terrorism, etc., but 9/11 itself is until further notice a GOP coup.