[Update]:
For anyone feeling depressed about the whole protest controversy, before reading this article, check out this funny film - the title of the movie file speaks for itself.
Alright, lots and lots of discussion has taken place in the first part of my post, of which I'm very happy to see. I'm happy because this is something we really do need to discuss, given that the convention is a mere couple of weeks away.
And sure enough, it's starting to be discussed extensively. To add more credence to Alterman's argument, the NY Times Editoral staff published this op/ed stating that, while the city should provide accessable drinking water and medical supplies for them, the protestors should abide by their original protest agreement:
An agreement on where to hold the largest protest planned for the week of the Republican convention came apart this week. The organizers, who had reluctantly agreed to take their rally to the western edge of town, are now demanding sites in Central Park. Their frustration is understandable, but they gave their word, and the convention is now less than three weeks away. While the demonstrators' original arguments for access to the park were good ones, they have no justification for backing out on the deal they made with the city.
...snip...
The city has been relying on the deal in making its plans to keep the city secure. Given that some 50,000 delegates and other visitors attached to the convention are expected in addition to all the demonstrators, that planning is no small task. If the protesters back out now, there is a real risk of disorder, and perhaps violence.
It is this risk of disorder that was the original trigger for my initial question as to whether or not these protestors will be the death of the Kerry campaign for the Presidency. So now that we have read articles, including mine, about why these protests could be a big problem for the Kerry campaign, let's look at the other side who says just the opposite, the most adament beginning DKos Alumni Steve Gilliard, who lives in NYC, and begins his most recent post with this firery declaration:
Eric Alterman is wrong, dead wrong about the protests.
He uses the example of Chicago, '68, but forgets one central fact of history.
Chicago was a democratic city and the democratic mayor attacked the hippies. It wasn't as if they were supporting the Democrats, the people running the war. [Ed Note: this has been mentioned in the comments of the first part.]
Yes, the potential for disaster is there, but all this talk about how bad protest is reeks of open cowardice. And the people bitching are only complaining about one protest. There are several planned for each day and it is highly likely they will include cops and firefighters. Yes, there is a risk of knuclehead activity, from on duty cops.
More on the cops and firefighters in a sec, moving on (emphasis mine above and below):
What are people saying? That it's ok for cops to beat the shit out of peaceful protesters? That nobody protest the president and his idiotic policies?
Silence means acceptance.
Please tell me how in the fuck can Karl Rove spin four days of protests from the middle class? We're not just talking abut the hippies anymore. The uniformed services are expected to accept a 4 percent raise over three years. Hmmm, sounds fair to me when the city is planning to get the Olympics and build a massive stadium for it. A $600m stadium. Think they're happy? I don't think so.
I want it to be clear that New York is pissed at the shiity, backhanded treatment we got from Bush after were deemed no longer useful. I want delegates to understand that they're not exactly welcome here. Because of Bush and his anti-New York policies.
I encourage all New Yorkers in this community to provide your thoughts on this - are yours in line with Steve's?
Steve has been all over this controversy surrounding the protests, probably since Alterman came out against the nature of them. One post, called Protest New York, is a must-read for everyone, if you haven't already, who is engaging in this conversation. Steve points out various articles in this post that capture the following:
-"Cops planning zero tolerance for violent protests at the GOP Convention. Militant groups plan to disrupt the city like never before."
-About those cops and firefighters - thousands of cops and firefighters are possibly planning to strike to protest the convention.
-The issue of protest groups no longer wanting to hold their rally on the West Side Highway, but rather head to The Park anyway.
-Firefighters are angrily confronting Bloomberg on his most recent policies toward them.
All of which leads Steve to the conclusion that yes, while these protests could hurt Kerry, they could do more damage to Bush. Why? Steve explains (emphasis mine):
If the cops try Miami-style tactics, all hell will break loose. Because then you get the black politicans who have every interest in making Bush and Bloomberg look bad. And if they lay a whomping on middle class people, it will not go down well. Of course, that depends on how many cops show up.
...snip...
What Bush would like is a bunch of hippies stopping traffic. So would the media. But when it's cops and firefighters and teachers, then you have a very different issue. And if cops beat protesters, Bloomberg is in more trouble than he can imagine. If there is a violent riot in the park, it will be on Bloomberg, who will be tagged for protecting grass over people.
The last has been a charge Steve, among others, has laid out on the Mayor - the fact that Bloomberg is almost willing, by his actions or inactions, to give more rights to grass than to people.
Steve does have another valid point. While 1968 was full of the hippie generation protesting the conventions, this year is not going to be the same. If what Steve says is true, and you have the middle class, along with the lower class, at these protests, that may spell more bad news for Bush than it does for Kerry. It looks worse for Bush if cops end up beating a teacher protesting rather than a "freakish" hippie.
In the end, it will come down to how the media portrays it, and this comes back to my earlier argument today of having a rapid-response team in place. The right-wing will blame the protests on Kerry and the Democrats, and we should be ready to get in front of the media and tell them and the world that it is really the Right who is to blame for this, by their policies of the last 4 years. Chris Bowers of MyDD.com is going there and had this to say in reference to Alterman's column:
Personally, I am going to New York to send a message directly to the Republican delegates, warmongers and GOP corporate cronies themselves. They started a war, and now they feel they need a 20,000-member army to protect them in their own country from their fellow citizens. They are actually frightened to death of pacifist, geeky wimps such as myself, so I plan to fuel that fear by showing up, protesting and blogging in an attempt to counteract their spin. They do not represent us, and they do not represent New York. That is something I want to tell them personally. I will try to tell the truth about the protests and the conventions to as many people as possible, and as a group us protesters and bloggers might just be able to make a dent. However, I am not holding my breath.
Still, I do not like where any of this is heading - given all the reports I have read, from protest groups going against city permits, to militant groups wanting to spark trouble regardless, all points lead to a riot happening in NYC on Convention week. Let's just hope I'm wrong and that none of this stains the Kerry campaign and gives Bush four more years.