UNREAL: Democratic delegates loudly booing DNC chairman after he lies about the results of a vote.

[Poll_Blind]

Last edited Wed Sep 5, 2012, 11:43 PM - Edit history (1)

Can someone please explain how this seemed like a good idea to Chairman Villaraigosa? I have never in my life seen anything like that at a Democratic National Convention and hope to never again.

And who is the woman who approaches him at the microphone and basically tells him to rule however he wants? This is not something we need happening at the DNC and certainly not with a million fucking television cameras rolling.

This is a clear picture of lady who said it to Villaraigosa. Does anyone recognize who she is?


PB

[gateley]

1. Because Obama wanted it. Apparently he'd asked why God was taken out.

I agree that it shouldn't have been (because of the political ramifications), bu going back and "fixing" it just makes it worse.

[Politicalboi]

2. Maybe it was a typo

Maybe they mean Dog. Yes lets talk about Rmoney dog Seamus.

[progressivebydesign]

3. Oh I see... You're trying to make this like the RNC vote debacle???

Oh. okay.

[Poll_Blind]

11. Have you even watched this video?! This has nothing to do with the RNC.

PB

[derby378]

20. Five bucks says PBD won't respond to you on this thread

Just sayin'...

[Autumn]

18. Oh I see... You didn't see it or watch the video

You're trying to make this about the poster?? Oh. okay.

[begin_within]

4. Can you supply the details here please?

[Poll_Blind]

6. You have to watch the video, it's about 3 minutes. Everything about this issue is in that video. nt

PB

[liberalhistorian]

123. Yes, well, that would, indeed, be nice, but for the

five millionth time here on DU, for those of us who are hearing-impaired, that's pretty much useless. Maybe even giving just a couple of details might help us. Or better yet, people could actually think and recognize that not all of us here are able to hear the way everyone else is and that giving even a basic synopsis is the courteous thing to do.

[Scuba]

5. Not good.

[RZM]

7. Not a foolproof way to decide things

How can you really tell what constitutes 2/3? Sounded to me more like 55 percent.

[Angry Dragon]

14. Yes was lucky to get 50%

[kelly1mm]

16. If you don't have 2/3rds, you are supposed to have a roll call vote. The higher ups did not

want that so they just rammed it through.

[Poll_Blind]

57. Do you know the name of the woman who talked to Villaraigosa at the podium?

?

PB

[kelly1mm]

74. I don't. I could not make out what she said though. I think she said " ....... delegates

do what there going to do"

[Poll_Blind]

86. Thanks. Man, I'd like to know who that lady is. Because, if you listen closely enough you can...

...hear her say "You've gotta rule. And then you've gotta let them do what they're gonna do." As in, rule how you want and don't worry if they get pissed off about it. And then right before he starts speaking again, she underscores it: "Rule."

I...really want to know the name of that person because apparently they have a lot more clout than they look like they do.

PB

[kelly1mm]

92. Thanks for that - I could not make out the first part. This is really Bull Crap! It

seems to actually be worse than I first thought. I don't think this will go away either. Frankly, I don't think it should. This whole episode undermines the themes of fairness, inclusiveness, playing by the rules, and listening to the people rather than the powers that be. I don't care if the edicts come from the 1%ers or the President.

Again, I don't care one bit about the language. It is the process and how it is being handled that is pissing me off royally. I cannot believe some here who condone this crap.

[Skeptical George]

113. She's not gonna reveal her name

Foreign agents never do.

[Poll_Blind]

118. Sounded like she had a North Carolina/Texas/Georgia accent.

PB

[ann---]

8. Obama caved again

who is surprised? not me.

[SidDithers]

75. Uh huh...

Sid

[Angry Dragon]

9. The real vote was NO!!

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

60. It could have gone either way, but neither side sounded like 2/3rds needed.

[Arctic Dave]

10. WTF!!!!

What kind of fucking horseshit is that motherfucker trying to pull?

[derby378]

12. Yep, looks like he lied to me

Might have been a majority, but definitely not a two-thirds majority.

[Kurovski]

100. Lies make baby Jesus cry!

Everybody knows that!

[TheCowsCameHome]

13. Someday, conventions will be a thing of the past.

Nothing like dirty laundry for the world to see, eh?

[socialindependocrat]

15. And let's agree that we should all eat twinkies on Fridays!

What a bunch of shit.

How does one determine 2/3 in an auditorium?

I heard 50/50 myself.

That's the stupidest example of a kangaroo court that I've ever seen.

It's a shame to have that kind of a black mark on the convention.
I would have expected it of the Repugs

[Earth_First]

17. What's so unbelivable?

You seem shocked that governace is unfair and clearly corrupted...

[Poll_Blind]

21. HINT: It only passes if there is a clear 2/3 majority. Which is why he called THREE VOTES on...

...the same thing: Because in none of those votes did it come close to passing.

PB

[Earth_First]

37. I think you may want to re-read my response...

I clearly agree with you.

[Poll_Blind]

45. I consider myself jaded, I guess. But maybe I'm naive: I DO expect honest behavior at...

...a convention. I'm just...floored to see something like that done out in the open. In front of all the delegates, themselves, no less.

PB

[randome]

19. That's why we have leaders and managers.

They make the decisions. Jeeze, guys, this is hardly worth all the hand-wringing.

[enlightenment]

23. Well, that settles it.

We'll just all shut up, sit down, and let the 'leaders and managers' tell us how to think.

Thanks for the reminder of how democracy really works.

[randome]

29. No, I just want to point out that it doesn't necessarily paint the convention as...

...as making a wrong turn, as some want to imply. It's one of dozens of decisions and it's a done deal. Let's move on.

[Poll_Blind]

25. Why did they call a vote three times if the vote didn't matter?

Why even say it was up for a vote if there was only one "right" answer?

These are not rhetorical questions. Please explain yourself.

PB

[randome]

32. I don't have to explain anything. I wasn't there.

Not being there, I make the assumption that the people who are running the show are running the show.

It's like a judge over-ruling a jury. I don't agree with the decisions that were made but it doesn't seem like that big a deal to me.

[derby378]

36. The return of the smoke-filled back room?

"Someone" is running the show, all right...

[randome]

40. I edited my post probably at the same time as your post.

It's like a judge over-ruling the jury. That's what the rules allow. I don't agree with what was done but it's done.

[derby378]

43. Duly noted, thx (n/t)

[Hassin Bin Sober]

124. When a judge over-rules a jury he says so. He doesn't lie about the jury results.

[Poll_Blind]

39. I'm sorry, I should ask: Do you actually believe in the democratic process?

"I make the assumption that the people who are running the show are running the show."

That sounds fatalistic and apathetic if you're trying to indicate that voting is useless. Why would you say such a thing?

PB

[randome]

41. It's not a democracy when the rules allow for over-ruling.

I don't like the outcome but I'm not going to think that much about it, either. There are too many other, more important, things to focus on.

Actually, I take that back: it is the very essence of Democracy that our leader make his/her OWN decision based on what he/she thinks is right. If we make our decisions based on a calculator, we are no better than machines.

[derby378]

27. Let me take you back to the Hughes Amendment of 1986

This is the law that prohibited all sales of machine guns to qualified civilians unless said guns were already on the NFA registry as of May 1986. The House voted against the amendment, but Rep. Charlie Rangel declared that the House voted for it and refused to allow a recorded vote. This one act of foolishness helped to weaken our party until a similar law against semi-automatics in 1994 caused the House to turn red for the first time in 40 years.

So yeah, this is rather important.

[randome]

44. That's the legislative process. It allows for those things to happen.

Rangel was responsible, no one else. If the rules need to be changed then someone needs to change them.

[oldhippie]

38. So if/when the Repugs ......

... become the leaders and managers, we should just give up and stop wringing our hands when they ignore a vote of the people and just do what they want? Cause they'll be the "leaders and managers?"

It seems that's exactly what we just saw at our own DNC. The "leadership" (and reportedly Pres Obama himself) wanted a change. When the voice vote didn't sound like it went the way the "leaders" wanted, the chairman was obviously befuddled and didn't know what to do. So some party hack functionary had to come out and tell him to just declare the 2/3 majority. And so he did. Vote of the people be damned. That's what "Leaders" will do for ya.

Sometimes I just have to shake my head.

[randome]

49. No. Never give up.

But that's why we have leadership. The result is on Villaraigosa's head. It was his call. I don't agree with it but it's done.

If we only make decisions based on numeric evaluations, we are no better than robots.

[magical thyme]

61. huh?!?!

"If we only make decisions based on numeric evaluations, we are no better than robots."

You mean, like in 2000, when the Supreme Court decided that we would be robots to actually count the votes?

[randome]

65. An election is decided by the numbers.

And the Supreme Court short-circuited that process in 2000, no doubt about it.

But after a leader is elected, he/she is supposed to make his/her own decisions, not simply make strokes in Yay/Nay columns.

I'm probably going far afield of what Villaraigosa's responsibilities are but the concept is the same. He is in his position to make the decision. A good leader takes the pulse of the 'electorate', in this case the delegates, but the decision is still the leader's to make.

[HiPointDem]

111. boy, you are twisting yourself in knots there.

[randome]

115. My original point was that V. didn't 'lie' when it was his call to make.

And I'm not the only one who thinks the outrage about this is much ado about nothing.

It's a stupid kind of vote to take, anyways. If computer-like exactness is what we want, we should let computers make the decisions. How else are we going to measure the decibel levels of 'Yays' versus 'Nays'. What if the sound of both were no different? What if V. had earwax in his left ear?

It's a sham kind of vote from the start when you depend on decibel levels to make a decision for you. Unless you know from the outset what the vote will be.

[oldhippie]

63. Vote? We don't need no steenkin' votes .......

... I mean "numeric evaluations." (Otherwise known as votes.) I can't believe we've wasted all this time and effort on numeric evaluations these last few hndred years when we could have just let our "leaders" decide things. All we need are our Kings back.

I can't believe I am reading this on DEMOCRATIC Underground.

[randome]

66. How many votes does a President take?

How did you vote on the amount of money sent to Israel last year? How did you vote on the decision to pressure Russia to cooperate in stopping the Syrian civil war?

My point is that Democracy, by its very definition, makes a leader responsible for the outcome, not the voters. The voters elect the leader who makes the decisions.

A wise leader takes the pulse of the electorate but the decision is still his/her's to make.

(And I have no idea how Villaraigosa got his position.)
(And I have no idea how his name is pronounced, either.)

[oldhippie]

87. This wasn't a President's vote .....

I assume the rules and procedures of the DNC require a 2/3 vote to approve an amendment to the Platform, otherwise why would there have been a vote? The "leaders" just decided to ignore the outcome of the vote required by their charter. Just like deciding to ignore the Constitution or the Bylaws of an organization. And you're OK with this?

I'm done with this. Good night.

[randome]

89. I'm NOT okay with the outcome. But I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, either.

If a leader -whether the President or anyone else- has no choice but to tally votes, why have a leader in the first place? A first-rate calculator could do the job.

[sabrina 1]

55. Lol, yes, let's all just 'follow the leader' even if s/he just happens to be a cheater,

a war criminal, a liar or whatever.

Wait, you forgot your sarcasm tag, right?

[randome]

59. We did follow the leader where Bush was concerned. We went to war.

Much to our everlasting shame.

This isn't on the same level. The rules allow for over-ruling. Anything less than that and we are only crunching numbers like machines.

[sabrina 1]

99. Speak for yourself, I never followed that moron. But some members of our party

unfortunately did which should be a lesson in WHY you do not follow bad leaders if ever there was one. That is why I did not support anyone of them in 2008. No one who lets their party down like that, with such predictably disastrous results should never be rewarded with the people's votes. There are plenty of good progressive democrats to take their place.

Deval Patrick said it all when he stated that he wants to see the Democratic Party standing up for what they believe in, he wants them to 'get some backbone'. Exactly, otherwise they allow the disaster that was Bush to happen, a disaster that we cannot recover from ever. The dead cannot be brought back to life.

You just made the case for WHY people need to speak out as soon as they see their party going in the wrong direction. Thank YOU, I will use that example the next time someone asks me to be quiet because 'we have an election coming up'.

[Cali_Democrat]

22. Yikes!!!

Damn. The convention was going so well. Hopefully this will not overshadow things, but the media has a tendency to focus on these kinds of things.

Moral of the story? Don't give into the GOP demands. Just don't do it.

Take the flack and you win because the GOP will be focused on screaming about the Dem platform not containing God and Jerusalem while you talk about jobs.

[gattaca82]

24. ouch

those fuckers are going to run this on loop.. i can see the headline now.. "lliberals boo god"

sorry if im coming off a bit like obama is king and i know hes not sapposed to approve everything.. but shouldnt he have been told that god was removed? ANYTHING we do gets reflected on obama wether its his fault or not.. and this was in no way obamas fault but the donkies are gonna try and pin it on obama.

[NYC Liberal]

26. This was fucking idiotic.

However, I honestly don't see it overshadowing anything even with the corporate media.

[Poll_Blind]

33. IMO, I don't see it as affect much either, thankfully. But WTF was he thinking?

Seriously.

PB

[flamingdem]

28. Calm down, Obama's instincts are no doubt correct here

We need a win, not division

God is a big deal out there so they say

The repukes will manipulate the hell out of any Israel issue and get Florida, let's be careful

[Poll_Blind]

30. DO NOT PIN THIS ON THE PRESIDENT. He had nothing to do with this. nt

PB

[gateley]

46. But he did -- he was the one who wanted it put back in. He didn't know it had been

removed. I ultimately hold whoever decided to make the change responsible. A dumb political move (even though I agree with the sentiment). Bad timing.

[Poll_Blind]

48. Well, I haven't seen anything about him pushing for it but, TBH, it's beside the point:

It wasn't the President lying about the vote up there it was the Chairman and my upset with this matter stops at the chairman. The President is the President, but it was Villaraigosa who knowingly lied in front of all those Democratic delegates.

PB

[gateley]

72. I've seen a couple of "according to campaign sources" type of things and saw Madeline

Albright say it on MSNBC.

The Chairman was in a tough spot. He may have gotten the word to "make it happen".

Again, MY ire is directed to those who fucked with a political hot button at this crucial time.

[veganlush]

31. a convention is not just a show

It's a real, functioning meeting and people don't always agree. no big deal.

[Poll_Blind]

34. You don't call a vote 3 times in a row, have it fail each time and then say it passed.

I'm sorry but you're not even making sense.

PB

[Earth_First]

35. No big deal when it's ensured that the right folks get their way... n/t

[Gman]

42. Now Obama can say he fought for it and got it

He's was inoculated on national TV.

[fugop]

54. Bingo! nt

[jerseyjack]

47. The Lone Resident of Kolob Is Smiling Today....

[cherokeeprogressive]

50. Good Ol' Tony Villar...

He runs conventions like he runs Los Angeles.

[shanti]

56. i can't stand villaraigosa

he's gunning for next cal governor too

[cherokeeprogressive]

58. I'm thinking he just pushed those hopes back a few years if not more. n/t

[pa28]

68. That was pretty shocking.

Even before somebody told him to grow a pair and shut down the objection he looked weak and clueless.

After that he looked totally corrupt.

[scheming daemons]

51. much ado about absolutely nothing of significance

[Poll_Blind]

53. Chairman calls a vote, fails. Calls same vote 2x, still fails. Says it passes.

Why put it to a vote at all if there's only one allowed outcome?

PB

[scheming daemons]

71. your outrage over this is way excessive

What goes in the platform means NOTHING ... nd hasn't for decades.

[randome]

76. That's a much more succinct argument than the one I tried to make!

[gkhouston]

83. If it means nothing, then why cook the result? n/t

[girl gone mad]

85. It's kind of a big deal to many Arab Americans.

Your lack of concern is noted.

[Poll_Blind]

90. If it's not that important, why lie about the results on national TV?

You're not making sense. I'm sorry. I'm trying here but you're just not.

PB

[Le Taz Hot]

106. There are a LOT of people "outraged"

as you put it about this. So, those parts in the platform about marriage equality and ensuring a woman's right to choose mean nothing? Well, that just made my vote much easier. Thanks for the clarification.

[ecstatic]

91. He probably was in shock that anyone would be oblivious enough to hand a big shiny

toy to repubs, on national tv, at this late hour. Especially after the repubs started their "No God on their platform!!!" campaign. Maybe the delegates weren't aware of recent developments and were clueless about how voting no and then booing would go over on the national stage. Anyhow, communication is really important. They definitely weren't on the same page.

[nebenaube]

52. Voice votes are bullshit... n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. Either the stooge needs a hearing aid or a refresher course in democracy.

[aikoaiko]

64. That didn't sound like a 2/3 majority

[Fumesucker]

67. God had His thumb on the scales..

And that is a weighty thumb indeed.

[nolabear]

69. Something needs to trump this as the defining moment FAST.

It was a huge mistake all the way around and is so easily twisted around. I can't believe they could make such a dumb move. You CANNOT make those people your friends.

[Raine]

70. Whoever took God out should be fired for being politically stupid. I don't care about that crap but

it's a BIG assed deal to lots of people and it hurts Obama. Now the repugs have a great audio and visual of God being booed, terrific ... for them.

[Nevernose]

77. No kidding. I'm as atheistic as one can get

But if Obama needs to give a speech about how much he loves baby Jesus, while wearing a pope hat and juggling bibles...as long as it wins us the election, I say go for it.

[gateley]

82. +1!

[randome]

84. We want him to be a smart politician but to also satisfy everyone.

It doesn't matter what is in the Democratic Platform because it has no effect on anyone.

[lunasun]

78. Only RNC values allowed for DNC?

[gateley]

81. Until this time, they were DNC values, too. I'm in agreement with the sentiment,

but furious they did this now. Really bad timing.

[lunasun]

94. Also sorta undemocratic the way in which it was handled at DNC

[randome]

96. Democracy works by leaders making decisions for the rest of us.

If it didn't work that way, we wouldn't need leaders, just a calculator with a good battery.

[Poll_Blind]

98. Not when they put it to a vote. We elected those Democratic delegates to go there to...

...vote on our behalf. The vote was put to them. They gave their answer. Their answer was ignored.

You're analogy doesn't work with Villaraigosa, but it does with the Democratic delegates. But they were ignored.

PB

[NYC Liberal]

101. Yes, and the leaders making decisions are the delegates who vote,

just as our leaders in the government are the senators and representatives who vote.

Your kind of "democracy" would have the president issuing decrees without the need for the Congress.

[randome]

110. No. Congress are our elected representaties, too.

The only point I was making was that it is incorrect to say that V. 'lied' when his job is to make the call.

And if we do everything by the numbers, and nothing else, then we are no better than machines.

[gateley]

79. TOTALLY agree! How they thought they could fuck with such a political

hot button at this crucial time leaves me gobsmacked. What the hell were they thinking -- that no one would notice?

[upi402]

73. I experienced that as a delegate

Last time I wasted my time on this party.
General Roberts has been aborted and they don't care who knows it.

[Poll_Blind]

88. Sorry for being ignorant but...who is General Roberts?

PB

[WillowTree]

93. I suspect upi is referring to Robert's Rules of Order. Then again I could be wrong.

[Trailrider1951]

80. Damn!! WTF is going on???

It sure sounded like 50-50 to me! It should not have been accepted on that! WHAT THE FUCK???

[Skip Intro]

95. He took the vote three times and then lied about the result after

that woman, whoever she was, came up to him and said basically, "do it and let them do whatever they're gonna do."

They deliberately passed something by lying about the vote.

Our party.

Wtf?

[Poll_Blind]

97. Mystery Lady is still one heck of a mystery. I edited OP with a picture of her in...

...hopes someone knows. I've looked at about 2 dozen articles, none of them know who she is.

WTF indeed.

PB

[LittleBlue]

102. How embarrassing

No wonder I quit the party years ago. There doesn't seem to be a party for people like me who don't want religion in government, or who don't support Israel.

President Obama thinks he's so politically astute. Well done, Barack! You just turned a nothing issue into a campaign commercial for Romney. Hard to make a compelling commercial out of something that wasn't done, pretty easy to make one showing Democrats booing God. The party is controlled by mental midgets, anyone with half a brain would have had more caution than this.

Somehow, a few poll are actually showing Romney and Ryan in the lead. It's hard to imagine how such soulless, unappealing people could actually be within 10 points of a competent sitting president. Then you see this video and it becomes clear. Maybe some good will come from this election if Warren is elected.

Good luck!

[LAGC]

103. You said it. Totally embarrassing and completely unnecessary.

Strickland just had to shove his god in everyone's face... and the look of shock on his face when people dared defy him!

Very poor call on the part of the leadership, they should have just left it alone.

[Le Taz Hot]

104. That was bullshit!

It was clearly NOT 2/3rds in either direction. Why did they even have this stupid dog-and-pony portion if the conclusion was foregone without the "vote."

[Ken Burch]

105. She almost looks like Dolores Umbridge from the HARRY POTTER films.

n/t.

[jsmirman]

107. OK, fine - but could we let this shit drop down the board?

As we've all agreed - at the heart of these two things were essentially cosmetic issues.

I'm not thrilled with it, but after a great convention night like we just had, fucking let it go.

This doesn't change official policy on Israel, and the God thing is just the God thing.

I've said it before - I'm submerging some shit that's bothered me for four years until November. I have to.

Can we please let this circular firing squad topic drop?

I know this post bumps it back up, but it's relatively close to the last post.

This is a plea - you've made your point, now, please, enough?

[davidn3600]

108. Who's stupid idea was it to take that out of the platform anyway?

Completely unnecessary. Stupid to bring up that kind of controversial thing at this point in time. It just ends up making everyone upset.

[Ken Burch]

109. There would likely have been no problem

if 'Tonio V. had just said "uh, folks, we just noticed that these things got left out and the prez wants 'em in. I know this is short notice...but are you ok with this? It's just about putting in stuff we meant to have in but got left out by mistake. Can you work with us on this?".

If Villaraigosa had played it that way...there'd have been far fewer bad vibes. The delegates wouldn't have felt dissed, as many of them did and were fully justified in feeling that way. They'd have just said "ok...whatever".

Doing it the way he did it, by contrast, just looked as if somebody at the DNC had called in and said "look, Tonester, last night's speeches made the proles think they mattered a little too much. It scared the big donors. Can you please make a point of putting the 99% in their place tonight? Can you remind those 'gates that politics isn't about THEM? That'd be great."
(you should picture those lines being delivered by Bill Lundgren from OFFICE SPACE.)

I assume that wasn't the intent, but doing it that way made it look as if it had been.

[HiPointDem]

112. that was disgusting. can someone tell me why god & jerusalem are needed in the platform

in the first place?

[Douglas Carpenter]

114. that is NOT what democracy looks like!

[Freddie Stubbs]

116. I'm going to call bullshit on this one

Many of those delegates are legislators. Legislators should be pretty well versed in parliamentary procedure. Even a college student government president knows how call for a division of the assembly to get an exact vote count.

[cherish44]

117. This thing is disasterous

It should have been in the platform to begin with. This election is going to be very close and is too important to have what LOOKS like half the convention floor booing God. Most Americans do believe in God, like it or not. This just gave the other side a great little sound clip that can be used against us and will be effective with many undecided voters that we desperately need!

[TheKentuckian]

119. You don't fix it by overriding the delegates

I'm a Christian but would have no problem leaving out such language and actually prefer it out because I oppose all theocracy and such trappings.

[michaelslomo]

120. Professional parliamentarian

I think the lady in the photo must be a professional parliamentarian. Most conventions, of all sorts, employ one. Their job is to assist the chair when matters of parliamentary procedure come up. She gave her advice, as she should, and the chairman chose to ignore the will of the convention--three times--and ruled that the motion had passed, when in reality it did not come close to a two-thirds voice vote.

[michaelslomo]

121. Parliamentarian Helen McFadden

As I guessed, the lady in the photo is a registered parliamentarian. I did a little googling and found out her name is Helen McFadden.

[Poll_Blind]

122. THANK YOU!

PB

[deaniac21]

125. You can bet that parts of this

will be in a few rnc attack ads

[Alduin]

126. He should've been booed.

He lied and pissed off delegates.

There's no need for god in the platform.

[qb]

127. That so-called "vote" was a disgusting spectacle. Thoroughly embarrassing for the Dems.

Especially when the pre-scripted outcome showed up on the teleprompter.

[goclark]

128. Antonio is the Mayor of Los Angeles

He is the Mayor of Los Angeles and many don't like him ~

That said, Obama knows that he is a powerful force in the Hispanic Community in Los Angeles and all over the country.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

129. If Those Two Items Were Removed From The Platform That's All The MSM Would Still Be Talking About

That the Democrats hate God and Israel.

Defeating Willard Romney is a moral imperative. Anything that gets in the way must be avoided.

His election would be a calamity for all of us.

[Skip Intro]

131. That whole thing was a debacle.

The removing the mention of God and Jerusalem was politically dumb.

The caving to pressure to put God and Jerusalem back in was embarrassing.

The clear lying disregard for the vote on the matter was a finger in the eye to anyone who thought honesty and fairness were guiding principles of our party.

This story likely will fall by the wayside and not be factor in the campaign. Unless the repugs run ads on it. "Dems booing God? Dems don't know whether they as a party believe in God or not? Dems flip/flopping on Israel?" I can envision some brutal ads coming of this.


But whether it turns into a big line of attack from the right or just fades away, we know it happened.

[yawnmaster]

132. This is the kind of thing I really dislike about politics...

and I truly wish they would not have done it.
It does appear to be some confusion and Villaraigosa wasn't sure what to do.
I put much of the blame on the parliamentarian, but it is shared.

[mrgorth]

133. Help me out on this Jerusalem thing

Because I thought Jerusalem as Israel's capital was in dispute and has been discussed as a part of all past peace talks. Frankly, I didn't even know it was that big of a deal. I mean, they're doing everything else they want to do now. If they want Jerusalem as the capital, why hasn't Bebe rolled the tanks in?