The Unscripted DNC Chair

This needs to be played over…and over again:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/cncbOEoQbOg[/youtube]

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.