6 Sep

The Unscripted DNC Chair

                                       

This needs to be played over…and over again:

YouTube Preview Image

I feel like I might have been one of the first to hear about DNC Chair Villaraigosa getting Eastwooded yesterday, along with his deer-in-the-headlights moment…followed by 3 North Carolina recounts and a stolen decision. But here I am, probably one of the last to blog about it.

Actually…I think people should keep blogging about this for years to come. Never let a good crisis go to waste…recycle, recycle, recycle.

I just woke up half an hour ago and
I still can’t stop laughing over yesterday
:

when Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the convention chairman, came to the podium to ask for the approval of the delegates, those who shouted opposition to the language change were as loud, if not louder, than those who voiced their support.

Villaraigosa, in what quickly became an awkward moment, asked for the voice vote three times in all. After the second time, he paused for several seconds and looked behind him for guidance from a convention staffer — possibly a parliamentarian — before turning back and asking for a third vote.

Even though the no’s were again as loud if not louder than the aye’s on the third vote, Villaraigosa said he had determined that two thirds of those present had voted in favor. Boos filled the arena in response.

If at first you don’t succeed, try, try, then cheat by applying Chicago rules and “in the opinion of the chair”, ram it through anyway.

Sounds like they went off script. Kinda sucky when that happens, huh?:

Sources told The Huffington Post on Tuesday that the response took party officials by surprise, since the language of the platform had been carefully orchestrated to emphasize America’s close ties to Israel and to avoid wading into controversial “final-status” issues, like the designation of Israel’s capital.

Two sources also told HuffPost that officials with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the bipartisan and staunchly pro-Israel interest group known as AIPAC, had vetted the draft and signed off on its provisions.

AIPAC-linked sources later vociferously denied the report, telling reporters that the organization had initially proposed language that included Jerusalem as the capital, and that their officials never reviewed the “full Middle East platform.”

The source informed on the internal party deliberations said the latest change to reinsert the Jerusalem language was made in order to calm the controversy, not to change the intent of the passage.

“Democratic party officials were and continue to be exceedingly comfortable with the original language,” the source said. “The original language was stridently pro-Israel, and they felt that this controversy over the Jerusalem wording was distracting from their overall message.”

But a second party source said that top leaders in the party were “pissed” when they found out about the exact wording of the platform, and had spent Wednesday pressing for the language to be changed.

The Jerusalem addition to the platform is below in full:

“Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.”

When will Jewish-Americans as a voting block realize that the Democratic Party is not their friend? It is a party at odds with itself.

Obviously, the pro-Palestinian wing of the Democratic party are not happy campers this morning, either; they, too, must feel a bit estranged….

And Romney’s supposed to be the one who will say anything to pander for votes?

What does the Democratic Party stand for on Israel and “God”?

Dov Fischer at American Thinker, just 3 months ago:

Alongside African-Americans, Jewish Americans traditionally have been the Democrats’ most reliable voting bloc. In that way, rather than advancing legitimate interests, Jews effectively throw away their voting influence, year after year, as do African-Americans. Democrats know that African-American votes mostly are in the bag, as are Jewish votes, so Democrats need not vie seriously for support. Contrary to increasing their influence by such group voting, they dilute by signaling to one party that they will be there no-matter-what, while signaling to the other party that virtually nothing will influence their voting.

Ironically, however, the political party that stands strongest behind Israel, her military security, her right to populate Jews in the liberated lands of Judea and Samaria, her right to build Jewish communities in East Jerusalem and her right to declare united Jerusalem as her national capital, and her right to refuse pressure to capitulate to demonstrable terrorists and to quasi-terrorists-in-suits who now run the “Palestinian Authority” is the Republican Party. Republicans support Israel not because that position will help garner Jewish votes, but because Republicans know that support is morally right, ethically right, and most importantly advances the national and strategic interests of the United States. Towards that support, the impassioned and overwhelming support of American Christians for Israel has been extraordinary.

So why do so many American Jews not get it?

First of all, as Bob Turner’s election in 2011 evidenced, the Democrat fever is breaking. While Jews voted for Obama in numbers estimated around 85% in the last election, polls now show slippage to support in the 60% range. His support has dropped among Jews by some 25 percent,

I can only hope that yesterday’s DNC awkward moment was revelatory to Democratic Party pro-Israel Jews…but it may be doubtful.

Knowing my own liberal Jewish friends, they are staunchly pro-Democratic Party and would rather go down with a sinking ship than admit (to themselves) they are on the wrong boat…and have been for years.

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama casts a shadow on the Israeli and American flags while speaking at an event to honor the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence in Washington.
Mark Wilson – Getty Images

This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Israel, Politics, Rallies, Religion. Bookmark the permalink. Thursday, September 6th, 2012 at 5:16 am
| 1,018 views

34 Responses to The Unscripted DNC Chair

  1. ThomNJ says: 1

    Even better – did you see the photo this morning that someone took from behind the speaker’s platform at the DNC? The “two-thirds” vote acceptance was on a teleprompter. The boos may not have been scripted, but the change surely was – it was all about damage control. How sweet it is.

    I remain astonished that a moral, ethical and thinking person could possibly be a part of the Democratic Party – and especially women – who seem to be thought of by the Dems as only a thing to talk about below the waist; as that’s where they seem to confine their topics regarding women.

    ReplyReply
  2. ThomNJ says: 2

    And speaking of Jews, one of my acquaintances told me that the reason he and other Jews support obama is because he has done some things that Bush never did for them….then he proceeded to name ONE – I guess that is all he could come up with. Oh, what was that one thing? Well, hussein gave them some bunker buster bombs. I would think that was probably in the works before hussein was in charge, but in any event, he won’t let Israel use them if he has his way.

    ReplyReply
  3. Wordsmith says: 3

    @ThomNJ:

    Even better – did you see the photo this morning that someone took from behind the speaker’s platform at the DNC? The “two-thirds” vote acceptance was on a teleprompter. The boos may not have been scripted, but the change surely was – it was all about damage control.

    Is this the one:

    ReplyReply
  4. liberal1(objectivity) says: 4

    The situation surrounding the change in the Democratic platform reminded me of that which occurred change in the Republican rules last week.

    ReplyReply
  5. Wordsmith says: 5

    At 2 minutes in….

    Anderson Cooper: “That’s an alternate universe.”

    Cooper probably still has this exchange with the DNC Chair fresh in his memory.

    ReplyReply
  6. Nan G says: 6

    Drudge headlined that Obama knew what the platform had in it yesterday and had passed on it. ….

    REPORT: Obama had seen language prior to convention ‘but did not seek to change it’…

    BUT today the White House is walking that back! …..

    WH: Wait, no he didn’t…

    So which is it?
    Everyone knows a few people who only do what they WANT to do rather than what NEEDS doing.
    If I didn’t NEED to, I would NEVER do dishes again!
    But I do them daily, often more than once daily.

    Obama has had nearly four years and what has he done?
    Over 100 games of golf.
    Over 200 fundraisers.
    Not met with his JOBS Council in over 7 months now.
    The one big thing Obama did (ObamaCare) had an obvious and nearly immediate and negative effect on our recovery.

    Notice the sources for that graph: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
    I have not seen a more recent version of this graphic, but if one were created it would show the same thing.

    Other of Obama’s policies (smaller policy things like the EPA’s strangulation of business, the oil drilling ban and such) have contributed to a slowing of our economy, too.
    Obama’s huge deficit spending policy has caused businesses and individuals to slow down their own spending.
    If you are a U.S. citizen you owe over $50,000 on the U.S. Debt, 1/3rd of that from Obama.
    If you are a TAXPAYER, you owe over $140,000 on the U.S. Debt, 1/3rd of that from Obama.
    http://www.usdebtclock.org/ (Caught live, those numbers will now be even higher.)

    It is obvious Obama only does what he WANTS to do, not what NEEDS doing.
    Poor Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa will be the current whipping boy who takes the punishment for yet another Obama misdeed.
    How many other whipping boys have gone before him?

    ReplyReply
  7. Dc says: 7

    The situation surrounding the change in the Democratic platform reminded me of that which occurred change in the Republican rules last week.

    Liberal1….for which the DNC made a HUGE deal out of on just about every network for the past 2 weeks. Now, of course that “they” have had to answer same thing…as is typical of politics…they say it’s no big deal, lets move on, nothing to see here. Even CNN was laughing at their dodge response to what was obviously an embarrassing moment given the same DNC talking heads recent comments and accusations about the RNC platform. Although, this is all pretty typical politics…ie., when your guy does it it’s democracy in action, when our guy does it it’s an abomination. Politics will always be this way. You just have to take your licks when they happen. If you make a BIG deal out of something, and then get caught doing the same thing….you should expect some flack. And frankly, the whole “well, you did it too” excuse at that point usually doesn’t work too well.

    ReplyReply
  8. Done Gone Galt says: 8

    Antonio Villaraigosa is a wuss. If you are going to fake it; do it like Ol’ Sam Rayburn, and show some Big Brass ones. “The Ayes have it!”

    ReplyReply
  9. Buffalobob says: 9

    The ayes have it? Poor Villaraigosa obviously he didn’t spend enough time with his radical mother to learn the art of political chicanery. He needed a crash course in chicano activism and union thuggery. He would have heard the 2/3 ayes on the first vote, or better just stipulate that the vote would be 2/3 ayes.

    ReplyReply
  10. Jarhead68 says: 10

    @liberal1(objectivity): I had the same thought.

    But I still won’t vote for Obunghole or any democRat. They behaved despicably during the Iraq war, which ended by Bush’s timeline, not Obumble’s. They purposely tried to undermine Bush and lose the war by giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Reid, Pelosi, Durbin, Kennedy, Emmanuel, Frank..all traitors and should be tried and hanged, if found guilty…yes, Teddy should be dug up and hanged, as well. He betrayed his country twice. Once during the cold war and once again during the Iraq war.

    ReplyReply
  11. MataHarley says: 11

    I might offer up the possibility that this is nothing more than political posturing by Obama for effect. By insisting upon the change in the platform, he gives the illusion that he is bucking his own Party for support for Israel (an issue that needs a lot of cleaning up after real policy), and for Christians appalled at the removal of references to God (another weakness of this POTUS).

    Other than that, I will have to agree that the predetermined win for the “ayes” bears an uncanny resemblance to the GOP’s handling of the rule change. I will only add that I find the issue of the rule change far more distasteful, and dangerous, than whether or not the Capital of Israel is made part of the Dem platform.

    ReplyReply
  12. Aye says: 12

    @MataHarley:

    It’s absolutely pure political posturing on Obie’s part.

    Just two weeks ago, his spokestool couldn’t even bring himself to state what the capitol of Israel is.

    Just more kabuki theater from this gang.

    ReplyReply
  13. Dc says: 13

    I noticed while watching the wonderful tribute film to Ted Kennedy and harping about “women’s rights”….they left out one important part.

    I’m still trying to figure out how contraception is a major issue for lesbians. (scratching head).


    Chappaquiddick

    ReplyReply
  14. ThomNJ says: 14

    @Wordsmith: THAT IS THE ONE.

    ReplyReply
  15. ThomNJ says: 15

    @Nan G: Just one added note – I would not feel sorry for Antonio Villar (his real name): http://www.bruinalumni.com/antonio/antonioindex.html

    ReplyReply
  16. Common Sense says: 16

    @liberal1(objectivity): Really?? What did the Republican Party do to their platform relevant to God and Jerusalem? Please provide support to your statement.

    ReplyReply
  17. tommyboyno1 says: 17

    BOY OH BOY I HOPE SHE NEVER PROCREATES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyReply
  18. Common Sense says: 18

    @liberal1(objectivity): Is that your justification for this despicable action??

    ReplyReply
  19. Poppa_T says: 19

    And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

    ReplyReply
  20. johngalt says: 20

    @Poppa_T:

    Both the GOP’s and DNC’s “voice” votes were despicable actions, though for two very different reasons.

    The GOP”s example stemmed from a power grab over party politics, designed to remove influence over the party’s political stance and leadership from state and local party affiliations, resulting in a stronger power base for the national GOP establishment politicians.

    The DNC’s example stemmed from another humdrum pandering for votes, by changing, midstream, to claim God and Jewish friendship are still part of their political viewpoints.

    Which was more egregious? For me, it was the GOP example. The example shown by the DNC was unsurprising, and exemplifies a “win at all cost” attitude they have displayed for decades.

    But the GOP example was a turn, in written rule, from power of the people to that of power by the masters. It is an affront to the beliefs of conservatives everywhere, that power is consolidated amongst a few, rather than the power resting in the people’s hands.

    ReplyReply
  21. inthemiddle says: 21

    @liberal1(objectivity): Which is what? Again, you mention something without backing it up. Just the same hating Lib1 comment.

    ReplyReply
  22. Aqua says: 22

    @johngalt:

    But the GOP example was a turn, in written rule, from power of the people to that of power by the masters. It is an affront to the beliefs of conservatives everywhere, that power is consolidated amongst a few, rather than the power resting in the people’s hands.

    Stated perfectly.

    ReplyReply
  23. Poppa_T says: 23

    @johngalt:

    Hi John,
    My friend this has been a burr under my saddle for a long time. I live in Louisiana and we (RP supporters) studied up on Roberts Rules, we did EVERYTHING by the book and accomplished our goal of seating our delegates. The GOP then ignored or changed the rules to our detriment every step of the way. They have shown absolute disdain for our Republican form of government and embraced Democracy wholeheartedly.

    If the two political parties were honest with themselves and us the GOP would rename itself the Democratic National Party and the Democrats would rename themselves the National Socialist Party. They have each proven themselves not to be what they claim to be.

    ReplyReply
  24. Smorgasbord says: 24

    If you saw the video, after the first vote, the chairman started to say, “In the opinion of the chair…,” then he realized he couldn’t reead the rest, because the vote sounded about the same. As I have said before, liberals can’t talk without thier prepared speeches.

    ReplyReply
  25. johngalt says: 25

    @Poppa_T:

    If ‘We, the People’, were smart enough, we would group both the GOP and DNC together and label them the National Progressive Bipartisanship Party. And then immediately make them irrelevant.

    That would, of course, assume that all of those liberals who still believe the DNC is controlled by liberals can be “cured” of their Stockholm Syndrome and enlightened as to who pulls the levers of power in that Party.

    And we conservatives and libertarians who typically vote GOP shouldn’t act like we haven’t been stupid either. The GOP hasn’t been under conservative influence for a long time, even when Reagan was President (Reagan fought almost as much with his own party as he did the Democrats). The progressives running the GOP aren’t quite as ambitious as those running the DNC, but their goals are similar.

    I firmly believe that liberals, such as Rich and Larry, and conservatives, like most of us here, and the libertarians, could find common ground, under Constitutional restraint, without the progressives of both parties pitting us against one another.

    ReplyReply
  26. DiveCon says: 26

    no one noticed one other very disturbing thing about this, the voice vote was clearly won by the “NO” and the DNC rejected God and Jerusalem 3 times

    ReplyReply
  27. johngalt
    in these extreme need to take the power away from the abuser, it must be one most important thing to do and make sure your side has total power to enter in hell and beat him on his own turf,
    even if it’s to be done only once in time and for the conviction that one has the tools to win the chair,
    because of what he has notice in his quest to rally all his conservatives, he most probably saw the rift from the beginning linger on further than desired which called for that unfortunate virage to the regular stance in a normal election adversary exchange in normal time to win,
    see and note the high difference between the two opponents one from below and one from above

    ReplyReply
  28. Smorgasbord says: 28

    @DiveCon: #26
    It was noticed. There was a lot of booing after the vote. When the last vote was taken, it sounded like the no votes were louder. Most of the delegates didn’t want God or Jerusalem in the democratic platform. This means that MOST of the delegate will think that the two items were rammed through, especially after they saw the picture of the teleprompter already having the decision on it’s screen. TOTUS must have a mind of its own, even for the democratic delegates.

    ReplyReply
  29. Richard Wheeler says: 29

    J.G. re #25 Keep talking, I’m listening.
    Just don’t ask me to root for the Wolverines against The Irish in two weeks.

    ReplyReply
  30. Poppa_T says: 30

    @johngalt:

    Unfortunately my friend the puppet masters have convinced a majority of this nation that there is a difference Obama and Romney. The sad truth is that erosion of liberty will not stop after the next election. I think that Romney will win… the bankers have thrown their money behind him, but he won’t make any substantive changes, the wars will continue, the dollar will keep falling and the government will get more powerful while we get poorer.

    ReplyReply
  31. johngalt says: 31

    @Richard Wheeler:

    I’ve been talking about this, Rich. You just haven’t been listening(or comprehending, as it were).

    Talk to me when you are ready to denounce Obama as a progressive twit.

    ReplyReply
  32. johngalt says: 32

    @Poppa_T:

    I agree. The only reason to vote for Romney over Obama is that it might, possibly, give We, the People, more time to correct the mistakes made over the past couple of decades or so.

    ReplyReply
  33. Richard Wheeler says: 33

    J.G, You’re sounding like the far right screamers I thought you were denouncing. Guess not. Oh well.

    I’d hope as a true Conservative you’d have the guts to just say no to the Mass moderate like Mata and Libertarian Poppa T.

    ReplyReply
  34. johngalt says: 34

    @Richard Wheeler:

    You’re sounding like the far right screamers I thought you were denouncing

    You really aren’t listening, or comprehending, at all, Rich. Obama is a progressive. So I called him a twit. Big eff’n deal, Rich.

    The fact is that you are so close to the storm, staying up with politics and thumping on your blue chest, that you missed the movement of both the Democratic party and the GOP establishment to the left. Meanwhile, those “far right screamers” you complain about have stayed just where they have always been, albeit maybe a bit more vocal. Thus, from your perspective, it seems like they have moved to the right, while in reality, it’s you that have moved leftward. Your support and defense of Obama proves it.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>