September 06, 2012
I Was Wrong! (or, Democrats Aren't Democratic)
Someone told me the other day that the GOP platform reflects on Mitt Romney, that even if he says he disagrees with a part of it, he controls the platform's contents so he really must actually agree with it.
I pointed out, no, that is not how the platform works. You get delegates from around the country to write it and then vote on it, and the President cannot force that process, unless the delegates choose to go along with it. The rules don't allow it. It's a democratic process, not a top-down decision. You cannot assume that the candidate agrees with the platform, because the candidate doesn't control the platform.
Apparently, that is how it works for the Republicans, but not the Democrats. Obama wanted changes to his platform -- reverting changes that removed mentions of "God" and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel -- and convention chair Antonio Villaraigosa violated rules by pushing through those changes against the clearly expressed will of the voting delegates: he needed a 2/3 vote to approve the changes, but he could not have even reasonably concluded to have a majority.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at September 06, 2012
03:24 PM | Email This
After listening to the voice vote several times, there is no way that it was 67% Yes and only 33% No.
Villaraigosa was prepared to motor along with the teleprompter script and approve it after the first vote, but the overwhelming No caught him off guard. After teh third "vote" he was back on script.
It was a great example of Democrats voting and/or counting as many times as it takes to produce a predetermined outcome.
True, southern roots. Gregoire got it on the 3rd time , too. Not that they didn't stuff the ballot box to get those 2,000 more votes than voters, but this shows there's more than one way to skew a vote.
We suspected they felt this way about Israel and God himself, but to hear it play out that vociferously was startling, I must say. May the rest of us not fall into similar confusion.
Villaraigosa is an honors graduate of the Stalin School of 'Democracy'. He knows, and when in executive power acts on, the maxim that it's not the voters who count in elections, but rather the counter of the 'votes'.
Last night it was Villaraigosa himself who did the 'counting' after three failed attempts to promote a 'yes' vote, and by his Orwellian math, the 'nays' were disenfranchised - though their voices were at least as lusty as the 'yeas' who 'won'.
The video of that cynical, antidemocratic power play will be used against the Democrat party for decades, as a real-world example of the autocratic methods they intend to employ against US citizens overall.
4. Of course the democrat party is not democratic. That's the reason I don't call them the "Democratic party", because they don't really care about trivial mattters like the rule of law. Which is why the party as a whole is out of touch not only with the founder's of this nation, but the majority of the populace that make up this nation today. Simply put, Honor, fidelity and integrity are not democrat party values in this day and age- advancement of its religion (the party) is all that matters to a majority of them that actually pay attention and just don't follow like sheep.
5. I'm surprised that no one had the temerity to call for a division of the body, especially as the chair was "in doubt" on votes one and two. The process is time consuming and frustrating, but at least it prevents fr... er, "misunderstandings".
Normally I would be up in arms how the Dems pushed this through - imagine if it worked that way in the House, a voice vote and then the Speaker ignoring a call for a roll call vote.
Well.....until I remembered that that is exactly what Boehner did at the GOP convention last week when dealing with rule changes.
Both parties were an embarrassment to democracy at their conventions.
7. I'll be consistent by referring to them as the Democrat party and Republicans as the Republic Party. Actually, I like Republic Party better.
doug, I saw the video, and I can find no indication of whether a simple majority was required, or two-thirds, so I will assume simple majority: and if simple majority, than what Boehner did is perfectly reasonable: even if you disagree there was a majority, it was close enough he can call it that way, and it's up to the delegates to call for a division. That happens ALL THE TIME: there's a difference in opinion on the vote, so you count it out.
What doesn't happen often is what Villaraigosa did: clearly violating the rules by lying and saying there was a two-thirds vote when it was not even clear if there was a simple majority.
9. Since when have totalitarians ever let a vote get in the way of them enforcing what they want?
"I am not a member of any organized political party.
I'm a democrat!"