So tell me, why the disparity in security between the R and D conventions?

[MadHound]

I was listening to the radio this morning on the way to work and heard a little tidbit that the federal government was giving fifty million dollars to the RNC for security at their Sept. convention in New York. I thought to myself, hmmm, I wonder if they're giving that much to the Democrats for their Boston convention at the end of the month. Well, I did some digging, and lo and behold, it is worse than I thought:

"Last week the Senate approved an additional $50 million for security at the conventions. That's on top of $50 million already given. Is $100 million really necessary to protect the conventions? Probably not. But when free federal money is involved, rational spending decisions seldom are made.

The total tab for security at the Republican National Convention in New York is expected to hit $76 million. In much smaller Boston, the tab for protecting the Democratic National Convention is set, for now, at $50 million. Conveniently, that happens to be the same amount the city expects to get from the federal government for security expenses."
<http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showfast.html?article=39906>

First off, I want to know why our money is going to provide security for ANY political party, but also, I would like to know why they see fit to give twice as much to the 'Pugs? Do they perceive that there is going to be that much of a threat? Or are they simply afraid that ordinary people are going to be pissed off enough to take over their precious convention? What do you think?

[wryter2000]

1. Two reasons

The republicans are more hated by the democrats. Don't think that security is only to protect them from foreigners.

The second reason, the republicans are in the business of scaring the Murikan people. That's their only hope of maintaining power. It would look bad for their strategy if they didn't have to spend mega-bucks to protect their convention.

[Gman]

2. Because freepers can only turn out 20 - 30 protestors at a time

while we can put over a million on the streets.

$50 would be more appropriate for the Democratic convention. No problems.

[DBoon]

4. $50 would be OK

I think that would cover towing an illegally parked porta-potty.

What else would happen with a freeper counter-demonstration?

[Gman]

5. The $50 should not include the cost of security for the port-a-potty

freepers must be made to bear that cost theirselves. I don't appreciate freepers sucking on the public teat by demanding security and protection of their port-a-potty. If it must be towed they must be made to reimburse the federal government. (That would really chap their asses!)

[Justice]

3. This Article Seems A Bit Confused

I don't think it explains the costs and the money very well. IT says they each received $50M and now they are each getting $50M more - yet then it says that neither will actually spend $100M.

If Boston only needs $50 Million for security - then why are they getting $100 million.

The costs of the RNC convention are much higher - rent is millions more, entertainment budgets are much higher, stage and technology budgets are much higher etc etc.

Finally, it says that if a city wants the convention it should be prepared to pay for it alone. It fails to mention that the secret service plans for the convention came out AFTER the bidding and choices were made. It was only then did people see how much security would cost.

[mmonk]

6. More money for Schumer

and New York. Why spoil the money windfalls in this whole war on terror charade? They need the money but dems are opportunists too.