GOP Strategist: Picking NYC As RNC Site Could Be "Unmitigated Disaster"

The New York Times ran a must-read article Saturday on how Republicans have begun second-guessing whether New York should have been selected as the site of the Republican National Convention:

When the Republican Party chose New York City as the site of its 2004 nominating convention, the symbolism was apparent: the G.O.P. would be rallying around its nominee in the city that had come to embody the nation's resolve in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, a place where President Bush once stood on a pile of debris at ground zero, rallying the nation to unite in the war on terror.

But then came Richard A. Clarke, the 9/11 commission and a rising insurgency in Iraq. Now, as the administration faces increasing scrutiny of its handling of pre-9/11 terror threats and the wisdom of extending the war on terrorism into Iraq, the question has emerged whether New York is the best place for the Republicans to be gathering this summer.

"I would assume that it has turned from a win-win to a maybe not," said a Republican political strategist who spoke only on the condition of anonymity. Like many others, the strategist was reluctant to contradict the party line. "I don't think that it is all negative at this point, but it has the potential to turn. It's eroding slowly, and that's a real problem for them"...

"The premise for coming to New York is no longer valid," said Roger Stone, a longtime Republican political strategist who supports President Bush but is also known as a maverick who at times has opposed Republican candidates. "Karl Rove's master stroke idea may turn out to be an unmitigated disaster. It has the potential to highlight an issue that may be a negative by the time he gets to the convention." MORE