The Democrats’ anti-God membership, and their lawless, anti-democratic leadership—what a choice!
see it, but a friend described it as a wild scene at the Dem Convention when the chairman of the convention, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (who looks about as American as an Aztec Communist gangster) rammed through against
a voice vote a measure installing in the party platform the word “God” and support for Jersusalem as Israel’s capital, and the delegates booed.
Breitbart has a full account and a video. It culminates in this:
Finally, on the third attempt, Villaraigosa took a voice vote and simply declared, in the “opinion of the chair,” that it had been passed. There were widespread boos in the convention hall to the renewed inclusion of God and language about Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And Villaraigosa was lying, in any case—there is no way that the voice vote had passed. Opponents stood up and protested, waving and shouting. The fix was in. The Democratic leadership had to ram a mention of God and a mention of Jerusalem through, violating their own rules, to avoid the fallout within their own ranks.
Drudge has a bunch of links on the story.
Update: I just watched the video. It’s bizarre. Since there was obviously not a two-thirds vote for approval of the amendment on the first and second voice vote, why did Villaraigosa call for a second and third vote? Did he expect the result to be different? Not only that, but on the third voice vote the nays were not just as loud as the ayes, they were louder. Yet Villaraigosa simply ignored the voice vote and declared the pre-determined result that Obama and the party leadership wanted. I can’t remember seeing the equivalent at a national convention. Clearly the only proper step for Villaraigosa at that point was either to declare that in the absence of a clear two-thirds majority voice vote, the amendment was not passed, or to send the measure back to the platform committee and have it voted on again there. But I guess there was no time for the latter, and the former was unacceptable to Obama and the party leadership.
If there were still a body of American public opinion worthy of the name, meaning public opinion that made more or less rational and responsible judgments about right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable, I would say: What an embarrassment for the Democrats. But there isn’t, so I won’t. - end of initial entry -
Daniel H. writes:
I agree it is a bizarre scene. But I believe I can explain Villaraigosa’s odd behavior. As he introduces the amendment, he speaks with the smarmy, made-for-TV manner that we expect from politicians who clearly have no regard for the actual opinions of those they “lead.” It’s clear he expects his oily charm to carry the day. The voice-vote is merely a formality. When the first vote doesn’t go his way he, in effect, with his vocal tone and his words (“Let me try that again”), tries to telegraph to the loyal minions what is expected of them. Of course, since the majority of the delegates are clearly against the motion, the second vote goes even “worse” (from Villaraigosa’s perspective) than the first went. He never meant to seek their actual consent. The consent of the people is meaningless to these men. He was just going along with a public farce, just as the rest of the contemporary party-convention circus is a farce of democracy. I do not mean to be overly harsh, but really, these conventions have become absurdist plays, like scenes out of an expressionist theater in the 1920s.
The DNC muckety-mucks expected the delegates to go along with an amendment that (the leaders presume) will make Obama less obviously offensive, and therefore more electable, to average Americans. That was their only motivation in changing the platform. They know their core constituency is anti-God and they use these anti-God activists whenever it furthers their agenda, but they also know that it’s still not quite safe to openly acknowledge this before the general voting public.
It was a rare tactical blunder by the DNC (both the committee and the convention, natch). The whole mini-controversy over this vote will only serve to highlight in the media and to the average voter that the activist arm of the Democratic party is indeed opposed to God and is indeed anti-Israel. May I add that while the second position (on Israel) is disconcerting, it’s at least a worldly policy issue worthy of debate; whereas the first position, opposing God, is a civilizational, philosophical and spiritual issue—a chilling one—which seeks to redefine who we are, as a people.
The Democratic leadership knows that they shouldn’t openly flaunt their atheism and pro-Arab policies—not yet. But the rank-and-file activist Left (as represented by the delegates) are already openly voicing their contempt for God. So the leadership of the party in this case had to override their own activist base, because their conquest of public opinion—while influential enough as to create such a scene as we saw tonight—has not quite reached the stage where they can openly reject God as part of their party platform.
It’s too bad, but I don’t think this display will matter much in the long run. A few people will be appalled, but most of them were appalled already. In the meantime, by stepping beyond the pale, these delegates have effectively set the wooden posts that much further into the wilderness. They may get beaten back in the near-term, but their march will not cease.
Finally, let me say that I don’t mean to be a defeatist. It could be a rallying cry for Romney and Co.: to seize on this very video as evidence of what the Left has in mind for our future, and to thus awake the slumbering core of America. Forgive me if I don’t hold out hope for this possibility. But you are doing your part, Mr. Auster—and I, I will do mine.
(Sorry it’s such a long comment, but I couldn’t think of a more concise way to make my point.)
Milos L. writes:
I came across a comment on FreeRepublic that I found hilarious (propably because it is closer to the truth then we imagine):
The only way God wouldn’t be booed at a Democratic convention is if he’s called Allah.
Alan A. writes:
“Since there was obviously not a two-thirds vote for approval of the amendment on the first and second voice vote, why did Villaraigosa call for a second and third vote?”
To give himself time to think, I think. I imagine the word was, the amendment was going to have to pass, but, by voice acclamation, it obviously wasn’t. So, what to do? what to do? And after the elapsed time for three voice votes, he had his solution: Lie! It was the obvious and natural solution for him (or any politician, for that matter). It probably made him uncomfortable to lie so blatantly and bare-faced in the open light, but he was in a spot.
Ken Hechtman writes:
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 06, 2012 01:00 AM | Send
It’s bizarre. Since there was obviously not a two-thirds vote for approval of the amendment on the first and second voice vote, why did Villaraigosa call for a second and third vote? Did he expect the result to be different? Not only that, but on the third voice vote the nays were not just as loud as the ayes, they werelouder. Yet Villaraigosa simply ignored the voice vote and declared the pre-determined result that Obama and the party leadership wanted. I can’t remember seeing the equivalent at a national convention.
I’ve seen it a couple of times and I’ve talked to people on both sides of the floor fight afterwards. In situations like this, the party brass understands their job as saving the party from itself and if they have to cheat outrageously to do it, they will. Here’s more or less how they explain it: “We are professionals. We have hard data on what the voters will and won’t stand for. The super-activists on the convention floor have nothing but their own overheated emotions. If we give in to the opinions of stupid people assembled in a large group, our party will become unelectable AND THAT CAN’T HAPPEN!”