Yesterday, as Alana reported, a voice vote over an amendment to change the Democratic platform went horribly awry. Apparently at the behest of the president, language to add the word God as well as calling the city of Jerusalem the capital of Israel was reinserted into the Democratic platform. Despite it being present in 2008, the language was removed from the platform that was written (and uncontroversially passed) by the Democratic delegates present in Charlotte this year. After Republicans made the issue a story only a week after Democrats hammered Republicans about parts of their platform, the president decided to intervene.
As you can see from the video that Alana posted from BuzzFeed, the voice vote was so unclear that Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa had to ask for three different votes. Before announcing his interpretation of the “yeas” and “nays” an unidentified woman approached him and audibly told him “Let them do what they’re gonna do.” From the video each vote sounds at best 50/50, with the nays sounding louder as the votes go on. National Review’s Jonah Goldberg was on the scene and reported his (and his liberal reporter-seat mate’s) interpretation of the vote:
The first time he couldn’t tell if he got it. The second time the no votes clearly had it. The third time: the nos won again. I’m sitting in the upper decks by the Fox cameras, so I’m in a very good place to hear without being misled by proximity to one faction or another. It was obvious that the nos had it. Still, I suppose it’s possible the ayes were in a bare majority. But there’s simply no way they had a two-thirds majority. I was sitting with a decidedly non-conservative journalist and he was even more sure than me that the no voters won. Villaraigosa simply opted to declare the amendment adopted. Boos rang out.
Only a few hours after the Democratic party clearly and publicly ignored their own delegate’s votes on the amendment, Cristina Saralegui, a Latina media personality, took the stage to deliver her remarks to the same crowd of delegates. She remarked, “So I’m asking toda mi gente—all of my people—to join me. Many of us come from countries where votes aren’t counted properly or are not counted at all. Here, we Latinos have a powerful voice, but only if we use it.” The irony that only hours earlier a Latino official ignored the votes of his fellow Democrats was lost on Saralegui.
Later, former President Bill Clinton took the stage. He also took aim at what he viewed as Republicans’ disrespect for voter’s rights: “If you want every American to vote and you think its wrong to change voting procedures just to reduce the turnout of younger, poorer, minority and disabled voters, you should support Barack Obama.” It appears that Clinton was taking issue with voter ID laws like the one that recently passed in Pennsylvania. Clinton stood on stage, hours after his party ignored the rights of members of his own party to vote on their platform and lectured Republicans on their attempts to ensure that eligible citizens receive one vote, and that vote be counted properly. If that’s not the definition of chutzpah, I don’t know what is.
Look for some 'heartfelt' pro Israel statements from the Preezy of the United Steezy tonight. n nNo doubt he will talk about all options being on the table regarding Iran. n nThat should be good. n nHe won't have to walk them back till Nov. 7th. n n
No comment on the RNC rigging their own vote, though, huh?
Run along Skippy and let the adults talk.
Yes, because condescension constitutes a reply…
The Repub's can't hold a stick compared to the Demo's when it comes to vote rigging. They don't have dead people, animals, illegals and double voting as do the Dem's who are notoriously adept at these practices.
There's two sides to the problem. On the one hand, making every contradiction and dare I say lie that the two parties engage in morally equivalent, thus resulting in a political cynicism that either opts out of the process, or deviates over to third parties. On the other hand, the reflexive response that "the other party is (always) worse" (however true that may be) often precludes any examination of where our own party is wrong. n n"And why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? " n nOr is the idea of the GOP applying such a principle that offensive? I am not talking about doing this in prominent public events, but surely such publications as only read primarily by Republicans can afford to be more comprehensively critical than they often are?
I often read, and sometimes view, articles, T.V., etc. from the Leftist propagandists to get a sense of their thinking, I find I am often unable to really comprehend where they are "coming from".Their philosophies are so counter to mine I cannot believe what I am seeing, hearing or reading. I do, however, have sympathy for them and sincerely hope they will someday awaken from their delusions regarding their beliefs that the Government or Society, if you will, owes them subsistence in every area of their lives. I firmly believe if they could become self-reliant they would have a much happier life and existance.
A couple of more plonters like this vote might cost Obama his job!
To equate the blatant manipulation of a voice vote on the floor of a convention regarding an amendment to an utterly inconsequential party platform as equivalent to the calculated disenfranchisement of voters in a real, meaningful election who overwhelmingly support one candidate is obtuse, to say the least.
Who WAS that woman who said "let them do that they're gonna do"? No one asked who she was? No one reported who she was? I want her name.