Surprisingly the first time the Cradle of Liberty has hosted a major party convention.

Not that conventions matter much anymore.

And don't know if this means for John Kerry.

The GOP, btw, seems to have narrowed it choice to either Tampa or NYC.

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: DCBucky ]

Sofa bed with shared bath available, $350/night, 5 night min.

Not bad for Boston, RedSoxBreath.

I saw Kerry's interview with Stephanopoulos this past weekend, and the senator was much more forceful and less stultifying than in the past.

His manner--aloof, precise, skeptical--might not play outside the northeast, especially with gilded-spur cowboy George W. charging against him. Kerry does have a great head of hair, though!

BTW, is someone hacking into "Outsports"? I'm seeing that comic strip where the Gremlins (now spelled as "Graemlins" usually are. Also the strip appears under the Instant UBB code area!

[quote]Originally posted by DCBucky:
Surprisingly the first time the Cradle of Liberty has hosted a major party convention.

---

Some people like to think that the "Cradle of Liberty" is the place where the Declaration of Independence was signed.

Joe -- I've seen both Philly and Beantown referred to as the "Cradle of Liberty" ...

maybe The Hub should be better called the "Backseat of the Camero of Liberty" since that's where more of the physical action was -- that led to the birth of the nation a short while later!

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: DCBucky ]

Bad choice- too liberal, too unfriendly and the state of race relations in Boston is STILL abysmal.

Whats wrong with Boston being too "liberal"??? Is it more liberal than say San Francisco. I think it sounds like an excellent choice myself, although I confess I have never been there, yet.

Boston is a beautiful city, easy to get around without a car (as I did as a tourist there), but it is perceived as far to the left of the nation as a whole. Just like San Francisco--and the Republicans were able to tar Democrats quite easily as "San Francisco Democrats" (and all that epithet implies) for years following that Convention!

~Adam

[quote] Bad choice- too liberal, too unfriendly and the state of race relations in Boston is STILL abysmal.

---

As a native Bay Stater, I have to question the reputation of Boston as "liberal." Yes the state and city are heavily Democratic, but I think that has more to do with the remnants of Irish control of politics years ago. Boston is very much a working class city, and the residents are pretty conservative in their social outlook.

Boston through the 50s had a very strong censorship reputation, and as the last part of the above statement shows, the city is very segregated. As an American of Irish descent, it pains me that a lot of the bigotry and discrimination in Boston is perpetuated by my ethnicity, particularly when you consider the extent of discrimination against the Irish through the beginning of the 20th century.

Born and bred in Beantown here - couldn't resist chiming in. IMO it's less outright bigotry and discrimination, and just old school machine politics. The dems here, much like I think the Chicago of old, have had the run of the place since sliced bread. I'd describe the political culture as a really unique blend of liberalism and puritanism. In much of New England we've got so-called "blue laws" which prohibit happy hours and the selling of booze on Sundays. Sundays are still supposed to be the day of rest. Growing up we never ate meat on Fridays (it wasn't served in the public schools) in lieu of the all mighty...

As a life-long Bostonian I feel I must set the record straight on a few points raised in other posts.

Personally, I'm not happy about hosting the convention. I don't like the idea of hosting conventions in general. It overcrowds restaurants and strains infrastructure in other unpleasant ways. Imagine thousands of visitors trying to accustom themselves to our driving habits in so short a time. Most of the talk around town, at the moment, focuses on preferred destinations for getting out of town for the duration. Conventions also have a tendency to boost tourism - another bad thing. Tourism is often touted as an engine of economic development and indeed it is increasingly important to the Boston/Massachusetts/New England economy. However, most jobs associated with the industry are low wage (waiting tables, making beds, parking cars, etc.), not the sort of thing you can support yourself on, let alone raise a family on in a city with among the nation's highest home prices/rents.

Re: Massachusetts as Taxachusetts. This is rather dated. The state actually falls in the middle third of rankings regarding overall tax burden.

Re: Boston as "cradle of liberty". It's worth noting that the battle of Lexington-Concord opened the American Revolution in April 1775. Less than a year later, in March of 1776 the British evacuated Boston never to return. Four months later the talking shop in Philadelphia finally put pen to paper and signed off on events that actually began well over a year earlier. Liberty was won with guns not quills.

Re: Too liberal. This too is more by reputation than fact. It goes back to the Nixon era ("Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts" - popular bumper sticker of the time). As pointed out, there is a significant blue collar-ethnic-conservative Democrat block of voters in Boston and Massachusetts as well. While the Democrats dominate state politics a good many of them are more conservative than some of their Republican counterparts - particularly on social issues. These are the so-called "Reagan Democrats" largely responsible for delivering Massachusetts to Ronald Reagan - twice! We've also just elected the most recent in a string of four Republican governors. Granted, most Massachusetts Republicans would be classed as liberal-Rebublicans in a national context. That's at least partly because the national spectrum encompasses so many radically conservative nutcases from strange parts of the country. I took the selection of that "San Francisco Democrat" Nancy Pelosi as party leader as a sign that the Democrats had decided to stake out the liberal turf and rebuild on that foundation anyway, so the Boston selection seems in context.

Re: Boston as lovely city, nice place to visit, etc. It isn't! Stay away and warn others too!

As another native, I have to say I am already planning a trip to anywhere else to coincide with the convention. Boston cannot accommodate the people and the traffic. And what are we going to offer visitors? A panoramic view of the never-ending Big Dig? The Democrats are crazy to pick a city with a such a liberal reputation, even though, as other writers have noted, the label is not justified.

[quote]Originally posted by Torgauer:
Re: Boston as lovely city, nice place to visit, etc. It isn't! Stay away and warn others too!

---

I was there last yr -VERY NICE CITY in my opinion. Urban, but not too big- fairly clean- healthy shopping districts, good public transportation lots of good restaraunts. I wanna go back soon!

Boston - despite its liberal, intellectual reputation, has been a VERY racist city.

It's no accident that, for years, the Boston Celtics were the whitest team in the NBA. The Bill Russell-era Celtics were not the team closest to the heart of Bostonians. Back then it was the all-white Bruins. The team became much more popular as it became whiter.

It's no accident that the Red Sox were the last major league baseball team to integrate. As recently as 10 years ago, Tim Raines (a rather even-tempered player throughout his career) referred to Boston as, and I think I've got this quote right, "not a good place to play if you're a black man." And Fenway Park is still a very unfriendly place for an African-American baseball fan (well, "unfriendly" in the sense of being pelted with garbage).

Still, I was very surprised to read that Boston has never hosted a major party political convention, even back in the 19th Century. Interesting choice.

Visited a couple of times pre-Big Dig mid 1980's. My takes, just free-associating:

Fenueil Hall - never saw it but heard so much about it that I've always been curious.

Great old brick/stone buildings downtown, lots of basement apartments.

Some weird religion, scientology?, headed by a woman who thought more of herself than God, large building by them near center city.

Cute preppy gay community, even after years out of college still looking like conservative prep students, whether white or black, though predominately white.

Horrible traffic, leaping interchanges, only place I've ever missed a flight.

All in all, I loved it, would love to get back though not during a convention or big event, and after completion of the Dig. Fat chance, hey.

I went to grad school in Boston, and have tried to avoid the place as much as possible since then. Not to offend the natives on the board, but I thought many Bostonians were quite smallminded, parochial, undereducated, and lacking in culture or couth. The only thing that made it bearable was that there were so many people in Boston that were not FROM Boston.

[ November 15, 2002: Message edited by: Munson Man ]