One of the main turning points in the Vietnam War was when the protests

[Bandit]

became so very large and more and more regular people were participating in them. The larger the protests got the more the general public began to understand that such a large portion of Americans may just have a point. Why should that same logic not apply to Bush*? I think the larger the protest in NYC the better for America. I don't believe it will help Bush* if the masses get out and protest. It will get Media coverage and people will begin to wonder just why such a large section of America is up in arms. Even Clinton who the Republicans hated never drew massive protests. I am 100% in favor of huge protests in NYC and every other city in America until this band of Thugs is history.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. I remember and I agree 100% nt

[Frances]

2. I lived through the 60s and I am afraid that the protests

just made the Repubs stronger. Of course, I hoped otherwise, but I was very disappointed.

I think it would be better for us to focus our energies on getting out the vote.

[Nadienne]

6. That may be, though, because

protesters were portrayed as hippies - "irresponsible" free-love drugged-out stoners who were rebelling against authority the way children rebel against parents.

I think today the scenario is very different. In my opinion, participating in protests is just as important as voting.

[AndyTiedye]

7. I Lived Through Them Too & I don't Agree

We had 70% of the population opposed to the war, but our elected
officials were not responding to our concerns about it. Anti-war
Presidential candidates were either killed outright (RFK) or
subjected to so many dirty tricks that they didn't have a chance
(McCarthy and MacGovern).

Nixon said he was going to end the war when he ran in 1968.
He said he had a secret plan. He didn't tell anyone it was to drop
:nuke::nuke:
and some people actually voted for him as an "anti-war" candidate,
since the only alternative was Humphrey, who was Johnson's VP and
still associated with escalating that war. THAT was what made
the Republicans stronger, it was that Johnson pulled a Tony Blair
(really Blair pulled an LBJ) supporting a stupid, unnecessary and
unwinnable war. Of course JFK had just been killed for his refusal
to do so, so LBJ was likely doing so under considerable duress.

I don't see how we would have done better with Get-out-the-vote
drives under those conditions.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. Huge and quiet better than small and noisy, in this case at this time. nt

[aden_nak]

4. The RNC in NYC will backfire for Bush BIG TIME.

They wanted the symbolism of Bush returning to Ground Zero right around 9/11, and I am sure that when they planned it the War on Terr'r and National Security were Bush's two strongest issues. He was virtually untouchable on these topics just 6 months ago, really. Now all of that has changed, and the backdrop seems more and more like a Bush Failure. Add to that the generally liberal population of NYC, which means there will be millions of able bodied protestors that will be just a short subway ride from Madison Square Garden. . .

Of course, there is always the issue of the media just not reporting the protests, but that is going to be harder to do in NYC. The "local" news in NYC is probably one of the most re-broadcast news shows in the nation. Hell, when I was a kid, I couldn't see much of a production value difference between the NYC news and the National news at 7. It is not going to be possible for the local NYC news to ignore the protests because it's local news. It's traffic, it's current events, it may even be police action. The concentration of media already existing in NYC is too high for them to block out the anti-Bush action.

It's going to be very, VERY ugly for Bush. Mark my words.

[madfloridian]

5. You forget the media factor here.

Now the media just doesn't show them, and so few know about them. You would be amazed at how many are totally unaware of the one million at the March for Women's Rights.