As it was reported this past Tuesday, St. Louis lost the hosting of the Democrat National Convention to be held on Sept 3, 2012 .
Personally, I am relieved that there won't be an increase (even if it is just a short stay) of the liberal population in the St. Louis area. However, I find the fact that St. Louis wasn't chosen most intriguing.
The Democrats chose Charlotte, North Carolina over St. Louis. Others that were in the hunt were Minneapolis and Cleveland.
As reported in the NYTimes Caucus: 'The bid for Minneapolis was complicated by the collapse of the roof at the Metrodome late last year during a snowstorm, officials said, while Cleveland was always considered a long-shot because of the limited hotel rooms in the downtown area of the city.'
So what was the deciding factor for the Dems to choose Charlotte? Perhaps, it is the desperate need for the Dems to carry the south in the next 2012 Presidential election. Two things come to mind, the Dems carried North Carolina marginally in 2008 and they screwed the Gulf cost States out of their oil livelihood this past summer by chasing off oil drilling operations.
In 2008, Obama did not carry the state of Missouri. Could this have weighed in for not picking St. Louis?
Then there is another aspect that doesn't make sense, the unions. The unions were a large part of Obama winning the 2008 Presidential election. St. Louis is a huge union town...Iron Workers union, Communication Workers-America, Intl Brotherhood-Elec Workers, IBEW Neca, IBEW Local 4, Teamster Local Union 604, Sheet Metal Workers Intl Assn., Intl Brothehood-Boilermakers, Latse Local 6 Stagehands, Laborers International Union, Metal Polisher-Buffers-Platers, Carpenters Local 73 and 5 and 185, St. Louis Typographical Union, Carpet Linoleum and Tile Layers, SIEU Afscme, ...just to name a few.
But as the NYTimes Caucus Reports:
'North Carolina is a right-to-work state, and Charlotte has no union hotels, which was another point of contention among some Democratic constituencies.'
'While St. Louis has hosted four Democratic national conventions, and was recommended by Unite Here, the hotel workers’ union, for having the most unionized facilities, there were several other objections raised about the city.'
'Missouri, which once was considered a critical battleground state, has slipped out of the Democratic Party’s reach in recent presidential elections and it remains an open question whether Mr. Obama will heavily compete in the state in 2012'.
A thought here is: Will this choice of Charlotte piss off Obama’s beloved union goons and those on the left who hate capitalism but seem to love money?
And then there is Missouri Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, who screwed over St. Louis...as the NYtimes Caucus reports:
'One of the country’s most competitive United States Senate races is also taking place in Missouri, with Senator Claire McCaskill, a Democrat, is being heavily focused on by Republicans as she seeks re-election to a second term.'
'Ms. McCaskill, one of the president’s closest friends in the Senate, took her concerns directly to the White House, according to party leaders familiar with the selection process. She argued that her re-election could be complicated if the convention was held in St. Louis, because the Democratic gathering will almost certainly attract protesters and compete for fund-raising.'
What a selfish, self serving act by Missouri's own Senator who was elected to 'work for' Missouri, but that's a typical liberal for you!
On another issue for the choice, Politico reports:
'Charlotte’s convention bid touted it as an exemplar of the cosmopolitan “new South.” But the city also has potential drawbacks: Its hotels are not unionized; it is a hub for the banking industry, a sometime populist villain; and the local NAACP recently called for a boycott of the city after its schools used the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday as a makeup for snow days.'
'Last week, when Charlotte’s schools angered some parents by having students come to school on the Martin Luther King Jr. Day holiday as a makeup for snow days, the head of the local NAACP urged national groups to boycott the city.'
The call by Charlotte-Mecklenburg NAACP President Kojo Nantambu led to a flurry of hand-wringing about whether the DNC would be turned off by his description of the city as “a racist bastion.” After a chorus of dissent by local black leaders — including the city’s African-American mayor, Anthony Foxx — Nantambu clarified that he didn’t mean to include the DNC in his boycott call.'
So by the NAACP standards the city of Charlotte are 'Racist Bastions' and should be boycotted, but it's OK for the Dems to hold their convention in a racist town...even if there is a call for a boycott by black leaders?!
So the Dems screw the unions, help a single Senator with her re-election and screw over her own city at her request, blacks outraged and call for a boycott of the racist city of Charlotte...but then pick this same racist city for their National Convention...
Once again, the Liberals Choice is HYPOCRISY AT IT'S FINEST!
-----UPDATE On Claire McCaskill----
To be fair to McCaskill, she says the NY Times report is not true and that the 'White House internal sources' that gave the information to the NY Times are "pesky and silly".
The following report is from the St. Louis Hub. What is the St. Louis Hub? The St. Louis Activist Hub blog is the home of weekly event listings for progressive activism across St. Louis.
Their report is as follows:
'Claire McCaskill and the Democratic National Convention (Update)
Following up on reports that the DNC chose Charlotte over St. Louis as the host city for the 2012 Democratic National Convention. Why was St. Louis passed over? Party conventions usually have high economic stakes for bidding cities, for example the 2008 Democratic presidential convention generated $236 million of economic benefit to Denver, the host city.'
'Clearly St. Louis had many advantages. It has greater hotel space than Charlotte, a larger downtown, a Midwestern image, and importantly it enjoyed strong support from Labor, including Unite Here. Who vehemently opposed having the convention in a "right to work" state without a single unionized hotel, when the most viable alternative, St. Louis, has such high union density. So why did St. Louis lose out? '
'A curious discrepancy in the role of Missouri's Senior Senator, Claire McCaskill, might answer why St. Louis was passed over. According to the Post Dispatch, the senator was "bitterly" disappointed over the Charlotte pick, while calling St. Louis's bid an effort "we can all be proud of." '
'The St. Louis proposal was very very strong, in terms of merit. The logistics are strong, the hotel support, the package that was put together by the St. Louis community I think was, in my opinion, the very best and that's what I have stressed to the White House... '
'Clearly in public McCaskill was supporting the St. Louis bid. Indeed she states she emphasized this to Democratic Party leaders. However a New York Times article yesterday reveals that McCaskill was not completely behind St. Louis's efforts, and privately lobbied against the bid. The article state's McCaskill "took her concerns," about the city's bid "directly to the White House." Claiming that the convention would "complicate her re-election campaign." According to the article McCaskill feared that a national convention in St. Louis would tie her too closely to President Obama and the national Democrats, forcing her to defend Obama's agenda rather than focusing on her own personality. And she appeared to be willing to privately undermine St. Louis's convention bid (and the millions of dollars in economic benefit that come with it) for her own electoral strategy. '
'Certainly McCaskill's opposition was not the only reason the city's bid was unsuccessful. There were many strong reasons behind Charlotte's pick: President Barack Obama sees Charlotte as a newer city, emblematic of a narrative that a "new" Democratic Party has emerged, and Charlotte is within the south, which might prove key to Obama's re-election campaign. '
'But why the Democrats felt, a city in a rabidly anti-union state and home to the nation's second largest banking center, best represents Democrats is not the issue here. Rather whether behind the scenes politicking from McCaskill might have damaged St. Louis. And why the senator dishonestly insisted she supported the bid publicly.'
Update
'McCaskill addresses the issue on KMOX, Claiming its "just not true" that she privately lobbied against St. Louis.'
While Senator McCaskill has a lot to answer for in her re-election bid for 2012 and the DNC has even more to answer for to the people that have financially supported them and have gotten screwed for their efforts.
Hypocrisy reigns supreme with the Socialists!
