In May, Tampa won the bid against Phoenix and Salt Lake City to host its first Republican National Convention (RNC) for the 2012 presidential election.
“We’re excited and ready to get to work on what we believe will be one of the best people’s conventions we’ve ever had,” RNC chair Michael Steele told Tampa’s host committee members.
The convention is expected to bring more than 40,000 people to the Tampa Bay area during the week of Aug. 27, 2012.
The Tampa Bay host committee chose the image to be the convention’s official logo.
It includes the Tampa skyline, palm trees, and a minaret.
Politicians are questioning whether or not to include the minaret in the logo as it could be considered as Islamic “Moorish Revival” architectural style, as described by TPM LiveWire writer Jillian Rayfield.
As Tampa natives and UT students know, the minaret symbolizes the former Tampa Bay Hotel opened in 1891 and now a historic part of the UT campus—Plant Hall.
Now that controversy is rising about the building of a mosque near ground zero, questions circling the theoretically offensive logo may not be as far-fetched as they may have once been.
President Obama has received direct criticism for his approval of building the mosque.
An unnamed Grand Old Party (GOP) official is quoted saying the following about Obama’s decision: “The President is out of touch. Just because someone has the right to do something, doesn’t mean people don’t have the right to be outraged or upset by insensitivity of the decision.”
Obama is later quoted respecting the sensitivities of ground zero and the loved ones who have lost, but that doesn’t change the fact that the mosque is still going to be built.
So is the controversy over the logo far-fetched or defendable?
The Republican National Committee has not released an official statement regarding its view of the 2012 RNC Tampa logo, but should it be considered offensive?
Josh Napier can be reached at joshua.napier90@gmail.com
It’s understandable that a left-leaning site like TPM would find this whole idea appealing, as it would give leftist partisans fuel to burn their opponents as haters.
Exactly who are the politicians raising the idea that the RNC logo could be deemed offensive? If no one is sourced, then where’s the controversy? No smoke usually means no fire.