Wednesday, February 2, 2011

The Liberal's Choice, Hypocrisy At It's Finest!

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 FoxxNantambu 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!

6 comments:

Mark Adams said...

"What a selfish, self serving act by Missouri's own Senator "
OH, how so true, AP.
Their one concern was protest but let’s see what the unions do about this in NC.

My gut feeling between now and the days the convention starts, you're going to see numerous attempts at getting unions set up in these hotels in NC despite it being a right to work state.
Keep track of this story and let’s see if the MSM reports any angry protest that will mount from the unions.
Bet you there will be.

JoeC said...

Mark, what do you want? If they catered to the unions every whim you'd bash them for it, if they choose something that isn't connected with the unions you bash them.

Would i prefer them to go to some place that is more unionized? Sure, but its not a killer for me. I can except that i am one of many constituents, And that the party has to have success down south if it plans on making any gains in 2012.

Unlike the rabid far religious right Tea Party i am okay with being one of many. I don't need the party to cater to my every whim.

Hey i heard that the Tea Party is cutting with its star and the man that gave them prominence Rep Brown. Talk about eating your own and hypocrisy. Guess the Baggers know no loyalty.

AdamsPatriot said...

Joe, thanks for confirming the hypocrisy. Seems like the DNC can do no wrong even when they do it to their own!

Mark Adams said...

"Hey i heard that the Tea Party is cutting with its star and the man that gave them prominence Rep Brown. Talk about eating your own and hypocrisy. Guess the Baggers know no loyalty."

This proves one thing, Joe, despite what the left have said, there is no loyalty, regardless of what party you are with, if you turn your back on 'We the People', don't expect support from us.
So now do you believe that the Tea Party Patriots are NOT just about Republicans?

JoeC said...

Adams, what hypocrisy? The DNC represents more than just union labor. They represent non-union people too. Its like i said in the first post, their damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Mark, he didn't turn his back on anyone. He represented his constituents views. The Tea Party has a misguided notion that their punk asses is the only Americans that count. They are nothing more than a vocal fringe.

Not about republicans, huh? Its all about Republicans, only the conspiracy minded lunatic fringe ones. The ones that wish to subvert the constitution in the name of protecting it. The ones that want to turn our backs on the reality and go hundreds of years back in time.

Mark Adams said...

"He represented his constituents views."
Sounds like you think that there are no Tea Party organizations in his state. Well THERE are. Those are ALSO his constituents.
They helped him get elected based on his campaign promises.

"The Tea Party has a misguided notion that their punk asses is the only Americans that count."
Your opinion, but it would be the wrong one, based on what most Americans understanding about this movement and what it stands for.
TPP stands for Personal liberties, free markets, limited government based on enumerated powers and responsible spending. As it has been for 234 years. Thats principles by which most Americans hold. (I have told you this numerous times, but it just doesn't sink in).
It's just the 20% punk ass americans, such as yourself, who want to fundamentally change our way of life to a social justice society.
You're on the wrong side of history.

"They are nothing more than a vocal fringe."
Fringe? HAHA. That got a lot of 'like minded' people elected in Nov. A 'vocal fringe' that got governments attention by being 'vocal' AND engaged.

"Its all about Republicans, only the conspiracy minded lunatic fringe ones."
Example? Are you referring to maybe birthers because TPP has better things to do.

"The ones that wish to subvert the constitution in the name of protecting it."
SUBVERT? Or read it and understand it as a simple, logical document that the left has hijacked parts of and abused it.
Please show me were they have 'Subverted' it.
Thats a laugher, Joe.

"The ones that want to turn our backs on the reality and go hundreds of years back in time."
Turn our backs on reality?
You mean like the reality that the federal government doesn't have any money and to continue to spend will bankrupt the nation.
The reality that government has no right to punish you for not participating in commerce?
Yes we want to go back hundreds of years. Not back to slavery, if you are suggesting that, but back to its true intentions.

Now please absorb what I have stated. If you still feel the same way, you are one of those who do rally want a socialist change and THAT is problematic with in our nation and could led to bigger problems among the population.