Could protests in NYC backfire? Interesting article in Village Voice

[karlrschneider]

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0434/perlstein.php

The possibility terrifies me.

[GOPAgainstGW]

1. That all BS

Village Voice, give me a break. The more hell is caused the better, to show the Country that Bush-Cheney are NOT going to brutalize their way through this election process using their fraud and destroying anyone that gets in their way.

[AP]

2. The more hell caused, the more moderates will think law and order Repubs

are right for this country.

Remember the last NY protests: cops tried to rough up protesters in suits, middle aged protesters, and people with their babies who were just walking peacefully?

It's because the cite was practiciing for the convention. They want chaos. They want people in Indianna and Ohio to lean right after seeing chaos.

[AP]

3. Protests that work: Great March for Freedom. Sheer numbers work. Peaceful

protests work.

Throwing rocks doesn't work in America.

[Piperay]

11. I totally agree

this is just playing into the repukes hands and could lose the elections for us if these protests get out of control and possibly even if they don't. :-(

[digno dave]

This issue is the one thing i feel can derail Kerry's election

I am serious.

[digno dave]

12. This issue is the one thing i feel can derail Kerry's election

I am serious.

[digno dave]

13. This issue is the one thing i feel can derail Kerry's election

I am serious.

[Cassandra]

4. You want to raise hell?

Do it in Houston, not here.

[karlrschneider]

5. Well about half the country is not only willing but -anxious- to "prove"

democrats are anarchistic mobsters, and you know the media will show every "incident" that supports that perception. And there WILL be incidents because the Repugs will have paid agents provacteur to make sure. :grr:

[LoZoccolo]

23. Oh you're funny sir.

:nuke: :hi:

[Merrick]

6. Protest peacefully prior to the election-save the hell for a Bush"victory"

[jonnyblitz]

7. OH WELL!

:eyes:

[OneBlueSky]

8. word to the wise . . . 2004 ain't 1968 . . .

these days, they can just take you away, never to be heard from again . . . I wouldn't risk arrest with the Patriot Act in force . . . you may end up an "enemy combatant" in some gulag . . .

[AP]

9. '68 didn't work. Republicans won. And won again in '72.

[TheDonkey]

15. The protests weren't at the Republican convention??

they were at the Democratic convention splintering our party.
Protesting these thugs for exploitation is a good and noble thing.

[AP]

18. Actually, they were at the Miami convention in 68 as well. And it didn't

matter where they were, I can't think of situation in which violent protests helped rally at least 50% of the population + 1 around a candidate (unless that candidate were seen as a healer, and an antidote to the protests, which is my speculation about how RFK could have won despite protests -- and it would have helped him a great deal that the election was open that year, and the protests would have had to stop). Kerry is not running as an RFK, and if protests start now, he'll be blamed.

I just don't see how acting violently and aggressively towards Bush is going to do anything more than make moderates feel that maybe Bush is right about Democrats not being sufficiently responsible to lead America at a time like this.

[Piperay]

10. Registering new

Democratic voters would be more effective and detrimental to the RNC than any protests.

[coalition_unwilling]

17. The purpose of the NYC protests

is to show America that dissent to BushCo is deep-rooted and broad-based.

With all three branches on federal government in hands of Repugs and corporate media owned by the same groups that fund Repugs, what other avenue than protest is there to express dissent?

There will, imo, probably be less protestor-initiated violence at the NYC demos than there is fan-based violence after pick your city wins a national pro sports championship. Myself, I'm a big fan of mass sit-down strikes if city refuses to grant rally permit for Central Park. The key is to remain non-violent and, if there is any protestor-initiated violence, to distance UFPJ\ANSWER from that fringe through solid media outreach.

[AP]

21. Putting a lot of people in the streets who look happy that hope and help

are on the way can work.

Putting people on the streets throwing rocks, and screaming and shouting is only going to help Bush.

And I guarnatee you Bloomberg wants to provoke people to scream and shout. The question is, will the cops? They did during the last protests in NY. If they understand what they're being asked to do, they might not do it this time (or they might be confused and think that allowing rambunctiousness which they encourage will help them with their contract dispute).

[Leilani]

20. I agree with that!

Don t get mad...get even!

[TheDonkey]

14. If the police attack and rethugs cheer on a mob against protestors,

they lose!

We shouldn't be afraid of protests. We should be afraid how they are handled. I fear for the protestors safety,but if anarchy is unleashedin NYC it'll do more damage to Shrub than Kerry.

[AP]

22. I'm sorry, but that is so incredibly misguided. Do you have any historical

example of this being the case?

Can you build an argument around any reasonable logic?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

16. Surround violent protestors and turn them over to police

If any protestors illegally endanger life, limb, or property, photograph them and surround them and turn them over to police.

[DoYouEverWonder]

19. This isn't 1968

So far all of the protest against this misadministration have been peaceful. Most of us have grown up and have no need to express ourselves by throwing rocks and/or breaking windows.