RNC party scene: light on stars, heavy on fancy venues

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Initial observations: Why the focus on country music? :p (don't bother answering that) Why the focus on moderate Republicans like Ah-nuld? Why isn't the RNC bringing out the fire and brimstone speakers? I wanna see some fundies up there at the podium telling the world that God is in the White House! This middle of the road crap is a total cop-out. Ah-nuld? Puh-lease, he's more of a stealth democrat. Zell Miller? He's too brain addled to know which party he belongs to. Oh brother...

GOP party scene: light on stars, heavy on fancy venues
Friday, August 20, 2004 Posted: 5:18 PM EDT (2118 GMT)


NEW YORK (AP) -- The Republicans will have one sure Hollywood star for their convention -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger -- along with performers to keep the country music fans happy.

But they'll be hard-pressed to match the Democratic convention's appeal to young voters led by Ben Affleck.

Still, the party's parties promise some flash, making use of the city's many venues: Tavern on the Green. The Rainbow Room. Broadway. Hammerstein Ballroom.

When the Republicans come to town to renominate President Bush August 30-September 2, entertainers lending their services include country performers the Gatlin Brothers, Travis Tritt and Sara Evans. And with the convention still a week away, there's time for more stars to be added.

Those looking to do serious star-gawking might be better off looking elsewhere, perhaps among those protesting and reacting to the presence of Republicans in the Big Apple.

Performances and readings have been scheduled by Margaret Cho, Eve Ensler, Alec Baldwin, Kathleen Turner, Joanne Woodward, Lou Reed, Moby, Joan Osborne, John Sayles and Robert Altman.

Do artists and other creative types tend to lean toward liberal stances on social and cultural issues?

"It's a stereotype, but it's true," said Chris Wangro, an executive producer for the Imagine Festival of Arts, Issues and Ideas, which is coordinating a number of performances during the convention. As far as which group will bring out the most celebrities, "I don't think there will be any comparison," Wangro said.

Even without the Hollywood A-listers, the Republicans have star power when it comes to location. Breakfasts, luncheons, receptions and galas will abound that week, taking full advantage of the city's upscale and well-known locales. A savvy and well-connected delegate could probably end up not paying for a single meal.

There's the host committee's media party at the Time Warner Center on August 28, the Saturday before the convention starts. The delegates are slated to attend Broadway shows the following day. Host Gov. George Pataki has a party or reception scheduled for each night, in locations like the Copacabana club and Central Park's grand restaurant Tavern on the Green.

While some of the events are being organized by the delegations and elected officials themselves, others are being put on for them, often by corporations and special-interest groups.

The American Gas Association, which hosted events during the Democratic convention, has a slate of parties and receptions. The Wildcatters' Ball on August 30 honors Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, while the Tennessee delegation gets a reception on August 31 at Sotheby's special exhibit on Johnny Cash.

Other groups are taking advantage of the proximity of Republican policy makers to hold events and bring attention to themselves and their issues.

The Creative Coalition is planning a panel and gala, the Human Rights Campaign is holding a late-night party, and the Latino Coalition is holding an event at the Rainbow Room honoring a number of Latinos as well as Sen. John McCain. The Latino Coalition also had an event with the Democrats in Boston.

"I think it's important to keep the Hispanic voters very visible," coalition president Robert Posada said. "The message we're trying to send is, 'Look, the Hispanic vote is not for granted."'

Linked
 

Insomnium

Senior member
Aug 8, 2000
644
0
0
I hate to say it, but the presence of Republicans and country music stars and what not in the 'Big Apple' is essentially equivalent to the presence of Hillbillies in the 'Big Apple'. These people simply have no real place in New York City. New York State, yes, but not New York City.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
I wonder if they are going to have Ted Nugent open up their convention with his rendition of "Stranglehold?"
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
One thing I have to wonder about the RNC is WHY NY?

They're losing that state, in most polls, by more than 25%. The only conclusion I can think of is that they're directly using 9/11 as a political ploy. Sad really.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Perhaps Bush can broadcast his speech from the rubble of ground zero again?


I wouldn't put it past that {insert anything you wish here}.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
One thing I have to wonder about the RNC is WHY NY?

They're losing that state, in most polls, by more than 25%. The only conclusion I can think of is that they're directly using 9/11 as a political ploy. Sad really.

So now no one can ever do anything in NYC ever again? Come on. NYC is a huge gathering place with lots of scenery. Your claims of it being about 9/11 is paranoia. The only time I ever hear about 9/11 nowadays is when liberals bring it up as a way to show their hatred for Bush. Liberals use it as a political ploy in every chance they get, it seems.
 

Vadatajs

Diamond Member
Aug 28, 2001
3,475
0
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
One thing I have to wonder about the RNC is WHY NY?

They're losing that state, in most polls, by more than 25%. The only conclusion I can think of is that they're directly using 9/11 as a political ploy. Sad really.

So now no one can ever do anything in NYC ever again? Come on. NYC is a huge gathering place with lots of scenery. Your claims of it being about 9/11 is paranoia. The only time I ever hear about 9/11 nowadays is when liberals bring it up as a way to show their hatred for Bush. Liberals use it as a political ploy in every chance they get, it seems.

I take it you haven't seen any Bush ads lately. He's running on his biggest failure.

My most solemn duty is to lead our nation to protect ourselves. I can?t imagine the great agony of a mom or a dad having to make the decision about which child to pick up first on September the 11th. We cannot hesitate, we cannot yield, we must do everything in our power to bring an enemy to justice before they hurt us again.

Darkhorse hit the nail on the head; it is entirely about 9/11. There is no other reason to go around saying that the heart an sole of America is in <insert redneck town here>, and hold the convention in the city the culture crusaders detest (see Anthrax Coulter's opinion of NYC--though she still chooses to live there for some fvcked up reason). Not to mention democrats outnumber republicans by a margin of 5:1 in NYC.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
One thing I have to wonder about the RNC is WHY NY?

They're losing that state, in most polls, by more than 25%. The only conclusion I can think of is that they're directly using 9/11 as a political ploy. Sad really.

So now no one can ever do anything in NYC ever again? Come on. NYC is a huge gathering place with lots of scenery. Your claims of it being about 9/11 is paranoia. The only time I ever hear about 9/11 nowadays is when liberals bring it up as a way to show their hatred for Bush. Liberals use it as a political ploy in every chance they get, it seems.

Well obviously, being the RNC the location choice is pure politics. Just like with the DNC. The rest of your post is just the usual nonsensical "liberals ... blah blah blah ... hate Bush ... blah blah ..." that I'm used to hearing from the right. Apparently, you're projecting your hatred of all things liberal onto the rest of us. Sheesh, knock it off already.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
They picked the time and place to lean on 9/11 for political reasons. It's in the ads, in the speeches, etc. It's not like bush did anything to help, so I'm not sure how it helps him. He read 'The Pet Goat', gave a speech at ground zero and has cut first response funding and sent most of the Homeland Security money to states that don't need it. He has no love for a liberal state like NY.
 

Vadatajs

Diamond Member
Aug 28, 2001
3,475
0
0
Originally posted by: Todd33
They picked the time and place to lean on 9/11 for political reasons. It's in the ads, in the speeches, etc. It's not like bush did anything to help, so I'm not sure how it helps him. He read 'The Pet Goat', gave a speech at ground zero and has cut first response funding and sent most of the Homeland Security money to states that don't need it. He has no love for a liberal state like NY.

The feeling is mutual, I'll tell you that much. Up north in nowhere towns, like Essex and Willsboro, you'll see more Kerry/Edwards signs than Bush/Cheney. Even though it's a very conservative area, they aren't morons (which is why I tend to think Ripshit isn't really from Upstate NY).
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: Todd33
They picked the time and place to lean on 9/11 for political reasons. It's in the ads, in the speeches, etc. It's not like bush did anything to help, so I'm not sure how it helps him. He read 'The Pet Goat', gave a speech at ground zero and has cut first response funding and sent most of the Homeland Security money to states that don't need it. He has no love for a liberal state like NY.

Last I checked Congress is responsible for spending, not the president. As for your assertation Bush cut spending on first response. He did not. As for him sending money to other states "that dont need it" yeah okay, Wyoming gets like $18million and NYC gets $250million+. Per Capita is NOT a vaild comparison.
 

Vadatajs

Diamond Member
Aug 28, 2001
3,475
0
0
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: Todd33
They picked the time and place to lean on 9/11 for political reasons. It's in the ads, in the speeches, etc. It's not like bush did anything to help, so I'm not sure how it helps him. He read 'The Pet Goat', gave a speech at ground zero and has cut first response funding and sent most of the Homeland Security money to states that don't need it. He has no love for a liberal state like NY.

Last I checked Congress is responsible for spending, not the president. As for your assertation Bush cut spending on first response. He did not. As for him sending money to other states "that dont need it" yeah okay, Wyoming gets like $18million and NYC gets $250million+. Per Capita is NOT a vaild comparison.

get a clue

Both of you, the funding was directed to corporations that don't need it, states have nothing to do with that.
 

Insomnium

Senior member
Aug 8, 2000
644
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: cougarls88
LOL--those Hollywood types are the HEART AND SOUL of America dont'cha know! :D:beer:

I think we've all seen some variant of this before, but the answer is the "heart and soul" voted for Bush, the big cities and liberal areas voted for gore:

2000 Election Map by county

Your "heart and soul" is nothing but open space and redneck towns full of redneck people.

I'm sorry, but they have no business determining the future of America's foreign policies because they are essentially left in the dark with regards to these matters. If these folks were able to THINK for themselves, they'd all be voting Democrat anyway, as Republican economic policies only hurt these people. It's a shame so many of them vote for conservatives based on ridiculous things like religious beliefs and what not and end up screwing themselves over. A damn shame.
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: Vadatajs
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: Todd33
They picked the time and place to lean on 9/11 for political reasons. It's in the ads, in the speeches, etc. It's not like bush did anything to help, so I'm not sure how it helps him. He read 'The Pet Goat', gave a speech at ground zero and has cut first response funding and sent most of the Homeland Security money to states that don't need it. He has no love for a liberal state like NY.

Last I checked Congress is responsible for spending, not the president. As for your assertation Bush cut spending on first response. He did not. As for him sending money to other states "that dont need it" yeah okay, Wyoming gets like $18million and NYC gets $250million+. Per Capita is NOT a vaild comparison.

get a clue

You fvcking get a clue.

1. I am assuming the guy was talking about a bunch of small "red" states recieved the largest per capita. Wyoming being one of them. Lets net mention that Wyoming has a nuclear site bigger than 6 states.

2. The City of New York recieved $150million in 2003, and $103million in 2004. NYC wants $800million. Well other states have needs to.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: Todd33
They picked the time and place to lean on 9/11 for political reasons. It's in the ads, in the speeches, etc. It's not like bush did anything to help, so I'm not sure how it helps him. He read 'The Pet Goat', gave a speech at ground zero and has cut first response funding and sent most of the Homeland Security money to states that don't need it. He has no love for a liberal state like NY.

Last I checked Congress is responsible for spending, not the president. As for your assertation Bush cut spending on first response. He did not. As for him sending money to other states "that dont need it" yeah okay, Wyoming gets like $18million and NYC gets $250million+. Per Capita is NOT a vaild comparison.

I heard a couple of congressmen on NPR. It is first allocated accross state, without regard to size, population, need, etc. Then much smaller chunks are added for need, etc. They both said the system is very broken. While not under the president firect control, he has vast power with politcal pressure. If cared for Homeland security and NYC as much as he does faith based inititives or spending in Iraq, then we could talk.

I work in Homeland Secrurity, I know how little the government really spends. Why make us safe when we can invade, destroy and rebuild other countries? Iraq to HLS spending is over 3:1.

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

And the president does submit a Homeland Security Budget:

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/terrorism/03supphscomp.html
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Insomnium
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: cougarls88
LOL--those Hollywood types are the HEART AND SOUL of America dont'cha know! :D:beer:

I think we've all seen some variant of this before, but the answer is the "heart and soul" voted for Bush, the big cities and liberal areas voted for gore:

2000 Election Map by county

Your "heart and soul" is nothing but open space and redneck towns full of redneck people.

I'm sorry, but they have no business determining the future of America's foreign policies because they are essentially left in the dark with regards to these matters. If these folks were able to THINK for themselves, they'd all be voting Democrat anyway, as Republican economic policies only hurt these people. It's a shame so many of them vote for conservatives based on ridiculous things like religious beliefs and what not and end up screwing themselves over. A damn shame.

I don't think it's fair to characterize these regions as stupid. Rather, there's more of a cultural rift between the red states and the blue states. A rift that has more to do with social issues than anything else. The red states vote Republican because they feel Republicans represent their "family values" more closely than Democrats. It would seem the further one gets from an ocean, the more socially conservative the populace gets.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Insomnium
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: cougarls88
LOL--those Hollywood types are the HEART AND SOUL of America dont'cha know! :D:beer:

I think we've all seen some variant of this before, but the answer is the "heart and soul" voted for Bush, the big cities and liberal areas voted for gore:

2000 Election Map by county

Your "heart and soul" is nothing but open space and redneck towns full of redneck people.

I'm sorry, but they have no business determining the future of America's foreign policies because they are essentially left in the dark with regards to these matters. If these folks were able to THINK for themselves, they'd all be voting Democrat anyway, as Republican economic policies only hurt these people. It's a shame so many of them vote for conservatives based on ridiculous things like religious beliefs and what not and end up screwing themselves over. A damn shame.

Here we have the heart and soul of the liberals. Everyone not voting democrat is too stupid to vote.
 

Insomnium

Senior member
Aug 8, 2000
644
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Insomnium
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: cougarls88
LOL--those Hollywood types are the HEART AND SOUL of America dont'cha know! :D:beer:

I think we've all seen some variant of this before, but the answer is the "heart and soul" voted for Bush, the big cities and liberal areas voted for gore:

2000 Election Map by county

Your "heart and soul" is nothing but open space and redneck towns full of redneck people.

I'm sorry, but they have no business determining the future of America's foreign policies because they are essentially left in the dark with regards to these matters. If these folks were able to THINK for themselves, they'd all be voting Democrat anyway, as Republican economic policies only hurt these people. It's a shame so many of them vote for conservatives based on ridiculous things like religious beliefs and what not and end up screwing themselves over. A damn shame.

I don't think it's fair to characterize these regions as stupid. Rather, there's more of a cultural rift between the red states and the blue states. A rift that has more to do with social issues than anything else. The red states vote Republican because they feel Republicans represent their "family values" more closely than Democrats. It would seem the further one gets from an ocean, the more socially conservative the populace gets.

I totally agree. But the fact of the matter is, the vast majority of the "cultural elite" who are educated at some of the best schools in the country is concentrated in major cities, predominantly on the coasts. This is the way it has been since the birth of America, when the vast majority of trade and foreign interaction took place in coastal cities like New York and Boston.

I also agree that these people in the middle of the country vote for "family values", but in doing so are getting short-changed because although the conservatives may boast about "family values" all they want, the brunt of their economic "improvements" via tax-cuts go directly to the wealthy, and not these poor folks in the middle of the country. This is what I find to be sad. People in rural areas were once predominantly Democrat too.
 

Insomnium

Senior member
Aug 8, 2000
644
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Insomnium
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: cougarls88
LOL--those Hollywood types are the HEART AND SOUL of America dont'cha know! :D:beer:

I think we've all seen some variant of this before, but the answer is the "heart and soul" voted for Bush, the big cities and liberal areas voted for gore:

2000 Election Map by county

Your "heart and soul" is nothing but open space and redneck towns full of redneck people.

I'm sorry, but they have no business determining the future of America's foreign policies because they are essentially left in the dark with regards to these matters. If these folks were able to THINK for themselves, they'd all be voting Democrat anyway, as Republican economic policies only hurt these people. It's a shame so many of them vote for conservatives based on ridiculous things like religious beliefs and what not and end up screwing themselves over. A damn shame.

Here we have the heart and soul of the liberals. Everyone not voting democrat is too stupid to vote.

As a matter of fact, I am a complete moderate who tends to lean conservative. But I also happen to not be a complete fool and am giving my vote to Mr. Kerry as a result. The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of these rural Americans would be much better served by voting for Democrats. And I still stand by my opinion that someone living on a farm in the middle of nowhere Nebraska isn't the best individual to ask about foreign policy relating to nuclear weapons in Iran, Israel, etc, or foreign policy that will directly affect U.S. relations with European powers.

And THINKING for yourself is not synonymous with stupid. You can memorize countless chemistry books, formulas, Physics formulas, etc and be considered "smart" by your peers, but in the end, you're just digesting and spewing information, not THINKING. From my personal observations, this seems to be the way the majority of rural Americans approach politics.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Insomnium
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Insomnium
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: cougarls88
LOL--those Hollywood types are the HEART AND SOUL of America dont'cha know! :D:beer:

I think we've all seen some variant of this before, but the answer is the "heart and soul" voted for Bush, the big cities and liberal areas voted for gore:

2000 Election Map by county

Your "heart and soul" is nothing but open space and redneck towns full of redneck people.

I'm sorry, but they have no business determining the future of America's foreign policies because they are essentially left in the dark with regards to these matters. If these folks were able to THINK for themselves, they'd all be voting Democrat anyway, as Republican economic policies only hurt these people. It's a shame so many of them vote for conservatives based on ridiculous things like religious beliefs and what not and end up screwing themselves over. A damn shame.

I don't think it's fair to characterize these regions as stupid. Rather, there's more of a cultural rift between the red states and the blue states. A rift that has more to do with social issues than anything else. The red states vote Republican because they feel Republicans represent their "family values" more closely than Democrats. It would seem the further one gets from an ocean, the more socially conservative the populace gets.

I totally agree. But the fact of the matter is, the vast majority of the "cultural elite" who are educated at some of the best schools in the country is concentrated in major cities, predominantly on the coasts. This is the way it has been since the birth of America, when the vast majority of trade and foreign interaction took place in coastal cities like New York and Boston.

I also agree that these people in the middle of the country vote for "family values", but in doing so are getting short-changed because although the conservatives may boast about "family values" all they want, the brunt of their economic "improvements" via tax-cuts go directly to the wealthy, and not these poor folks in the middle of the country. This is what I find to be sad. People in rural areas were once predominantly Democrat too.

hee hee hoo hoo! If you think the "culturally elite" represent the major populations of those locations, then the brainwashing is complete!

How do you type? When I look down my nose this high I can't even see the keyboard...