St. Louis Should NOT Host the 2012 Democratic Convention
|Face it: St. Louis just can't cover up all its zits.|
But has anyone really stopped to consider the significant drawbacks of St. Louis hosting the convention? Allow to me lay out four good reasons why St. Louis has NOT hosted a political convention since 1916 and should NOT host the 2012 DNC.
1. World Agriculture Forum 2003: Remember this colossal cluster&@#% of an event?
It was probably 1/100th the size a Democratic convention with about 1/1000th the number of protesters, and yet St. Louis police and officials manage to screw it up in a manner that had repercussions for years to follow. Overreacting to the threats of "anarchists" protesting the forum, the city and police conspired to crack down on protesters in a way that violated civil-rights and led to the police issuing an apologize after a long and costly lawsuit. Are we really to believe that St. Louis would handle the 2012 convention better? Something tells me the '68 DNC Convention in Chicago would look like a Girl Scout jamboree compared to the 2012 in St. Louis.
2. Acne Makeup: Does Clearasil make a tube of zit cream large enough to cover all St. Louis' blemishes? The national media isn't going to swoop into St. Louis merely to cover the convention. No. There going to arrive here weeks before with "preview" stories on the host city. And what are they going to focus on? Hmm, I dunno, perhaps the fact that Democrats have controlled this town for decades in which time city has lost half its population, its schools have slipped into unaccredited status, the murder rate has skyrocketed and the city has lost most its Fortune 500 companies. Trust me on this one, the stories are not going to be pretty.
3. Lambert Field: Are all these people supposed to arrive in town on the puddle-jumpers that now serve the hub-less Lambert International? So much for giving delegates and the media a good first impression.
4. Missouri Has Gone Republican. It used to be that Missouri was a bellwether state. Whoever Missouri voted for as president would ascend into the Oval Office. That's not true anymore. Missouri voted for McCain in '08 and given the current political climate and the states deep reserve of Tea Party wackos, it's likely to vote for whoever the G.O.P. throws up as the anti-Obama candidate in 2012. Here in St. Louis we can jump and shout for Obama all we want, but it's not going to change the state's electoral college vote. Better would be to have the convention in Charlotte, North Carolina -- a key battleground state that could go Democratic.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed herein should be construed only as argument for the sake of argument, and not as the personal opinions of the authors. In fact, the authors' positions in "Tuesday Tussle" are decided by coin toss.
For a "pro" take on this issue, see our blog post here.