Mar
23
2014

The GOP simply MUST NOT pick Las Vegas for the 2016 Convention.

James Richardson makes an eloquent case for why Nevada Democrats – explicitly including current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid – should put local needs over partisan ones by making it clear that the American Bridge stalker-PAC would not be given free rein in a hypothetical Las Vegas GOP convention. Unfortunately for Las Vegas business owners and workers, Nevada Democrats will do nothing of the sort.  Loyalty flows only uphill in the Democratic party these days: and if any of the little guys get hurt by it, too bad: they shouldn’t have been little to start with*.

Hey, don’t shoot the messenger. I’m not even really mad at American Bridge: stalking candidates is part of the deal, these days.  But let’s not pretend that American Bridge’s ultimate masters care anything about the people that get in the way between the Democratic party, and political power…

Moe Lane

*But don’t worry: the Democratic party will make up for it by shrieking about me because I didn’t type out ‘little guys and women.’  Well, probably not – but only because they wouldn’t think it would be cost-effective.

18 Comments

  • BigGator5 says:

    Why not Moe? I thought you were a squishy Moderate, the kind that supports gay marriage and wants to legalize marijuana?
    .
    What problem do you have with a city that has legalized gambling and prostitution? I thought this was a the new Republican Party that embraces sin, just so long as it is taxed and regulated?

    • Moe_Lane says:

      Actually, Las Vegas itself doesn’t have legalized prostitution. As to the larger question: to quote the Klingons, only a fool fights in a burning building.

  • Tom In Korea says:

    “little guys and women AND THE MIDDLE CLASS!”

  • garfieldjl says:

    We shouldn’t have the convention in Vegas because it would make the Republican Party look corrupt. Rightly or wrongly, Vegas would send a message that the Republican party is out of touch, corrupt, etc. It would be a major unforced error.

    • Cameron says:

      And if they hold it in California, then they are sucking up to Hollywood. If they go to NYC, it’s because Wall Street owns them. If they go anywhere in the South, it’s because “racism.” If they go to North Dakota, the oil companies control them.
      .
      The only thing that would make non-Republicans happy would be the dissolution of the party followed by mass immolation.

      • garfieldjl says:

        I really don’t care what they say if we hold our convention in a southern state or North Dakota.

        I simply believe it would be boneheaded to hold a convention in Las Vegas. It would also be idiotic to hold it anywhere near Hollywood or NYC, those places are Democrat strongholds and I really don’t think we need mass riots around our convention.

        They’ll call us racist regardless, likewise the accusation of being under the control of oil companies so we should just ignore the Democrats on this point. However, given the situation of the country and the optics that would come into play if the convention were in Vegas, I’d say Vegas is a bad idea for a convention.

        • Cameron says:

          So what location would be a better venue in your eyes?

          • garfieldjl says:

            How about a city in the midwest? Indianapolis; Columbus, Ohio; or Des Moines, Iowa; for example.

            We could also choose a city in a southern state, the Dems are going to throw the racism allegation around no matter where we hold the convention, so I’m really not concerned about holding the convention in a southern state.

            I just don’t think holding a convention in Vegas is a good idea, particularly due to the state of the economy and it would make the Republicans look corrupt.

          • Moe_Lane says:

            Somewhere dull that’s not ridiculously hot in early summer.

          • Patrick Thomas says:

            Detroit, just like Reagan did in 1980. We can highlight the end game of Democratic rule and pave a new way forward.

          • Cameron says:

            Not only that, Patrick, but you could save a lot of money on renting out venues.

          • garfieldjl says:

            I’m not sure Detroit could handle it, but if it can then it would be a good venue.

            We can paint how Democrats turned Detroit into a disaster area and how they plan to turn the rest of the country into another Detroit.

            On the flipside, we could choose a venue that has benefitted from having a Republican Governor.

          • Luke says:

            What location would be a better venue?
            How about a region that’s reliably Republican?
            The convention makes a lot of money for the area it’s held in. Why not give that windfall to *allies* rather than enemies?

            A very short and partial list:
            Chattanooga, Boise, Salt Lake City, Cheyenne.

          • garfieldjl says:

            Those would work too, and they’d be friendlier to Republicans than some other venues.

          • wennejunk says:

            Anywhere they can run the dang thing without kowtowing to unions would suit me.

            Bonus points for explicitly poking a finger in the union eye.

  • Texas 1911 says:

    Let’s all go to Cody, Wyoming. We can hold the convention in the Rodeo Arena and accomodate the national press in the stock yard (only if recently used for its normal purpose). Weather’s good and lots of friendly folks. San Angelo, Texas is also a good choice. I am only partly funnin’ here. Hold it in a small city, make the occupy louts work to get there and encounter law enforcement that really means it and let the candidates bunk wilt the locals to underscore the message that we are the party of the middle class.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com